A few weeks ago you printed a letter from a reader who referred to abortions as "a safe, humane way" to terminate a pregnancy. This was in response to another reader who asked what the difference was between an abortion and a young girl letting her newborn die stuffed in a cabinet. May I answer?
First, I would ask the "humane" writer just which procedure she was referring to? Was she talking about partial-birth abortions? This is where the infant is forcibly delivered until only the head remains inside the birth canal. Then a long-hollow needle is jammed into the base of the infant's skull. It is then wriggled around to scramble the brain, which is then suctioned out. The now empty skull is then delivered.
Or perhaps she was referring to the saline method, where a salt solution is injected into the womb. This causes burns to the infant with sloughing off of skin and tissue, along with damaging the placental membrane until the baby dies, after which the usually dead infant is delivered. I say usually dead, because sometimes the infant survives this caustic bath to enter the world, where it then is terminated.
Or maybe she prefers the old tried and true method of simply reaching into the womb with instruments, which are used to tear the infant apart limb from limb, after which the myriad of parts are suctioned out.
As for the second question, let me answer: The only true difference between abortions and what several women have done recently is that someone makes money with abortions; the other way they don't.
Timothy Walker, North Augusta