Fallacious notions in the abortion debate

Re “Abortion lessons from Latin America,” Opinion, March 21

As a clinical psychologist, I have witnessed too many cases of women irreparably damaged by their decision to abort their fetuses to abide any more hackneyed arguments in support of a woman’s right to “lose.” Marianne Mollmann’s argument is based on a few arguably dubious case studies and stands on the fallacious notion that because certain women apparently will go to any length to abort their fetuses, the government must officially sanction the act.

The government should provide counseling services for women experiencing traumatic pregnancies that would dissuade them from turning to abortion as an act of desperation. Yes, incidents involving rape and incest should be given special consideration, but these cases are the exceptions and should not be used as the basis for any argument in favor of supporting abortion on demand.

BRUCE L. THIESSEN

Bakersfield

*

Anti-abortion sentiment comes mainly from the religious community having a belief that God has a “perfect plan.” About 50% of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort before implantation, and 10% abort after implantation. Assuming 10 billion live births throughout history, this equals about 6 billion abortions. If God’s plan is perfect, then it is doubtful that God considers abortion murder.

The major consequence of outlawing abortion (or any form of birth control) is the control of women’s choices. One merely need look back 50 years in our “free society” to see the main option for women was to have babies and raise children. Many see nothing wrong with this, but something is wrong -- freedom to choose a wanted child. The real crime is an unwanted child, born to a life of neglect and abuse.

PHILIP S. BEAUCHAMP

Chino Hills

*

Mollmann completely ignored the central reason why abortions have been banned in the first place: Abortion exterminates the life of an innocent human.

If the moral principle demands that abortion be outlawed, the law cannot be faulted if a woman undertakes dangerous and illegal measures to perform something harmful to herself and her unborn child. A compassionate society should deliver loving and life-affirming help for unwanted pregnancies. I imagine that this is the direction in which South Dakota wishes to go.

DAVE PIERRE

Downey