Why don't abortion foes target fertility?

The letters come again. The holier-than-thou, my-religion-knows-best crowd is again on the rant, wanting their religious beliefs to be the law of the land. With logs in their eyes, anti-choice (and often anti-birth control) proponents are again pointing out perceived splinters in the eyes of those trying to identify reasonable policies for a difficult issue with no consensus.

Pregnancy demands serious preparation and respect for its potential, but people disagree on abortion as do whole religious denominations. Has anyone read the article on viability statistics in the May 2004 issue of Discover magazine?

Again, I believe a reasonable argument can be made, without religion, that the potential for human life should be prepared for with responsibility and treated with respect. Likewise for saving third trimester procedures for developmental tragedies, e.g. anencephaly. I've seen only one tepid response to the question I posed in September, 2007: If you truly believe a few cells equals a whole human being, why aren't you out picketing every fertility clinic? (These clinics cull and discard unused fertilized eggs.)

Instead, those who want to inject their personal beliefs into everyone's lives focus on closing clinics that are often the only source of a full range of reproductive health care for many women with no insurance. But in-vitro abortion? That's perfectly fine with the anti-choice crowd.

Certain politicians are trying to scare us with charges of class warfare and income redistribution. We already have class warfare and income redistribution in this country - the top 1 percent are redistributing middle and lower class assets to themselves by inducing people blinded by wedge issues like abortion to vote against their own best interests. And we all suffer for it.

Barbara J. Muehlhausen

Schaumburg