In his Wednesday letter "? 'Sickening' depends on perspective," Stanley D. Krider wanted to know whether it is more sickening to cut off people's benefits or to kill unborn children.
In his Wednesday letter “‘Sickening’ depends on perspective,” Stanley D. Krider wanted to know whether it is more sickening to cut off people’s benefits or to kill unborn children.
Millions of Americans, including me, think it is much more sickening and sorrowful to kill an unborn child than to cut off government entitlements, because the person who loses entitlements still has hope; the child who loses their life never has the chance to hope.
Krider tries to downplay abortion by using the old argument that one would be killing a fetus. Pro-choice advocates for several years have used the word fetus and other descriptions so that the general public thinks of it as a glob of cells rather than the unborn child that it is.
Driving down the freeway at 70 mph, opening the passenger door and then pushing out one’s child out is exactly what abortion is.
If pro-choice advocates would consider that horrific thought regarding their own children, then many would change ideas about abortion.
JOHN E. EVANS