Subscriber Login

Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
Please choose adoption over abortion PDF Print E-mail

Letter to the Editor:

The second sentence in the Declaration of Independence has been called by historian Stephen E. Lucas one of the best-known sentences in the English language, containing “the most potent and consequential words in American history.”

Abraham Lincoln made this statement the centerpiece of his presidency. It is the core value of what it truly means to be an American.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

A statement that is simple to understand, profound for the day, liberating to all and clearly concise. This inspired document gives us unalienable rights that guarantee all humans the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We believe so strongly in these rights that 1.3 million Americans have lost their lives defending those freedoms, and the core truths of our nation, since the American Revolution.

However, there is another segment of our population that since 1973 has lost the protection of that document and its core values, and that is the unborn. Since 1973, we have taken the lives of more than 55 million unborn children in this nation alone.

There were approximately 6.2 million pregnancies in our country last year. Four million resulted in births, 900,000 resulted in a miscarriage and 1.2 million ended in abortion. Nearly 20% of all pregnancies every year now end in the termination of life for the baby.

So here is the question that we, as Americans, must all personally address. Does our Declaration of Independence truly guarantee that all life, whether in the womb or out, has been endowed by our creator the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

To me personally, that answer is clearly delineated by our founding fathers. All men (including the unborn) are created equal and absolutely should be guaranteed the opportunity to live, breathe and participate in the experience of life.

As a pro-life advocate for nearly 40 years, I can no longer just rest my hopes in a legislative solution. My personal mission is to foster a solution that brings life to the unborn and hope to a nation that has clearly lost its path in regards to its obligation to nurture a better life for all of its young, including the unborn.

The data is clear as to the deleterious effects of abortion. We know for a fact that women who have an abortion are six times more likely to suffer from suicidal tendencies. Post-traumatic stress disorder, drug and alcohol abuse, depression and failed relationships have much higher tendencies in women who have gone through abortions.

We know that 94% of all abortions are performed simply because of the fact that their pregnancy is an inconvenience. The major reason women choose abortion over birth is the simple fact that they have no support system to walk with them through this challenging time of an unplanned pregnancy.

Adoption, not abortion, is the solution I will advocate for. An unwanted or unplanned pregnancy is one of the most emotionally challenging positions women can be in.

To the women out there who find themselves trapped in this difficult circumstance, please be aware that there are churches, organizations and community people who are here to help. Please choose adoption over abortion and realize there are literally thousands of people in this country alone who would cherish the opportunity to raise, love and nurture the child that you are carrying.

Choose life for your child.

Len Larsen

St. Germain

Tuesday, June 17, 2014 11:09 AM


-4 #14 Frank Gabl 2014-06-23 07:28

In post 6, you stated: “I do not view being pro-choice as being pro-abortion.”

But even though you certainly have the right to conclude whatever you choose, that doesn’t automatically make it so.

The positive-framed term, “pro-choice,” coined long ago by the abortion-rights movement is exclusive to abortion rights, in general.

For example, a person can be steadfast in an individual’s right to choose to smoke cigarettes, own a gun, burn a flag or hunt, without necessarily supporting tobacco use, gun rights, flag desecration or hunting. However, such a person is not considered to be “pro-choice” in those instances since established dictionaries and reference resources define “pro-choice” as solely pertaining to the belief in a pregnant woman’s right to choose to have an abortion - as well as, (not or) advocating / supporting legalized abortion. Therefore, unlike smoking or hunting in the examples above,

Cont. below:
-4 #13 Frank Gabl 2014-06-23 07:24

it is not possible for a person to support a woman’s right to choose abortion (“pro-choice”) without likewise supporting the procedure that fulfills the “choice” (abortion).

So, the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” go hand in hand, just as, “pro-life” and “anti-abortion” go hand in hand.

Furthermore, the prefix “pro” is innocuously defined as “in favor of” / “supporting,” making the term “pro-abortion” merely “in favor of abortion rights,” or “supporting abortion” – not someone who advocates for abortion as the preferred outcome for any pregnancy.

Similarly, “anti-abortion” advocates do not believe there never can be an exception, such as in the literal life of the mother which invariably takes precedence over the baby.

So, that begs the question: Just what would cause a person to be unabashedly “pro-choice,” yet, attempt to disassociate oneself from the only act that can bring that “choice” to fruition?
-1 #12 2014-06-20 14:46
You are right, it appears as though it is a very small percentage.

But that means that since roe v wade, more children were killed in late term abortions than American soldiers were during WWI and WWII combined.

Of course this number assumes the percentage you noted over the past 56,000,000 abortions since R v W.

I am glad that you do not support that though.
-3 #11 Frank Gabl 2014-06-20 14:15

Just as you want to make your support for abortion sound more reasonable by considering yourself "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion," now you're going to downplay 15,000 late-term killings - by not only using "1.0 - 1.5" percent instead of 15,000 - but trivializing 15,000 lives as "a very small number."

You have flawlessly demonstrated the dictionary definition of insensitive, as well as hypocrite.

And I thank you for that since it only drives more people to be pro-life advocates after a dose of that convoluted "rationale."
+7 #10 Denny Erardi 2014-06-20 12:13
Again, Tim, I'll answer you. I think it's important to understand that late term abortions comprise 1.0 - 1.5% of the total number of abortions. It's important because we are talking about a very small number, and yet some folks throw the term and concept around as though it happens with great frequency. It doesn't. Regardless, I am opposed to late term abortions in all but the most desperate of situations.
0 #9 2014-06-20 10:01

While getting my shoes on to go to work, this morning, my 2 year old daughter asked me with a funny look if I was going fishing today. Apparently the thought crossed her mind, so she asked. Apparently she made up her mind that she was going to catch a big fish today, so she wanted to know if I was going to as well.

The ensuing discussion reminded me of what pure innocence was. The look on her face, the various facial expressions, the little voice... It was a great way to start a day out.

My wife and I have five children. We stopped at three, but God had other plans. Was it convenient? No. Is our home big enough for five? Heck no. But if we went out of convenience and did have an abortion, that discussion, those little thoughts, the joy, and the wonder, would never have developed.

Examples like this are why I will never be able to understand why people believe it is okay.
+2 #8 2014-06-20 09:53

Thanks for answering the question. While I still have a hard time understanding the rationale, and I likely always will, I do appreciate you answering it in how you believe.

But your comment regarding living, breathing, children has me wondering what is your take on late term abortions then?

I understand that some women need to have an abortion to save their literal life. It makes sense to me because ultimately both would die otherwise. And chances are good that the mother would never want to lose the child anyways if they were in a situation like that. But, modern medicine has gone a long way to treat premature children as well, so I believe every effort should be maintained to save the life of both.

-4 #7 Frank Gabl 2014-06-20 08:36

You stated:

"The people who were killed at Sandy Hook were living, breathing, reasoning children who'd been with their families for years and years."

Then: "I believe in the second amendment and I own guns. However, I firmly believe that some private citizens ought to be banned from gun ownership."

But considering that a mother can legally choose to take the life of her full-term child just seconds before birth, you give not a single iota of consideration to at least the banning of late-term (third-trimester) abortions.

And you see no hypocrisy in that "rationale."

+3 #6 Denny Erardi 2014-06-19 15:46
I'll answer you Tim, because I believe in your sincerity to have a discourse. And I won't speak for the group of people that you've identified - I'm only going to speak for me, and I'm going to do my best to keep semantic differences out of it.
I do not view being pro-choice as being pro-abortion. I am in favor of a woman retaining the choice to deal with what is an extremely difficult, personal choice for most: an unwanted pregnancy. I support her right to choose. That categorically doesn't mean that I think she approaches that in a cavalier manner, it doesn't mean that she's using it whimsically as a birth control method. It doesn't mean it's not horribly awfully tragic.
The people who were killed at Sandy Hook were living, breathing, reasoning children who'd been with their families for years and years.
I believe in the second amendment and I own guns. However, I firmly believe that some private citizens ought to be banned from gun ownership.
-4 #5 Frank Gabl 2014-06-19 13:33

That is a really good question which begets another question:

Just how does one rationalize the killing of a full term baby ten seconds prior to birth, when ten seconds after birth the killing is now considered murder?

I'm not looking for a fight either, I'm just trying to understand.

Add comment

Comments exceeding 1,000 characters will not be accepted. Please refrain from using texting language and spell out all words. All comments are reviewed and must be approved before they are posted.

Security code