Letter: Pro-life more than anti-abortion

Your article in The Advocate regarding the Jan. 12 Louisiana Life March to the State Capitol was welcome coverage of the people’s outpouring of demonstrative sentiment against our society’s callous indifference toward human life.

However, it was sad to see how Baton Rouge’s premier news outlet yielded to the standard Associated Press’ glossary requirement that the term “anti-abortion” be substituted for “pro-life” in so literally vital an issue, thus coloring it in a negative way. In fact, those who are pro-life are pro-life during the entire period of a person’s existence, from the very beginning of his or her life at fertilization until its end at natural death.

I was at the rally myself, and, although the word “abortion” was necessarily used in the wider context of being pro-life within our society’s current antagonism to developing life in the womb, I do not remember anyone using “anti-abortion” during the talks given by the religious, legislative and other pro-life leaders present. Yet “pro-life” only appeared in The Advocate article in the context of an attempted criticism by the seven counterprotestors who were on the rally’s sidelines.

There is no valid medical or biologic argument that a developing child in a human mother’s womb is anything but human, yet 55 million-57 million such unborn children have been aborted in the United States since the Supreme Court’s disastrous Roe v. Wade decision of 40 years ago — in Louisiana, over 448,000, including almost 9,000 in 2011. In that ruling, the court conceded that, upon establishment of the humanity of the child in utero, its Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions would fall.

In fact, however, the earliest beginnings of human life began to be well understood scientifically as long ago as about the time of the Declaration of Independence, when Lazzaro Spallanzani first showed that both egg and sperm are needed to create a new life. All additional medical and biologic information acquired since, including, most recently, that from genetic and DNA analysis and even from the examination of aborted fetuses (Latin for “young ones”), has totally supported that earliest humanity.

In being pro-life, one necessarily has to be against abortion, but repeatedly casting those who are pro-life, and pro-life rallies such as the one Jan. 12, as only being against abortion, unfortunately promotes an anti-life agenda unworthy of a responsible press interested in presenting the truth.

W.A. Krotoski, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., president

The Hippocratic Resource

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by potkcalb - 28/01/2013

Haggling over the semantics of terms about abortion is not going to change anyone's mind. There is nothing that can be said that has not already been repeated over and over again.

2) Comment by billynurse - 28/01/2013

The gov'mt didn't coerce them into getting pregnant.....And only in America can some have conniptions over the death penalty for murderers, then say it's totally fine to take an innocent life.

3) Comment by DMJ - 27/01/2013

Also, the term "pro-choice" is 100% accurate. If you don't want to have an abortion, you don't have to. The point is, you have that choice. It's easy for someone to call themselves "pro-life." It sounds nice, doesn't it? But when it comes down to it, no pro-lifer will man up and admit they want the government to coerce women into carrying a pregnancy to term, which is what banning abortion would entail.

4) Comment by MBW - 26/01/2013

Only in America can you be pro-war, pro-gun, pro-death penalty and still call yourself pro-life.

5) Comment by nimby? - 26/01/2013

or they could not get pregnant and stay in school .

6) Comment by Ivy - 26/01/2013

There's an elephant in the room.

7) Comment by Ivy - 26/01/2013

@twinkle1cat, you are right on with your comments, but you're wasting your keystrokes with this group. If all of the churches here in BR got together, supplemented the bus line with their vans, to take women to OLOL, it would go a long way towards showing how much they support the not-yet-born. Imagine, if while these women were riding to their appointments, a dvd plays which gives them information about money management, better housing, jobs, etc.,

8) Comment by Whatnow - 26/01/2013

Twinkie1cat, just who got those women pregnant? Why is every aspect of the poor's lives a responsibility of the taxpayer? They are given every opportunity to rise from being poor with free education, but they refuse to take those opportunities. So, why should the taxpayers be responsible for these poor choices? Why should the taxpayer be responsible from cradle to grave because of those poor choices? What contribution to society do they produce? They want to be taken care of, that's what. Just like children. They don't want to be responsible adults and they live with generations of the same thought. The government has made it so easy to live like they do. As long as the government coddles the poor, the less reason they have for being responsible for themselves. It's that mindset that "Greedy Republicans" want to help. They want them to rise up and become the middle class. The Democrats want them to stay poor and throws them more bones for votes. You over exaggerate as usual. If these people can go to the store to use their food stamps, they can find a way to the doctor or hospital. What does not having Medicaid got to do with the bus service? Why didn't the Democrats of BR go to vote on the CATS issue? When I was dirt poor just like them, I didn't demand anything from the government. Not a thing. But, they want it all. Every aspect of their lives depends on the taxpayer and I guess that's okay with you. But, the taxpayers are getting tired of that mindset generation after generation. When does it stop? Republicans don't mind helping those who cannot help themselves and the sick, but taking care of able bodied adults that refuse to work or take advantage of free education is ridiculous. It's time to stop that mindset of victimization.

9) Comment by nimby? - 26/01/2013

twinkie1cat , there are services available in North B.R , there is transportation to Womens , enough with the guilt trip , ok ? you keep referring to the "greedy republicans" . what about the sorry A** deadbeat ***** dad that never seems to be around , where is his criticism ? victim of society ? get over it ....

10) Comment by twinkie1cat - 25/01/2013

Pregnant women and those with premature babies in Women's Hospital are having to walk down Airline to their appointments if they don't have Medicaid because the last bus stop does not take them all the way there thanks to the pro-lifers of Southeast Baton Rouge. Our "pro-life" governor shut down the Ob/Gyn clinic in North Baton Rouge where they could get care on the busline. Our pro-life Republicans mucking up Southeast Baton Rouge did not want CATS so Women's has no bus service. Yet the Jindal administration, after trying to cut their funding for high risk babies wanted most delivered there. Real pro-life huh? Let's see if anything improves when a toddler gets killed on Airline going to the doctor with mama or a woman goes into labor on the median. Will the pro-lifers change their greedy Republican minds then? I doubt it. They are too busy going to rallies.

11) Comment by twinkie1cat - 25/01/2013

You would think "pro-life" would encompass a whole lot of life enhancing and fulfilling social justice issues----quality schools taught only by teachers with education degrees who were secure in their jobs, good compensation for kinship care, easy adoption, no death penalty and prisons that focused on rehabilitation, courts that sent only the most difficult people to prison, universal and accessible medical care, free transportation for pregnant women and parents of children who are hospitalized, food stamps, housing subsidies for parents, immigration that welcomed children from other countries therapy for adults and children with injuries or disabilities covered by Medicaid, quality hospice care in one's own home, tight regulation of nursing homes to the point of near non- existence, quality, accessible mental health care, universal pre- kindergarten, equal rights for children who are born gay. Trouble is , this is Louisiana and I have yet to see a person who claimed to be pro-life who supported any of these causes, who were social justice and fiscal liberals. For most anti- abortionists are just that: ANTI-ABORTION, not pro-life and would just as soon throw that baby the they fought to be born on a trash heap as take care of him or her once it is costing them money. And we have a governor who pushes the envelope not only to not only not being his brother's keeper, but to outright cruelty to the elderly, disabled, children, and the poor. And the "pro-lifers" refuse to dispose of him and his clones and replace them with the real pro-lifers we need----those who are more concerned with the children who are already here.

12) Comment by prbeav - 25/01/2013

potkcalb, I speculate your observation can be explained by the failure of the influence of God. It should not be surprising, because each person relies on their own God or none. Therefore, each person pulls in a different direction but can find people who rely on a similar God or none. The US Constitution would separate church and state.>>>>Groups of people expect their God to deliver the group's wishes.>>>>President Obama, like all presidents, employs the influence of God to keep the people divided. And he, like Lincoln, emphasizes the Declaration of Independence to suppress the United States Constitution. Lincoln had a reason: his US Constitution, without the 13th Amendment, had preserved slavery. >>>>It wasn't 1776. In 1787, the rebellious representatives of 12 States who were sent to Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation instead challenged at least 9 of the 13 States to form a nation under the US Constitution. It starts, "We the People of the United States" then lists seven goals that offer each person the opportunity to live under the rule of law according to personal opinion.>>>>Obama miss-states it as "we, the people," leaving the seven goals out of the question. We the People have the opportunity that the people have shunned for 224 years. Instead of waiting for the influence of God, we can be the first Americans to commit to the preamble, which could unite us yet, each citizen still free to rely on their God or none.

13) Comment by potkcalb - 25/01/2013

The history of America has been called "the history of compromise." It seems to me that at no time in our history have people been less willing to compromise than now. I am reminded of the quote from Romeo and Juliet..."a plague on both your houses."

14) Comment by chem - 25/01/2013

Just to show the hypocrisy on this issue (Google it) : A Catholic hospital in Colorado has argued in court documents that it is not liable for the deaths of two 7-month-old fetuses because those fetuses are not people. ••• So far, courts have side with the hospital ••• But that defense contradicts church teaching that human life is sacred from the moment of conception. At least one prominent abortion foe called the hospital's claims morally untenable. ••• So it comes down to money on whether or not a fetus is a person or not. Hypocritical morons.

15) Comment by krl777 - 25/01/2013

It doesn't help to know the biological facts if your thinking is as sloppy as Dr. Krotoski's. An embryo or early fetus is human in having a distinctive human genome. If that is sufficient for being a human being, then abortion is murder, but then in vitro fertilization is even worse since it typically throws out multiple embryos per treatment. Also, my little finger is human since it has human DNA, so amputation of my finger would be counted wrong, even if it were medically necessary. On the other hand, abortifacient drugs should be okay, on that criterion, provided they are used and take effect before the formation of a new genome is complete. (Fertilization is not instantaneous.) So the situation is more complicated than Krotoski admits, even on the most restrictive view of how biology weighs in. But in fact, biology doesn't decide the question for us. Krotoski is merely pretending that biology settles the question in the way he prefers. We might just as well say, on grounds of biology, that a human being is a creature with the neural structure to have human thoughts and feelings. On this view, embryos and early fetuses are not human beings, and abortion in the first trimester, at least, is not fraught with moral questions about murder. Krotoski assumes that if you know the medical and biological facts of ontogenesis, then you will be driven automatically to his view of what constitutes a human being. That's false. It is possible to know the facts, yet have a dfiferent view of what makes a human being, deserving of the protection of society and the law. In short, Krotoski is fooling himself, or trying to fool us.

16) Comment by maybe_sparrow - 25/01/2013

Can't believe phil isn't already in his eighties.

17) Comment by maybe_sparrow - 25/01/2013

That's funny, because while the letter writer might be an exception, most of the so-called "pro-life" people I encounter cease to be "pro- life" as soon as people are born.

18) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 25/01/2013

The terms should be pro-choice and anti-choice.

19) Comment by Whatnow - 25/01/2013

I wonder if anyone would consider calling "pro-choice" the term "anti-life?

20) Comment by DMJ - 25/01/2013

Pro-life for the "entire period of a person's existence"? Is he kidding? I could stand anywhere in Baton Rouge (or the whole South for that matter), randomly throw a rock and hit someone who's pro-life, who's also pro-death penalty, pro-gun, pro-war and anti-social services (and anti-irony, I guess). And in case he doesn't realize, "anti-abortion" was the entire purpose of this rally. People showed up at this thing because they're against (anti) abortion. Sorry, Doc, if you don't like the term, but it's 100% accurate, whereas "pro-life" (for those of us who have our heads out of the sand) only applies to someone before they're even born. After that, conservatism trumps compassion. Oh....and about the 55 million abortions? Call me insensitive, but that sounds like 55 million unwanted pregnancies averted to me.

21) Comment by nimby? - 25/01/2013

this is a tough one for me . my father didn't want me , my mother did . it cost her life bringing me into this world . from what I understand my father blamed me and walked away , never met him . luckily there was family there to step in . so many children are thrown away because there is no one to "step in" . the choice should come down to the mother carrying . she will need solid , intelligent advice , and positive support from family and/or friends . this one is always going to be a tough call , but it should be based on the individual , not a blanket solution

22) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 25/01/2013

No one is arguing about whether a fertilized ovum is biological matter; no one is trying to argue that it is mineral instead. Nor is anyone arguing about whether the fertilized ovum is human matter; no one is trying to argue that it is vegetable or some other animal. Those facts do not resolve the issue. And frankly, deciding whether the fertilized ovum -- the potential independent human being – deserves personhood STILL does not answer the question of whether abortion should be legal. Abortion exists in any case and always will. Whether and under what circumstance it should be legal is a social, and hence legal, question. It has already been resolved, but that can be changed, obviously, if our society wants to. We should stop wasting our time on the silliness of arguing about what is life. But anyway, as far as this letter writer goes, I believe saying you care about all life, from cradle to grave, does not make it so.

23) Comment by prbeav - 25/01/2013

Dr. Krotoski's perseverance in a bad cause has been amazing. Each of his letters has caused me to think about the issues.>>>>"Pro-life" seems a disingenuous slogan; moreover, an inadequate representation of the problem. Defending a woman's privacy in the decision whether to remain pregnant or not is pro-life. Accepting nature's methods of inducing natural abortion is pro-life. Actions that hold men responsible for their sexual activities are pro-life. Separating medical insurance for pregnant women from insurance for abortions as a means of contraception is pro-life. Relieving the single man from legal rights regarding the child he created would be pro-life. Teaching in public schools human sexuality as a means of bonding between adults, often leading to the commitment to love and care-for children that may result from their bonding would be pro-life. And so on. Absolutism like anti-abortion without regard for the objective truth have no place in humankind's responsible governance.

24) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/01/2013

"Third Estate that both condones and promotes through misrepresentation and demonizing of opponents of it is just grease on the slide." Since the Third Estate refers to the commoners, I will keep that in mind when you demonize YOUR opponents...

25) Comment by [e-mail] - 25/01/2013

A nation is in trouble when certain symtoms appear; there's no doubt about that, it is well documented. A government facilitating the killing of babies is not something that can be good, and a Third Estate that both condones and promotes through misrepresentation and demonizing of opponents of it is just grease on the slide.

26) Comment by Chucky - 25/01/2013

Nice spin Mr. W.A. Krotoski but that is all it is, spin.

27) Comment by palefire - 25/01/2013

Phil, you know when your teachers said there are no dumb questions —they were lying. You ask about the definition of life with almost every letter written into the Advocate. The question has no bearing here. Also, stop the fear mongering. Nobody wants to kill the 80 year old version of yourself.

28) Comment by Bighug - 25/01/2013

Is the doctor saying that pro-life people are against other forms of birth control?

29) Comment by phil - 24/01/2013

When and if I get to be in my 80s, I hope by then pro choice does not apply to the elderly too. Who really wants to play God and make decisions about when human life begins or ends? Do you really know enough to make those decisions? What really is life and what makes something alive? Do you think you know the answer?