It seems that someone opposed Merrill Cook's letter of July 23 the very next day. I wouldn't have thought it possible to reach your forum so fast. Cook's stand against partial-birth abortions was so well-stated with facts and substantiations, the opposing letter pales terribly by comparison.
If the woman's life is at stake, I can understand the concern, but why wait until the fifth or sixth month to do the awful deed. If it's a case of rape, I can only feel sorry for those who must decide the infant's fate and be thankful I'm not a doctor.On the other hand, if it's simply an unwanted pregnancy, neither the woman nor the doctor should have the option of killing the baby. Cook's citing of one infant's survival in spite of an abortion is not the only one on record. These are real, live, little people being murdered.
"Pro-choice" all too often is the choice to kill or not to kill, a prerogative that definitely should be controlled by law, just as any other kind of killing. President Clinton should be overruled on his horrible pro-choice stand.
Norval G. Turner