Red-herring abortion argument

The red-herring argument offered by Gary Gaines ("Beyond pro-life" on March 7) is another example of the mental gymnastics required to rationalize the killing of unwanted children. You can't solve a problem until you can correctly define the problem.

The problem is not crowded schools, or the need for aid for unwanted children, or day care. If it were, the lawmakers supporting illegal immigration which brings the same problems, would not typically be those who also support the killing of unwanted children, increasingly beyond birth as evidenced by the incredible laws allowing infanticide being implemented or considered in many states. As the proponents of abortion get more extreme, it is understandable that an effort to divert attention in other directions would exist.

Simply stated, the core issue pits the consequences of the choices people make with their sexuality vs. the right for a human to have the opportunity to live.

Choice starts at the point a couple decides to engage in unprotected sex. The consequence of an unplanned pregnancy are the inconveniences of what one side wants to believe is a blob of flesh; albeit with a beating heart, moving limbs and which science confirms feels pain, but somehow not human. On the other side (myself included) are those who understand that protection of every human life, regardless of how inconvenient or unwanted, is the fundamental obligation that defines a moral society.

Let's not be duped into believing its anything other than that hugely important central issue.

RICK FEINER, Jackson