Letters to the Editor: ‘Preborn children’ is an antiabortion ruse, not a scientific term

A pro-choice activist dressed in a "Handmaid's Tale" costume demonstrates outside the U.S. Supreme Court.
A pro-choice activist dressed in a “Handmaid’s Tale” costume demonstrates outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 4.
(Getty Images)
Share via

To the editor: A letter writer’s response to Robin Abcarian’s column about the restrictive abortion law in Texas just about makes my blood boil.

The male writer seems to think sacrificing a few women to back-alley abortions is just fine to save what he calls “preborn children.” The writer is welcome to practice any religious beliefs he chooses, but he cannot force those beliefs on others.

History has shown that laws governing the body are effectively tools of suppression. How about a law that makes it a crime for a man to ejaculate without the express intent to create life? Let’s even the playing field.


All sperm are potential “preborn children.” How many have you adopted? How many have you discarded?

Patricia Kattus, Encinitas


To the editor: The antiabortion reader loads the dice by referring to zygotes and embryos as “preborn children” in need of protection.

The Supreme Court, reasoning by science, has already balanced the rights of women with the rights of viable fetuses, protecting both. It did so almost 50 years ago in Roe vs. Wade.

Thomas Bliss, Los Angeles