Category Archives: Abortion

Bill Gates has one smart wife

From the Daily Beast:

Gates believes that by focusing on the lives of women and children, and by making it clear that the agenda is neither coercive population control nor abortion, the controversy over international family-planning programs can be defused. Right now, she points out, 100,000 women annually die in childbirth after unintended pregnancies. Six hundred thousand babies born to women who didn’t want to be pregnant die in the first month of life. “She is somebody who really sees this as a public-health necessity,” says Melanne Verveer, the United States ambassador at large for global women’s issues. “I think she believes, and I hope she is right, that people of different political persuasions can come together on this issue.”

Nebraska GOP majority sides against fetuses…

…to fight illegal immigration.

I missed going on the Internet at all yesterday I was so busy. I had a couple things I wanted to post about but this NPR story really was the chickens coming home to roost for me.

Long time readers know I’m pretty irritated with the self righteous zealotry of the GOP on the issue of abortion. Mississippi and North Dakota GOP legislators wanted to make fetuses citizens from conception on with all the Constitutional rights even if they were the products of rape or incest. That is a kind of laudable purity……..if indeed it stems from the belief that all human life is sacred from the moment of conception. I’ve always figured that for most elected Republicans its far more a matter of straitforward opportunism than religiously motivated purity. That seems to have been demonstrated in Nebraska recently when Republicans were given the chance to fund neo-natal health care for the unborn and a majority of them choked on paying for wetback fetuses.

You see the GOP is also adamantly against illegals and Nebraska legislators had to choose between sacred life and spending money on illegal immigrants. By a vote of 16 to 14 the anti-illegals GOP legislators chose fighting illegals over fighting for fetuses. They lost because Democrats voted for neo-natal care.

From National Public Radio:

The measure would require the state to pay for prenatal care to low-income women who have entered the U.S. illegally. It would extend coverage to an estimated 1,162 fetuses each year at a cost of $650,000 in state money and $1.9 million in federal tax dollars.

The measure advanced through first of three required votes Tuesday night, 30-16. Fourteen of the “yes” votes came from Republicans, who joined with a contingent of typically out-numbered Democrats.

From 1972 until 2004 I tried to be a pro choice Republican. From the earliest years I’ve appreciated honest pro-lifers. But I’ve always known it was the herd instinct that made the GOP a pure anti-abortion party. Why Second Amendment types would care about abortion never made any sense to me. Why pro military types would care about it made no sense to me. Why anti-tax fans would care about it I had no idea other than to conclude the GOP was a collection of special interests who each scratched each other’s backs.

In recent years anti-immigration hardliners have made their way into the GOP. Now we know that for them the unborn of incest are sacred, the unborn of rape are sacred but the unborn of illegals are not.

Some random thoughts on Rush Limbaugh’s culture wars

Look at the graph below about teen pregnancy in the US.

I have a number of thoughts in reaction to it which I don’t have time to develop into a long blog post. Among them:

A. Teen parents are far more likely to be incompetent parents.
B. Their children are far more likely to do poorly in school and life.
C. As a result they will probably help drive America’s high costs of dealing with dysfunctional members of society while denying us more productive (high tax paying) members of society.
D. The political fight to lay the blame for our high rates of pregnancy has prevented us from adopting a successful preventative.

The liberal answer would be to follow the secular European model of offering frank sex ed., contraception, abortion and the recognition that wherever people have functioning genitals they will have babies.


The conserative answer – a religiously repressive model like in many Islamic nations of strict sex segregation and severe penalties for non approved sex.

I’ll stop with D but I’m sure I could add a lot more alphabet. I’ll simply end with this question. Which political party seems better poised to deal with the fact that 95% of Americans engage in premarital sex – the “liberal” one or the “conservative” one?

Thowing garlic at Christie

My Buddy sent two conflicting columns about the potential for a last minute Presidential bid by Governor Chris Christie. The first from the Atlantic’s sensible Meg McCardle says its silly to say the Governor’s girth would weigh him down. The other columnist writes a “Requiem” for the Governor’s putative bid explaining that his weight is symbolic of excess and insufficient will power.

I’ll confess I didn’t finish Meg’s column because I immediately agreed with her conclusion. Besides, I’ve seen Christie on videos and he is both quick witted, emotionally smart and sensible. Given the chance I have no doubt that he could win over the Republican sect of Christianity, why it might even become Christie-anity. That’s because, like the Republicans in 1952 finally winning back the Presidency after all those years of “deals” “New” and “Fair” meant Eisenhower was worth the abandonment of good ole Bobby Taft.

The only real qualification for a national endorsement for a Republican is that he/she be pro-life and Christie qualifies. All the other stuff is fluff. However, we’re not in the post convention portion of the race yet. While contemplating my reaction to the possibility of a Christie bubble bursting I heard a news story about the Republican crucifix to ward of liberal vampires, Herman Cain’s reaction to Christie. He’s throwing garlic at Christie as just another “librul.” You know, a climate changing, gun controlling wetback lover. I don’t think Cain’s other rivals will contradict the black crucifix.

The GOP hasn’t been out of the Oval Office long enough to warrant another Eisenhower candidacy – yet.

Pro-lifers might be offended by Brazil’s…

fascinating example.

Population scholars like Jose’ Alberto Carvalho maintain a lively argument about the multiple components of Brazil’s fertility plunge. (“Don’t let anybody tell you they know for sure what caused the decline,” a demographer advised me at Cedeplar, the university-based study center in Belo Horizonte. “We’ll never have a winner as the best explanation.”) But if one were to try composing a formula for crashing a developing nation’s fertility rate without official intervention from the government, no China-style one-child policy, no India-style effort to force sterilization upon the populace, here’s a six-point plan, tweaked for the peculiarities of modern Brazil:

But its probably better than the purist pro-life alternative:

So what exactly happened in Universe 25? Past day 315, population growth slowed. More than six hundred mice now lived in Universe 25, constantly rubbing shoulders on their way up and down the stairwells to eat, drink, and sleep. Mice found themselves born into a world that was more crowded every day, and there were far more mice than meaningful social roles. With more and more peers to defend against, males found it difficult and stressful to defend their territory, so they abandoned the activity. Normal social discourse within the mouse community broke down, and with it the ability of mice to form social bonds. The failures and dropouts congregated in large groups in the middle of the enclosure, their listless withdrawal occasionally interrupted by spasms and waves of pointless violence. The victims of these random attacks became attackers. Left on their own in nests subject to invasion, nursing females attacked their own young. Procreation slumped, infant abandonment and mortality soared. Lone females retreated to isolated nesting boxes on penthouse levels. Other males, a group Calhoun termed “the beautiful ones,” never sought sex and never fought, they just ate, slept, and groomed, wrapped in narcissistic introspection. Elsewhere, cannibalism, pansexualism, and violence became endemic. Mouse society had collapsed.

All those missing girls

From pro-lifer Andrew Sullivan who at least has open eyes:

Let me address Mr. Douthat’s sentence: “The tragedy of the world’s 160 million missing girls isn’t that they’re “missing.” The tragedy is that they’re dead.” He might not be aware of this, but sex-selective abortion was a big scandal in India about 10-15 years ago. Since the government got involved, started campaigns, and enacted laws to restrict the practice, India has gone back to worrying about the rise in the traditional methods of female population control: female infanticide. The process by which live female children are either drowned or buried alive or poisoned or have their skulls bashed in or otherwise disposed off like so many unwanted puppies and kittens. Very common in America, I’m sure.

My time sink goads me on abortion

This is an email I just received on a subject I’ve said little about of late:


Regarding abortion, maybe Republicans aren’t as out of step with their fellow humans as you seem to suggest.


I resolved a few days ago to stop endless tendentious email exchanges once I’d passed the “lets agree to disagree” point of any debate. However, this is the second reply I’ve composed but emailed to myself alone (and in this case posted to the blog). It would drive me nuts to ignore such email but it would drive me even nuttier to commence an endless circular exchange of repetitive emails. Emailing myself is a compromise for sanity.

I’ll still read interesting links sent to me and I did find the link in this email interesting and hopeful.

As the existing GOP keeps sealing itself behind a brick wall from the growing majorities of voters taking over the nation I expect that there will be other issues that will continue to turn the tide against the Grand Old Party. Sadly for a once proud Republican I’ve long agreed with many of these tide turning issues. But then, Republican Eleventh Amendment notwithstanding, I was just a RINO. Now I’m not.

Here’s the reply I emailed myself:

. . . I believe you are putting words in my mouth. Continue reading

Trading on your Daddy’s name

I get emails regularly from Worldview Weekend by “Brannon Howse and friends.”

Its an unrepentant combination of right wing politics, Christian fundementalism, and profiteering. I only recommend it to folks who want to know what sort of unsilliness is out there contaminating people’s minds with the aforementioned propaganda machine.

Today’s email hyped a new service that would allow folks who want to deprive “liberal” email operations of money and give it instead to Ronald Reagan’s relentlessly self promoting son Michael who presents himself as his Father’s reincarnation. Just how well he has been incarnated can be witnessed in this inaccurate Worldview hype suggesting that Ronald Reagan was a great abortion foe.

Stop Supporting Abortion, Socialism, and Anti-American Politicians When You Can Support the Exact Opposite with A Email Address

The inspiration for came from Michael Reagan when he realized that most of the organizations providing email services are supporters of the Obama, Pelosi, and Reid agenda and do not adhere to true Reagan Conservative values. �If a fellow Conservative has a problem or feels uncomfortable using the services of a Liberal organization, so do I” Said Michael Reagan. “I see a large number of people who believe in Reagan Conservative Values unwittingly supporting businesses and organizations that support and promote Liberal and Socialist causes! That has to stop.” Click here to get your Email address now: Email service provides its users with peace of mind by knowing that none of the proceeds will go to support any liberal cause. Email key features include:

How much of an abortion foe was Ronald Reagan?

Reagan was not as obsessive about anti-abortion legislation as he often seemed. Early in his California governorship he had signed a permissive abortion bill that has resulted in more than a million abortions. Afterward, he inaccurately blamed this outcome on doctors, saying that they had deliberately misinterpreted the law. When Reagan ran for president, he won backing from pro-life forces by advocating a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. Reagan’s stand was partly a product of political calculation, as was his tactic after he was elected of addressing the annual pro-life rally held in Washington by telephone so that he would not be seen with the leaders of the movement on the evening news. While I do not doubt Reagan’s sincerity in advocating an anti-abortion amendment, he invested few political resources toward obtaining this goal.

I’d hate to think that Michael Reagan will be offering his anti-abortion email service just because there’s money to be made.

let her die

If you take this decision to its logical conclusion it would be preferable to the Catholic Church to shoot women than let them take the morning after pill.

Also, despite the fact that this decision led to the saving of a woman’s life (was the only way to save it in fact) the Catholic hierarchy regards this decision as an evil far worse than a church official buggering a choir-full of little boys. Only the first action that saved a life now calls for excommunication.

The word “catholic” means “universal” as in the “Universal church.” Thank goodness its not.

Googling Porter

I didn’t know who Janet Porter was and Vic sent me a succinct email suggesting I not watch such “kooks.” So, I just googled her. She’s a heavyweight in her bailiwick. If she’s a kook she’s being given a lot of attention.

Similar Christian leaders, who know what God wants, have become heavyweights in GOP circles and have traveled to Uganda to encourage the passage of a law that would permit death sentences to be carried out against gay Ugandans.

Ignoring such people only lets them grow and thrive in the dark like bread mold. As I told Vic, I feel a need to shine a flashlight on them.

Good graphic data

I just found this website which has superior, if not perfect, graph graphics. The thumbnail above comes from its most recent interactive graph on giving to Haiti in the wake of the earthquake.

I’ve got too much to do today to spend more time on the site but I did spend a little time pouring over the preceding graph on state by state abortion statistics. The posts below that graph give a good indication of the limitations of any data analysis. For instance the graph shows the very high number of abortions performed in California which appear to equal 28% of all live births in California. However, people commenting on the graph noted that the graph does not provide any information about the home states of the women getting the abortions. Because many woman are unable or unwilling to have their pregnancies terminated in their home states the graph makes the abortion rates in other states per thousand live births appear to be lower than they would if abortion was not such a hot potato.

The website churns out a graph every week and are sure to be great time absorbers.

“Abortion on demand”

I wrote a while back that during the Red Plan controversy I chose to avoid almost all other issues on this blog. That time is past. For those who disagree with me on other issues prepare yourself.

If there is anything sacred about human beings then they should be treated with great care. A political philosophy that discourages contraception while demanding that every conception result in birth after a complete gestation but then turns its back on protecting, educating and insuring the children it has fostered holds no appeal to me.

Not surprisingly the shallow column/editorial bashing the Democratic Party by Iron Ranger Joseph Legueri left me cold. He implies that all Democrats support “abortion on demand.” Abortion on demand simply means that every child in the womb is subject to abortion at any time for any harebrained whim of the mother carrying them. But does Ligueri oppose all abortions himself? Maybe, maybe not. After painting all democrat politicians into the abortion on demand side he doesn’t make clear whether he himself opposes all abortions under any circumstances or simply abortion on demand. For some of us there are circumstances which justify allowing parents to decide for themselves whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

I’ve written about Abortion for publication on several occasions sometimes tongue in cheek to keep my wrath in check. (I take exception be being called a “baby murderer”) Here, for the thoughtful person, are some harrowing anonymous testimonies from some baby murderers. I’d like to know whether Mr. Legueri would be willing to concede, after reading them, that his complaint against “abortion on demand” is overblown and just possibly a phony issue.

Is Palin a Poser?

As a thirty-year Republican pushed to the margins by a Party which has made abortion its first test of loyalty I’m struck by this question about the Party’s latest heroine:

“An interesting debate has been going on out of the media limelight. Sarah Palin’s decision earlier this year to have an amniocentesis to determine if her unborn child had Down Syndrome is not uncontroversial among pro-lifers. I’d be curious to find out from women readers, especially pro-life women readers, what their views of amniocentesis are, and how common it is for totally principled pro-life pregnant women to consent to having them. The reason for the debate is two-fold: a) if you are not considering an abortion, there isn’t much point in having an amniocentesis; and b) much more important for a pro-lifer, an amniocentesis poses a small but real risk to the life of an unborn child. According to the Christian News Service:”

Palin also believes in contraception contrary to most in her religous wing of the GOP. I agree with her. As a young Mother who gave birth eight months after she eloped I think that’s a very rational decision on her part. But its not part the Party line.

To Russ on Abortion

Finally, here is my reply to Rev. Young’s letter to me about abortion.

I don’t mean to hide behind semantics where abortion is concerned. Abortion ends life. Where I disagree with you is in treating newly conceived “babies” as the equal of newborns. Yes, pregnant women call the offspring in their wombs “babies.” However, forced to make a “Sophie’s Choice,” virtually every parent I know would choose the child in their arms to the one nine months from birth. The choice, no matter how wrenching, wouldn’t even be a close contest.

You say that calling a baby a fetus, or “little one” in Latin, is deceitful but it strikes me that calling a fertilized egg a baby is also a deceit. In common parlance babies need suckling, burping and changing. You can’t do that with something the size of a punctuation mark.
You have graphically described the gruesome realities of surgical abortion. Yet one of the ironies of the pro-life movement has been its complicity in driving up the number of abortions because of its opposition to birth control.

You are too young to remember the days prior to Roe vs. Wade before the anti-abortion movement began calling itself “pro-life.” Back then the people who opposed abortion were more upset about the possibility that access to birth control and/or abortions would encourage young people to have pre-marital sex. In fact, pregnancy was typically viewed as a fitting punishment for the sin of sex. “If you’re gonna play you gotta pay.” So severe was the disgrace faced by unmarried mothers that back-alley abortion mills thrived.

Even after the movement adopted the pro-life label it did not give up its opposition to birth control. I’ve always marveled at this because I agree that rescuing “babies” in the womb is noble. But apparently the pro-life movement is less concerned with saving the lives of unborn babies than it is with discouraging illicit sex.

The folly of this anti-sex priority was revealed in yesterday’s news story which reported that the rate of premarital sex has held very steady since World War II. Since that time roughly 19 out of every 20 Americans, of both sexes, have engaged in premarital sex. With “pro-lifers” doing everything in their power to discourage contraception it is no wonder that America leads the world in the dismemberment of the unborn.

You have said that it would be wonderful if every child in the womb could be held in its mother’s arms. Yes, it would, but pro-lifers have tried to prevent contraceptives from being distributed in the third world where infant mortality is rampant. Pro-lifers even oppose birth control which could prevent mothers from contracting and dying from AIDS. Orphans have no mothers to hold them.

Infant mortality drops when women can choose when to conceive. I look forward to the day where all women can expect to see their children reach maturity. I’d like to think that this is because I care deeply about people but you find fault with my “heart condition.”

Well Russ, you worship a God whose son will send me and others like me to a fate worse than any surgical or saline abortion. What’s more our suffering will be eternal. How does that reflect on your heart?

I asked you whether you believed aborted babies would go to heaven but you gave me an equivocal answer to this question. Perhaps this is because you believe that heaven is reserved for those who have been “reborn.” That is what some of your pro-life allies believe. For all I know you expect aborted babies to spend eternity with me in Hell rather than with you in Heaven.
Instead, you explained that my being glad that aborted children might be destined for Heaven is like being glad that Dietrich Bonhoffer was hung on a meat hook so that he could enter heaven. Russ, I don’t think either of us is confused by the difference between a brutal death and the hope for a heavenly afterlife.

At the end of your letter you offered me blessings and I thank you. If I can’t have your God’s blessing I’ll be happy to accept yours.Sincerely,
Harry Welty

I’m going to Hell

I’ve been cooresponding with Russ Young. He recently demanded that I correct a ten month old entry in my website. That entry was a reply I’d sent to a local newspaper regarding a column that Russ had written condemning pro choice people like me.

I was about to correct my website when I began pondering his warning to me that I was sitting under the “wrath of God.” So I asked him what he meant.

He was not optimistic for my future unless I adopted his or, I should say, God’s ways. When I fix my website I will post all of our coorespondence.

Until then here’s my reply:

Rev Young,
  We began our email exchange with questions regarding life, babies and abortion. I will return to these subjects in a few days but only after commenting on the biblical foundation which supports your arguments.
  According to your interpretation of the Bible and the verses you have chosen I face a grim afterlife. Not everyone has the courage to tell others that they are doomed so I thank you for your warning and your forthrightness. Christ told his disciples to spread “the word” throughout the world and you are following his example. I will try to be just as candid.

  Assuming for the sake of argument that your interpretation of the Bible is correct I find little to love in the God you worship. I will not worship a God who torments kind and generous people through eternity. If it is true that I am complicit in the murder of innocents my fate may be deserved but according to your faith God will also mete out eternal suffering to pro-lifers who have chosen not to worship him.
  In addition to Muslims, Jews and Buddhists, pro-life or otherwise, Hell must be full of other luminaries of indeterminate religiosity like Gandhi, Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. The later, who seems to have outgrown his youthful atheism often talked about God while he confronted the Civil War but he still skipped church services.

  It doesn’t seem right that people such as these would have to share the same fate as Stalin, Hitler and Mao. It is particularly irksome that this fate has been dealt us by a creator who gave us intellects (in his own image I presume) powerful enough to second guess his Bible. Worse yet, God has sown the universe with so much evidence that undermines the stories in Genesis that it positively invites the curious to fill in the blanks. I suppose Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin are also writhing in Hell for challenging the Bible’s literal truths. Its too bad God didnt personally intervene with them as he did with the Patriarchs. God wrestled with Jacob and he spoke to Moses as a burning bush but for me God only sent Russ Young who merely burns with conviction.

  Had I been a disciple of Christ I would have been Thomas for I too would have required proof of his resurrection. And yet, even though I have never touched Christ’s wounds, I am sufficiently impressed with his teachings that I have tried to make them mine. When Jesus tells us to “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” Mat 10:16, RSV; I rejoice in his wisdom.

  Russ Young’s God will almost certainly sentence my sister the Buddhist, my Mother the doubter, and my son the religiously indifferent, to eternal agony. This cruelty seems at odds with Jesus’s instruction to love one’s neighbor. And yet Russ, if I am to believe you, it will be Jesus himself sitting on the right hand of God who casts down this judgment as though he were no better than a guard at Auschwitz directing Jews to the crematoria.
  It is possible that I am missing some exculpatory information which might put your wrathful God in a better light. Until I can learn what this evidence might be I will resign myself to spending a hellish eternity with the people I love and respect. While I am there I’m sure to bump into Pastor Bond. My heretical old minister once told me that his God was so merciful that if he saw people suffering in Hell he would go there to rescue them. I could worship his God.

Harry Welty
An agnostic in the Church Choir

Delaying action

I’ve just sent the following email to Russ Young under the subject heading “Some answers are required.”

Rev. Young, I’ve just sat down to think through my reply to you but before I do I’d like you to elaborate on your last paragraph where you said: “Harry, as you now sit, you are under the wrath of God, but if you turn from your own way and seek God, it may be that he will show you mercy and yet bring you into his kingdom, and into his arms. That is my prayer for you.” 

I would like to have a better idea what the consequences are for me for sitting “under the wrath of God.”  Does this simply mean that I will be excluded from Heaven or does this also mean I will be condemned to an eternity of suffering in Hell? Or will the wrath take other forms?  

I would also like to know whether this consequence would befall me because of my support for permitting some abortions, or because I am not a Christian. (I am an agnostic)


Harry Welty 



“a correction is required”

I got this email the other day from our local columnist, the Rev. Young. Its subject heading was “a correction is required.” I emailed back and said that I would respond to it when I could find the time. I also told Rev. Young that I never received his letter and that no one brought a subsequent correction in the Duluth Budgeteer to my attention.

Dear Harry, 

It was brought to my attention that you were still running your response, “A mass murderer replies,” to one of my columns on your site. I was a little surprised to see it yet, as I did write you back. A correction to your statement was even run in the Budgeteer. I had even copied Tom West with my response to you prior to your letter appearing in the Budgeteer. 

In any event, here it is again, in case you have the courage to post it, and make an apparently long standing correction. Russ Young 

Here is the letter originally sent 2/4/06, three days after I received your note. Dear Harry, 

Thank you for taking the time to write. After considering all that you wrote, it seems much could be accomplished if your objections to the use of the term baby could be satisfied. I will offer some legitimate answers to your objections in hope that you may yet be persuaded. To begin with, it is of note that female ovum are the largest cells humans produce. They are the only single cells which are viewable to the naked eye, and never microscopic. Upon fertilization they at once contain all the basic building blocks that define human life. Our entire biological, and genetic make up is present at conception. It remains unchanged in content from that moment all through the life span of an adult. In a very real sense the only biological difference between babies you hold in your arms and an adult is their physical size. The same is true for a fertilized egg and a newborn. In each case one is simply at a different maturational stage than the other. 

To say that a newly conceived life “is little more than DNA with no differentiated cells let alone a heart or a brain.,” only underscores your own heart condition, and indifference to what you hold as human life. Even those who are seeking to increase chemical abortions, and therefore push the killing process back as close to conception as possible, recognize that what is being terminated is a baby. Plan B and RU 486, though differing in their means, both seek to end pregnancy. All one has to do is ask “If a woman is pregnant, what is she pregnant with?” The answer is not undifferentiated DNA. The answer is always a baby. It is part of the deceit of abortionists to diminish the reality of what they are doing, by trying to deflect away from that reality, to refer to babies by other terminology to obfuscate and confuse the issues. The use of “fetus,” is a perfect example of this. Fetus is Latin for “little one,” in others words a baby. In an effort to deflect the reality of what the abortionist is doing, they have reverted to a Latin term to dehumanize that which is human. 

Finally, every expectant mother almost immediately begins to refer to her child in the womb as a baby. A local OBGYN (Scott Johnson) has said that in all his years of practice he never heard a mother refer to her unborn child as a fetus. Therefore, while the term “baby” is not a technical term, it is however, perfectly legitimate to refer to babies in utero, no matter at what point in a woman’s pregnancy. If it is “charged” to say “baby,” it is only because your soul recognizes the truth that babies are dying from abortions, not because of any misrepresentation. Your letter makes no recognition of surgical abortion, and how it is regularly practiced. It would be very profitable for you to go the Building for Women, and ask to watch the abortions. What you would find is that the abortionist carefully works to account for all the parts of the child he is removing. To do so they lay out all the arms, legs, heads and other body parts. These are all well enough formed to be recognizable by the time the vast majority of surgical abortions are done. As they remove the baby, their tiny limbs are set out on a table to make sure it is all there. They do so because, once killed, any remaining parts will cause an infection in the mother, if left to decay in her womb. 

It is another piece of misinformation abortionists use, to deflect from the reality of their trade, they suggest that what is being killed is only a blob of cells. A baby’s heart begins beating at least by the 8th week, and the brain has already begun functioning as well by the time almost all 1st term abortions are performed. Again, these are the most prevalent time frame for abortions, between 8 – 12 weeks. To perform them, the babies are burned out with strong salt solutions which act like acid on the baby’s skin, they are vacuumed out by a suction machine, or just pulled out by surgical tongs. These are the realities of 1st term abortions. The later an abortion is performed, the more gruesome the procedure. Your letter only seems to think of abortion in terms of chemical abortions. Do you presume to make your DNA analogy when a partial “birth” abortion is performed? 

As for your theology, it apparently is a pragmatic as your biology, and holds the same pitfalls. Are you really suggesting that if one believes that all aborted souls go to heaven that we should rejoice in their murder? I believe Dietrich Bonhoffer went to heaven when he was murdered by Hitler, being stripped naked and then hung by a piano wire. Should I rejoice at that? Yes, I can rejoice that he entered Paradise and that his suffering ended. But I am horrified that another could act so barbarously. Were the men who committed this atrocity better off for having done so because Bonhoffer’s soul was saved? 

Harry, you are badly mistaken about the implications of such thinking. That you could be happy for the loss of so many who will never be held in their mother’s arms is a tragedy. The ends do not justify the means. Hitler wanted to make a master race: that doesn’t sound so bad. But his plan entailed the systematic murder of millions that did not fit his picture of what he wanted. Your rationale opens the door to the very same kinds of abuse that others have made who make decisions for pragmatic reasons alone.  The road is wide that leads to destruction, but the way that leads to life is narrow. I hope you will see your error and turn away from it, and turn to God before it is too late. 

Through the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, it is possible to know if we have souls. More so, it is possible to know where we are headed in eternity. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him,” (John 3:36). Harry, as you now sit, you are under the wrath of God, but if you turn from your own way and seek God, it may be that he will show you mercy and yet bring you into his kingdom, and into his arms. That is my prayer for you. 

Blessings,  Russ Young