I read a fascinating article a day or two ago, wherein the author answered a very pointed letter. The writer of the letter asked why liberals who support abortion “feel it’s okay to murder innocent babies who just ‘didn’t come at the right time’ or who ‘interfere’ but don’t think it’s okay to defend our country from terrorists who have slaughtered countless Americans for their own pleasure?” The author gave his own answers to this charming list of inflammatory word choices (”murder innocent babies”) and euphemisms (”defend”). Here are mine:

(Before I really begin, let me say that I support abortion on a legal basis because it is a personal decision that the government therefore has no right to make it for an individual. Until someone scientifically proves when human life as we know it begins, no one can say whether or not a fetus counts as a human being, and if so, when.)

First off, the word “murder.” As I mentioned before, no one can really be sure when a fetus gains human consciousness. Yes, it is biologically alive starting at conception, but so is athlete’s foot. So are the cows that are locked, unable to move, in cages filled with their own filth in dairies and slaughterhouses before meeting a death that is gruesome by any standard. These animals are at least as alive and “innocent” as any fetus could be, possibly more innocent if one believes in original sin, but I have yet to meet a vegan anti-abortionist. (Personally, I enjoy dairy products and choose not to eat red meat for health reasons.) I will also point out that 98% of abortions–and virtually all voluntary abortions–are performed in the first trimester, when the fetus resembles a prawn rather than a human infant. This is not what people think of when they hear the word “baby.” The controversial but rare third trimester abortions, which do take place when the fetus may begin to look an actual baby, are only performed when a wanted pregnancy threatens the mother’s life and health, or when the fetus has such severe defects that it wouldn’t be able to survive after birth, anyway. The entire debate over “partial-birth abortions” is a smoke screen.

Second, there’s more to a baby being born at the wrong time or interfering with the mother’s life than the anti-abortion correspondent admits. Unintended pregnancy is the leading cause of poverty in the United States. Women who get abortions often do so in order to stay in school and remain or climb above the poverty line. The political right, which opposes abortion, also keeps cutting back funding for education and programs for the needy. By opposing abortion, conservatives work to perpetuate poverty and crime that results from it. Forcing a woman to have an unwanted child often sentences both her and her child to poverty. This does not help anyone, the child least of all.

There remains the argument that the baby could be put up for adoption, but adoption is not as simple as it seems. While there are many parents willing to adopt, nearly all of them want European-American children. Most of the children who are up for adoption have the wrong color of skin, and get passed over by prospective parents.

The anti-abortion movement also seems to forget that abortions are not obtained lightly. It is a harrowing decision for a woman to make, and the procedure is often as traumatic as birthing a child can be. Aside from the emotional abuse thrown at them by abortion clinic protesters, these women also have to deal with the social stigma of abortion which views them as selfish and irresponsible, when in fact they have made the best choice for themselves, for the never-to-be-born child, and for society.

Neither I nor any other pro-choice activist demand that every pregnancy end in abortion. We simply demand that women be allowed to make the choice for themselves, without interference from the government or religious zealots whose lives will not be affected by the misery that they demand for others.

Third, the astute letter-writer claims that pro-choicers “don’t think it’s okay to defend our country from terrorists who have slaughtered countless Americans for their own pleasure.” I have never heard anyone say that it’s not okay to defend our country from terrorists, liberal or otherwise, and I seriously doubt that the person who wrote the letter has, either. I can only assume that she means to refer to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. People who see lack of war as defenselessness need to realize that the terrorists are doing the same thing that the war supporters think we are doing: defending their homes from those they think of as evil. I’m not saying that Americans are evil or terrorists themselves; I am saying that the people we call terrorists see us in the same way we see them. The Saddam loyalists have long since been run out of Iraq; the terrorists who keep flooding into Iraq to kill American troops are only doing so because they want us out of their homeland. They don’t try to kill us for being American; they try to kill us because we won’t leave them alone. They are not killing for pleasure; in their eyes, they are killing in the defense of their homes, families, and way of life–just like we are. If we just left their backyards, like we would want them to do if they were in America, the very vast majority of them would leave us in peace, and the rest might stop thinking we were so bad. And for the record, we’ve killed a lot more of them than they have of us.

There you have it: I oppose the war in the Middle East because it ends kills for no good reason and creates enemies for America, and I support abortion because it simply prevents life in order to save lives that already exist.