Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, July 14, 1990 TAG: 9007160177
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Not only would they not need to don the rubber gloves, but there'd be no hand-washing required afterward. At least that's what they're telling themselves.
Of course, they're also telling themselves and the United States they'll be providing a safe alternative. (For years they've been telling us abortion was a safe procedure, vehemently denying the anti-abortionists' horror stories as "scare tactics.") They boast they'll be saving their patients money, while simultaneously finding a cure for - what? The pill "may be useful in treating brain tumors, breast cancers and other illnesses."
Who are they trying to convince? This pill, if accepted, will be "tested" by aborting more potential scientists who might have come up with one of these cures than all the "brain tumors, breast cancers and other illnesses" put together.
In all the hundreds of column inches your paper has devoted to the abortion issue, I've noted two questions mysteriously absent:
1. At what stage of development within the reproductive cycle does the human cell, egg, zygote, embryo, fetus, mass of tissue, baby, whatever you call it, cease to be human?
2. At what stage of development, as above, does "it" cease to be living?
The answers are really quite simple. At no stage of development does the human entity cease to be human, and at no stage does it cease to be living, thereby earning the right, by definition, to be referred to as an entity (life). Therefore "its" destruction is the detruction of human life. The AMA and its members understand this truth despite their use of euphemisms to indicate otherwise. When will the rest of us wise up? CANDICE L. ST.CLAIR VINTON
by CNB