To the editor:

The majority of abortions are not as a result of a fetus being determined to have an abnormality; the butcher of the baby is not interested in anything other than murdering it.

The majority of pregnancies do not endanger the mother. That is a medical fact. Besides, a pregnant woman has an abundance of resources available to her to correct a problem or problems relating to her particular situation.

The 14th Amendment does in fact offer protections to the unborn. The word “Life” pertains to the miracle of life when sperm meets egg. Citing certain words or phrases from the Constitution, and its amendments to superfluously support or oppose a position without thought to the consequences is disingenuous.

People talk about considering the woman’s body. What about the baby girl’s body? Does that demonstrate discrimination toward boy babies?

In all of this, there is a total absence regarding what the baby is and what protections it has and deserves. Those who favor the barbaric slaughter of the child should watch on a monitor as the human in the womb tries to escape the butcher’s knife. Watch the human in the womb open its mouth in a silent scream of pain.

Another piece missing from this puzzle is what an abortion looks like. Throughout history since the invention of the camera, photo journalists have recorded some amazing events. When was the last time you had the advantage of seeing the product of an abortion? The press does not want you to see it because if you did you would surely oppose it. If you have a few minutes, take a look at the image of the living 18-week old fetus and placenta by Lennart Nilsson. And we kill these things?

Months of pregnancy and childbirth: Isn’t that what creation is about? If you are a woman reading this, did you view your pregnancy as a months-long burden? Did not your child’s first cry after entering life give you great joy? Seventy to 80 million little babies were never given that privilege or chance of breathing life.

These laws, Roe and Casey, are unjust. Here is what Martin Luther King, Jr. had to say about such laws in his Letter From Birmingham Jail dated June 12, 1963: “There are two types of laws, just and un-just. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey un-just laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an un-just law is no law at all.”

What is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or un-just? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An un-just law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: “An un-just law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is un-just.”

The Charter of the United Nations mentions, “To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and nations large and small.” The Supreme Court in Roe and Casey got it all wrong. Justice Sotomayor mentioned a “stench” would be on The Court if these two laws were to be overturned.

The United States of America has been deceived in thinking it just to kill babies in the womb and has committed one of the greatest of crimes against humanity in the history of the world. We will be judged accordingly.

Dave Cooper

Churubusco