Why not urge Roe v. Wade change?

This is a rebuttal to Dick Major's response (Nov. 9) to my original letter (Oct. 20). I pointed-out in my letter that many people still do not accept Roe v. Wade to be a logical, foregone conclusion. That is why these disenfranchised citizens stand outside the abortion clinic in Downers Grove and voice their deeply felt opposition. Mr. Major pointed-out that he is older - and presumably wiser - and said women must, by all means, continue to have the option to "choose," despite the obvious disregard for moral decency, the fact that a baby suffers the penalty of death via abortion although it did no wrong to anyone.

But if Mr. Major is, in fact, wiser, why does he stoop to the hackneyed, disingenuous assertion that simply because a minuscule percentage of women who go through with the abortion process of their babies do so because they were the victims of an assault or incest, and therefore abortion-on-demand, as predicated by Roe v. Wade, must remain unchanged in order to give these victimized women a "choice?" If that is what Mr. Major really believes, why isn't he advocating the modification of Roe v. Wade's abortion-on-demand rationale instead of promoting, and hiding behind, the status-quo?

I challenge Mr. Major (in all of his elderly and sagacious wisdom) to stand behind what he wrote in response to my letter and urge lawmakers to change the current law to say that abortion shall only be legal and permissible under those circumstances (rape or incest). Abortion-on-demand in all cases whatsoever is immoral and an ugly choice to make time and again, and again, and again.

Roy W. Mashek

Downers Grove