THE PUBLIC MIND: READER AMAZED BY SLOGAN OF `MY BABY, MY BODY, MY CHOICE'

Dear Editor:

Looking at the picture on the front of the Monday edition of the Southeast Missourian, I could not help but to notice the slogan written on the shirt of the woman walking down the sidewalk. It said: MY BABY, MY BODY, MY CHOICE. I personally find this both an amazing admission and a disturbing indictment on how far we have "progressed."

What is amazing about the slogan is the use of MY BABY. This is the first time I've seen an abortion advocate use the word "baby" in this debate. Usually, it's a fetus, or the vague, sanitized product of conception. To diffuse the anti-abortion argument that fetuses are human beings from the moment of conception and should be protected under the Constitution, abortion advocates have tried to convince us that fetuses are nothing more than blobs of tissue that are not human, or at least not fully human.

I have always found this argument disingenuous. After an egg is fertilized and embeds in the womb, all that needs to be done is give it nourishment and time. No other special or magical events occur. As we anti-abortion people like to ask, "At what magical moment is the baby endowed protection under the Constitution?"

Nevertheless, the abortion advocates are able to divert the debate by describing the fetus in inhuman terms and screaming about the "right to control their bodies." It seems that we should view the fetus as a part of the woman's body and an abortion as a simple medical procedure, no different than, say, removing an appendix.

Apparently, the woman walking in front of the abortion protesters has a somewhat different view of the situation. In her slogan she implies that the baby (a separate entity, not a part of her body) is her property to do with as she pleases. She can kill it or let it live and the government can have no say in the matter. This is an incredible attitude. Does anyone remember the last time human beings were property of others and subject to their owners whims? One national shame was enough. Yes, parents should have autonomy over their children, but never to the point of abuse or murder.

Another disturbing implication of her message was the complete denial of a father's claim to the child. No baby can be made without two people and it is not fair that the father of the child can be completely removed from the equation. Unfortunately, many males are quite happy with this arrangement because it allows them to have their fun and shirk their responsibility, leaving a lot of women in the tragic situations that abortion advocates love to describe.

I think that a bursting point will soon be reached. The Supreme Court's usurping of legislative power never allowed a true national debate on the issue. Now, instead of a debate, we have a fight. Maybe the forces of sanity and responsibility will win out, but I'm starting to doubt it. Western Civilization seems intent on committing suicide and with the growing acceptance of euthanasia and the already accepted practice of abortion, we may only be a few decades away from achieving self-induced genocide.

Anthony Kaiser

Gordonville