The typical Hans Neumann letter showed up in the Coeur d’Alene Press today, and I shall simply let Mr. Neumann speak for himself:
ABORTION:Don’t be deceived
I once had a long talk with a pro-abortion woman who finally confessed, “Yes, I know it’s a baby, but I still want the right to kill it at my decision.” She is the only honest pro-abort I’ve ever met and I told her I respected her for her honesty, though of course not for her position.
Joan Harman (Letters, March 6) falls into the other category; those who deny the obvious either through ignorance or self-deception in order to justify what they know in their secret hearts is just plain wrong. She rejects religion as a basis for facing the truth, but ignores that all of western civilization’s laws grew from a Judeo-Christian heritage—including that killing the innocent is wrong. To be blunt, that’s called murder. Self-deception notwithstanding, Harman falsely claims that “most abortions involve miscarriages.” Not even close to true. 97 percent are for convenience, 40 percent are repeats for birth control, 3 percent are for rape, incest or life of the mother. America’s total abortions have now exceeded 55 MILLION—most involving miscarriages? Gimme a break—and give you a break from these deceptions that lead so many young women into killing their own babies and being haunted for the rest of their lives
I actually could start off with the sort of “Judeo-Christian values” that created the “Western Civilization” that recognizes that killing the innocent is just plain wrong. Uh, from the time of the Judeo part of the bible to the present age of “Christian” involvement on the world stage, plenty of innocents have died in the name of religion. Nor was it regarded as “wrong.” Or, I could remind the readers that this “Christian” anti-abortion doctrine was based on the idea of setting themselves apart from the Pagan culture. What ever pagans agreed to, the “Christians” would therefore be against. Or, I could even argue that the ressurrection of this doctrine was in immediate response to the feminist movement. I don’t think so. Out side of the fact that medically, most abortions are miscarriages, a smaller percentage are still births; Mr. Neumann doesn’t seem to recognize the difference between an abortion (miscarriage) and aborticide (the deliberate ending of fetal life). If he has a problem understanding the difference between the two, then he has a bigger problem trying to tell me what I am supposed to think.
What I believe I said in the letter he actually doesn’t refer to as he lined up his talking points ducks in a row; was that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution puts certain constraints on Congress with respect to the establishment of religion and certainly, that there can be no prohibiting of the free exercise of religion. Just because Mr. Neumann wants to regard me as a convenient target doesn’t change the facts of what is in the first amendment. Nor does it change the facts that the 14th amendment grants the same rights at the state level that exist at the federal level. The states have no more authority to enact religious doctrine into law than does Congress.
I don’t reject religion as such. I just don’t happen to be a Christian. I also know a few things about “Christianity” that has less to do with the “Judeo- culture” and more to do with articles of pagan faith. Most holidays and celebrations are founded upon pagan holidays and celebrations. Well then, Mr. Neumann is flat out wrong about the foundings of western civilizaton. On another note, I don’t control the decisions of others. If that has Mr. Neumann all bent out of shape because I say that, so be it. This is a free and democratic society; if that also has Mr. Neumann all bent out of shape over that fact, so be it.
Mr. Neumann doesn’t know who I am. A long time ago, I made the conscious decision to never have children, because of the medical reasons of scoliosis and also, because children happened to be something I could never have afforded. That’s right, a choice was made. For other women, if they didn’t want children right away, they could make a choice as well. Many different choices could have been made: abstinence and birth control. Only in the worst case situation would aborticide be considered. I also noted that Neumann carefully wrote out of his tirade any idea that men ought to accept responsibility for getting a woman pregnant. If the man didn’t want to be saddled with children: then he could resort to abstinence or a condom. But, abortion for “convenience?” Abortion as the premier form of “birth control?” The figure Mr. Neumann wants to hysterically cite, 55 MILLION!— covers a period from Roe v Wade 1973(?) to the present time. Neumann’s tirade is undercut by specific facts: We are talking about more than forty years in which doctors could legally perform acts of aborticide. Out of those forty years, 55 million means what statistically? Approximately 2.65 women on a daily basis over a period of 40 years chose to have “abortions for reasons of convenience” or “abortions as a method of birth control.” Uh, sorry Neumann; but I fail to find a holocaust argument in all of this. I do however find a very good reason to reject Mr. Neumann’s radical leftist demands for a bigger and more intrusive government.