To the editor:

In asking, “Who speaks for voiceless children?” (Journal-World, March 20), Leonard Pitts raises an interesting question. Citing a report on the Florida Department of Children and Families, he describes the abuse leading to the death of 3-year-old Ghanson Debrosse. He then asserts that this case constitutes an indictment against those whose silence allowed it, specifically accusing “abortion foes.”

In making his case, Mr. Pitts admits that abortion foes spoke up for Ghanson before he was born but denies that they spoke for him after birth. Such an assertion ignores the fact that the pro-life movement advocates for adoption. Furthermore, the current legal situation accords born children all the rights and protections of the law. Since court decisions have largely silenced the law in regard to the unborn, the pro-life movement speaks for the truly voiceless.

Many of those who read Ghanson’s case undoubtedly thought, “It would have been better if he had not been born.” To this emotional assessment, abortion advocates apply some practical reasoning and conclude, “It would have been better if he had been aborted.” But for abortion to be a solution, it has to be applied. This means, in cases like Ghanson’s, where abortion is not chosen, it has to be imposed.

Thankfully, abortion had not achieved the measure of acceptance necessary for enforcement. Mr. Pitts can blame abortion foes for that. But if he does, he incriminates himself. In speaking for the voiceless unborn we speak against tyranny.