An Abortion Foe Supports Protest

As a child of God, a Christian, a lifetime Catholic, a practicing veterinarian of 30 years, on the eve of our 38th wedding anniversary, the father of four adopted children, an ordained deacon for 13 years and a member of Project Rachel who counsels women exploited by abortion, my conscience demands that I respond to the events surrounding the meeting of Planned Parenthood on May 8 at the Torrance park.

Planned Parenthood would have us believe that their civil rights have been violated by the demonstrations by those seeking to protect the civil and human rights of the pre-born. Are we to presume that their rights are supreme over those of the pre-born and those that work to protect them?

The term civil rights is meaningless when human rights are violated in its pursuit. If the object of civil rights is the defense of citizens, how can the defense of citizens be a violation of those same civil rights? Yes, the fetus has rights, even the right to life, as we read daily in the newspapers that a crime is committed when (the fetus) is killed by a person other than an abortionist.

Having been educated in embryology, fetology and obstetrics, I find it appalling that Planned Parenthood consistently diverts attention from the central issue at hand, one which cannot be denied, that abortion is simply an act of killing; and calling it by any other name changes it naught. The common smoke screens, of yelling “civil rights” and “women’s rights,” seem appropriate for abortionists when all else fails.

When one holds a tenet without, substance one has to create an issue to defend it. Planned Parenthood knows that its destruction of life is indefensible and has attempted to make it a civil rights issue and make it palatable by calling it a women’s issue. Abortion is clearly a human rights issue.

As for the speaker posing as a Catholic and promoting abortion, I suggest she make a decision: Either she is Catholic or she is pro-abortion. She can’t be both at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. She must denounce Catholicism or denounce abortion. There is no room in Catholic theology--in which she proclaims to have expertise--for a pro-abortion stance, whether it is held weakly or it is staunchly promoted. Unless she has been given some divine presence to rewrite Catholic dogma, which arises from the basic God-given tenet that all human life is precious and sacred, she cannot speak truthfully.

It is outside the scope of Catholicism to affix a convenient label on oneself and make it fit one’s own limitations. Thus it is preposterous that there could exist “Catholics for choice.” It also follows that the comments by a listener that “her views were well-based in theology” and that “Catholics have always believed that an individual’s conscience is supreme” are seriously flawed.

FRANK DIETER

Redondo Beach