Pro-Abortion Newspaper Prints Bad Pro-Abortion Letters

The Los Angeles Times printed a couple of letters responding to the paper's piece on Mississippi's "antiabortion" bill. They didn't get letters better than this?

One need not read the Bible to understand that life begins at conception, and thus a "fertilized egg" is a human being in the zygote stage of development. The same human being, allowed to live, will go on to go through the embryonic, fetal, newborn, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, etc. stages. Still, Sandy Smith of Los Angeles brought up this tired old line of reasoning.

I don't know what Bible the folks in Mississippi are reading, but it's not one I'm familiar with.

The New Testament has no references at all to a fetus, but the Old Testament is very specific. If a man kills another man, he must pay with his life; if he kills an animal, he must offer restitution. But, according to Exodus 21:22: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows." A fetus was considered potential property.

I could pick this all apart, but this has already been covered many places, including here and here. I'm always bemused by these Leftist types who read Leftist materials about the Bible and think people who take the Bible seriously have never considered these things.

S.G. Mann of Huntington Beach writes:

Perhaps the voters in Mississippi should Google Sherri Finkbine.

In 1962, Finkbine discovered that the drug she had been taking for her morning sickness was thalidomide, which causes severe fetal deformities. No hospital would perform the abortion she sought. The Arizona Supreme Court denied her petition.

Finkbine flew to Sweden to receive a therapeutic abortion. The fetus would have been born with no legs and only one arm.

Oh my gosh! NO LEGS AND ONLY ONE ARM! Well, I guess being murdered is preferable to a life without legs and with only one arm? Just ask the millions of living people who are in that exact situation, most of whom have been living lives of significance with many moments of happiness and joy. I'm sure if Mann approached them and offered to hack them into bits and vacuum them into a sink, they’d say, "Yes, please!"

The same faction that claims it wants government "off their backs" wants to intrude on other people's most sensitive decisions.

Those of us who believe in liberty, limited government, and the inherent rights of individual human beings recognize that innocent human beings who are not posing a threat to anyone else should have their lives protected, by government, from those who would murder them. Where is the inconsistency?