Letters to the Editor

More babies will benefit S.D.

Like Dave L. Wegner wrote in his letter in the Aug. 3 Argus Leader, I, too, “am old enough to remember when rules for girls basketball were quite different from boys rules.”  In fact, I played under those rules in Iowa.  Wegner in his letter discussed how women’s roles in society have changed to explain why he supports abortion.  He opposes three ways South Dakota citizens have sought to limit or end abortion.  First, Wegner calls anti-abortion ballot initiatives “harmful and costly.”  However, saving the lives of unborn babies keeps them from harm.  Also, South Dakota, with its aging and shrinking population, most likely would benefit financially from having more babies born – not fewer.  Second, Wegner opposes what he calls “teeny, tiny unsound rules enacted by elected officials.”  I assume he refers to legislative attempts to require women seeking abortions to see ultrasound images of their “teeny, tiny” unborn babies.  Seeing the life growing inside them makes some women change their minds.  That possibility annoys abortion advocates.  Third, Wegner derides “holier-than-hour pharmacists who refuse to honor medically necessary doctor prescriptions.”  Accuracy compels me to note that almost all abortions are elective, meaning performed for personal reasons rather than medical reasons.  In 1973, I was playing under the “old” girls basketball rules.  That was the year the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion.  In 2008, my two daughters and two sons enjoy playing basketball according to the current rules.  Tragically, since 1973 more than 35 million girls and boys have missed the opportunity to participate in basketball or in any other activities.  By having abortions, their mothers have taken them out of the game.  —Bonnie J. Reinders

Give babies a chance

We have some good news in South Dakota: Sen. Tim Johnson’s health has improved, and he says he has been given a second chance.  Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is going to have a baby.  I would hope the good news that is coming is that Johnson now will vote to give unborn babies a first chance.  I also feel that when Herseth Sandlin realizes the miracle of the birth of a baby, she never will vote with the pro-choice people again.  The fact that only one or two doctors in South Dakota will perform an abortion speaks for itself as being a terrible wrong. —Wilbur P. Foss

Abortion is legal murder

Life is full of choices, and no matter what we choose to do, there are consequences for which we are responsible.  If you choose to buy a house that is too expensive for your budget, you are responsible for that choice.  If the bank gives you a loan without considering your income, it is responsible for that.  Every choice has a consequence.  If a woman chooses to have unprotected sex, she is responsible for that choice.  If she becomes pregnant, that is the consequence of her choice.  She has the right to choose her action, but she does not have the right over another life within her.  She does not have the right to end that life.  The law says you cannot take another’s life.  The young woman from Clear Lake accused of murdering her newborn baby has been indicted for first-degree murder and is facing a life sentence, according to the news.  If this woman had chosen to end that life before birth, it would be “legal.”  If a pregnant woman is murdered, the perpetrator is charged with two murders.  This is a contradiction of our law.  It is murder of the unborn child if someone else does it, but it is legal if it is your own baby.  How did legal murder ever become a law in our own country?  Pregnancy is the consequence of a choice for which the woman is responsible except in the case of rape.  The baby deserves to life.  Even in a case of rape, the baby is not at fault.  She or he deserves to live.  Somebody would be happy to adopt it. —Sylvia J. Veltkamp

%d bloggers like this: