Clarifying Their Stance on Abortion

* In “Pro-Life Necessitates Pro-Choice Stance” (Letters, Aug. 8), Kristen Hurst asserts, “I am ‘pro-life,’ which in my definition is ‘pro-choice.’ ”

I respond that the expression “pro-life” has a distinct meaning.

To be “pro-life” is to contend that men and women should not terminate the unborn in order to avoid the consequences of their reproductive acts. To be “pro-life” is to resist any attempt to define the unborn in terms that deny or limit their humanity.

I contend that Ms. Hurst’s position, and that of other “pro-choice” advocates, would be more accurately described as “Pro-Post-Uterine-Female-Choice.” Clearly, her ideas have consequences that differ markedly from those of “pro-life” convictions.

CRAIG A. WHITE

Costa Mesa

* Regarding Kristen Hurst’s letter:

Let’s all face the music. It’s about time! If we aren’t ready to accept even the remote possibility of a child, why are we having sex? Of course, I see exceptions for rape and incest victims and for cases of mother’s vs. child’s life. However, the majority of abortions are performed simply as birth control. Why don’t we focus on preventing pregnancy in the first place? Let’s all make a choice--let’s make it before we have sex.

VALERIE CAPLINGER

Irvine