Pro-choice, pro-life mutually exclusive
In the Feb. 21 letters, I read commentary from Gaylon Alcaraz’s, executive director of the Chicago Abortion Fund, which promoted safe abortions and justified her organization’s charter to “help poor women pay for their abortion procedures.”
The outcome of such assistance is presumably an answer to the potential harm inflicted on young women from illegal abortion procedures. Ms. Alcaraz, I am in agreement with you on one point — that being the tragedy in Philadelphia whereby one woman and seven infants were killed during illegal abortions. However, I must challenge another comment you made in your remarks.
In your explanation of abortion being a legal medical procedure, you pontificate that it has been “hijacked, stigmatized and polarized by the anti-choice movement.”
Please hop down from your high-and-mighty podium, Ms. Alcaraz.
In today’s world we’ve come to understand the term “pro-choice” is actually “pro-abortion.” Do you disagree? If so, then please find me a car with both “pro-choice” and “pro-life” bumper stickers on it. Having trouble? Then I’ll accept knowing about the next abortion rally with both “pro-choice” and “pro-life” picket signs available to the protesters. Just because “pro-choice” suggests “pro-abortion” does not mean that “pro-life” suggests “anti-choice.” To the contrary. When the decision is made not to abort the creation of human life — remember, a heart is beating — a “choice” has been made by that mother. That “choice” is to sustain the life.
Mike Zimmer
St. Charles