Dear Editor,

My mother, at age 27 in 1985, became pregnant with me. As with every child conceived after the year 1973, she could have legally sought an abortion under any circumstance.

Because of the fact that after January 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court decided in the case Roe v. Wade that the first nine months of my life and that of my generation were not protected under the law, I am pro-life. I believe that  every man and woman has the right to live from conception to natural death.

I disapprove of the pro-choice platform and all abortions performed for convenience in that not only do abortions cause physical and emotional harm to the woman and child, but they are also dehumanizing and reject every person’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Giving up a child for adoption is a brave, safe, and psychologically sound decision that many women and men make daily. No greater power exists than the ability to choose to be a parent or to give life.

Women who go through with abortions suffer tremendously and silently and are much more likely to harm or even kill themselves than a woman who has not made this choice. Adoptions do not land children in abusive or poverty-stricken homes; rather they provide them with the complete opposite. Also, women who choose to keep or adopt out their children to loving homes instead of aborting them feel healed and empowered at giving their child a chance at a better life, not hurt or weakened.

Abortion is a form of birth control, and that is the primary reason it is used. In addition, abortion restrictions exist to protect and keep healthy those seeking abortions.

Legal has not proven to be safe, as across the board abortion clinics have hidden many cases of malpractice, maiming and even death from mass media for fear of losing support and business. Not to mention, pro-abortion rulings that have given women the “right to choose” actually disempower them in that malpractitioners and abortion clinics use those very same rulings to defend themselves against hurt women children in court: they are using and sacrificing women and children to advance their own political agenda. Further more, laws restricting abortions support the viewpoint that abortion must never be the recurrent form of birth control it is becoming, in that they are designed to prevent abortions of convenience, not those required to save the mother’s life.

The pro-choice stance is mostly subjective in that most of those who advocate it and have positive opinions on abortion have never experienced one for themselves. The abortion issue is an issue regarding humanity that profoundly affects our society.

The “decision” has everything to do with society, as each person’s choice affects another. To simply kill a child because is he or she “unwanted,” poor or imperfect is no better than choosing what kind of person we want to live (just stop and think for a moment about Hitler’s reasons for killing the Jews.)

The true debate is not whether or not a child should be wanted, but whether or not a human being should have the right to outlive his first nine months of life. Moreover, according to the Bioethics Defense Fund, “the number of women and children in poverty, and the number of abused children has both increased steadily since 1973.” Not only have the ends not justified the means, but, clearly, legalized abortion has neither prevented nor fixed society’s problems.

As an American, I support and promote our founding fathers’ viewpoints that all men are created equal and deserve the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, especially life. If our culture and courts continue to support the right to choose to commit a wrong, how, then, will the harmed person defend himself? We must protect our right to life, especially for the weakest, smallest, and seemingly most insignificant of human beings. We were all at one time, after January 22, 1973, just as helpless.

Valerie Hoffpauir

Sophomore

animal science major