Archive for Friday, March 13, 1992


March 13, 1992


To the editor:

If our legislators truly believe in "choice" when it comes to abortion, why do they all oppose informed consent? The only way to make a responsible decision is with all the facts.

It is a psychological fact that we cannot think creatively under stress. A crisis pregnancy is one of the greatest stresses a woman ever faces. Abortion may seem the only alternative. Why not offer counseling? We do as much for others under duress. What are our legislators afraid of? That given all the facts and choices, a woman might change her mind and choose life?

What are these facts? An unborn baby, only 6 weeks old has a rapid heartbeat, discernible on a sonogram, its brain is growing, its eyes taking shape. The in-utero baby can hear, feel and taste. The baby carried inside is not her body at all, but another living human being and perhaps even the opposite sex. There are alternatives to abortion, such as adoption. Help is available through many social agencies and crisis pregnancy centers. Abortion is a major surgical procedure, with risks, such as sterility and even death. Shouldn't a woman have all the facts before she makes a decision that will permanently affect the rest of her life and that of the unborn baby within her?

Since we have to wait three days to obtain a handgun in the city of Lawrence because we might be on the brink of suicide, why shouldn't there be a 24-hour waiting period before termination of the life of another human being by abortion? This is another life or death decision. But, an unborn baby is not a "person." We had better all beware if the definition of "person" assigns rights on an arbitrary basis. Your "personhood" could be next, and the return of slavery could be in our very near future. After all, slaves were not "persons" either and therefore had no rights.

Jan L. O'Neill,

2235 N.H.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.