"I don't know of one person who says abortion is a good thing," says letter writer Jane Stevens in the January 19-25 issue, as she proceeded in the rest of the letter to support unrestricted rights to abortion and condemned pro-life letter writer Steve Casey with nasty character assassination slurs.

Ms. Stevens, in her attempt to be all things to all people on this greatest of modern evils, wound up being a prime competitor to the great equivocator himself, Senator John Kerry, when he famously said, "I voted for the war before I voted against it."

This issue, Ms. Stevens, can't be straddled with yes, yes and no, no.

Science, not religion, has long declared that what is in the womb is human life.

All reputable constitutional scholars have also declared that the Supreme Court's decision in 1973 was an arrogant usurpation of power because no such right exists in the Constitution. God, I might add, is also not divorced from creation.  The human is but an instrument in his hands.

Ms. Stevens' fallacious egotistical definition of reproductive rights excludes everyone but herself.  I believe Ms. Stevens requires a man's sperm to conceive a child, who then becomes a separate entity in her body. You don't fly solo when you exercise reproductive rights.

The abortion industry has done a very successful PR job of presenting a horrible evil as a blessing with obfuscations as evidenced in Ms. Stevens' letter.

Here are some of the euphemisms and semantic maneuverings they use to create a happy face on this dreadful evil -- family planning organizations (the billion dollar industry operating like a slaughter house), pro-choice (pro-killing), reproductive rights (the right to kill an unwanted baby).

Now who could be against any of those caring, benign and freedom sounding descriptions?

I say any person with an ounce of humanity in his soul would choose no, no when they realize the horrible reality cloaked over by these wolfish words in sheep's clothing.

To top it off, they also have the old stand by -- slobbering emotional appeals about the health of the mother, which could mean anything from a slight headache to a broken toenail.

This is used to again justify their evil philosophy. They couldn’t care less about the mother.

Think about the gruesome slaughter they are engaged in! Am I to belief they have genuine emotions?
To counteract this relentless brainwashing we must keep asking the question -- is the innocent in the womb entitled to freedom or death?

John Rogers
Voorhees, New Jersey