Weak pro-abortion argument typical

Cheryl Bast's Oct. 27 letter on the subject of pro-lifers in Aurora was only another tiresome repetition of the pro-abortion party line.

Bast's claim that "we shouldn't … force our belief(s) on others" is absurd. Americans do it all the time, legally and justly. How else does Ms. Bast think she sleeps soundly at night? Without laws based on strictly moral arguments, we would permit rape and murder. Moral relativism only leads to death and pain, something pro-choicers vehemently deny.

After proclaiming that she is "not a proponent of abortion," Bast recalls a yarn of the dark days of yore, when women had to find dark alleyways in which to brutally murder their children instead of doing it in the comfort of a Planned Parenthood clinic. One of her closest friends was "forced to a choice of going to (an abortionist) who had no credentials…."

This is intriguing -- I've never heard of women being dragged into back-alleys to have black market abortions. I always assumed it was one's personal choice, judging from the term "pro-choice." Here, Bast's tearful tale reaches its moral: Pro-lifers, just shut up.

"The fact is abortions are legal," she says.

By Bast's logic, slavery is perfectly all right as well. Slavery was legal; a person's "personal choice;" and the whole situation was morally related to a family's beliefs. Remember: To which party did most abolitionists belong?

Ms. Bast concludes by equating protesting to "forcing ones belief's (sic) on someone else…."

Therein lies the crux of her argument: Free speech comes second to a woman's right to have wild sex without consequence. This, liberals, is what you stand for.

Brendan Moore

Lisle