To the editor:

In her Oct. 30 letter, Lydia Krebs chastises pro-lifers for their “emotive and mendacious” label “partial-birth abortion.” She would rather the procedure be called “dilation and extraction.” I agree that we ought to speak clearly and accurately, avoid euphemisms, enlighten rather than obfuscate.

Let’s apply that principle to the abortion debate. Instead of “partial-birth abortion” or “dilation and extraction” let’s call it “a late-term procedure which delivers the unborn child feet first until the head is accessible, then penetrates the skull, vacuums out the contents of the skull (brain), and crushes and extracts the remainder, all without anesthesia to the fetus.”

Ms. Krebs further argues that abortion decisions should be left to “women … and their physicians.” If women invariably consulted their family physician or gynecologist about the advisability of abortion, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, most often the woman bypasses them and goes directly to an abortionist, who makes money only by performing abortions. To refer to a professional abortionist as “her physician” is like calling a hunter a “wildlife population control expert.” If we said the decision should be left to “women and the abortionists” we might understand why the process is judged by many to be skewed against the unborn.

So by all means let us refrain from using “misleading and politically driven” euphemisms to cloud the abortion debate. Although cumbersome at times, plain speaking will allow those who are not yet committed to either side to make an informed choice.

Nancy Reitz,

Eudora