I was puzzled why the editor-in-chief proudly proclaimed the Bulletin to be “pro-choice” and felt compelled to defend its Romney endorsement. While the endorsement was commendable, I found it appalling that The Bulletin supports abortion, which is the correct translation for the euphemism “pro-choice.”
Was it that necessary to defend against some annoyed pro-choice subscribers, meanwhile alienating those who advocate for the protection of innocent, defenseless human life?
Does The Bulletin not understand that abortion is the killing of an unborn human being? Fortunately, our society is slowly recognizing this biological fact and will eventually demand that the existing law that allows this act of butchery be overturned.
Underlying each “choice” to negate a natural birth is some personal misjudgment and/or failed contraception; then, the unique, human life that is extant in the womb becomes the victim of the mother’s “choice.” Every abortion “choice” pre-empts the respect for a human life, enabling the desired end to justify the immoral means. Are such “choices” worthy of pride and support in a civilized society?
The logic behind why John Costa cited his status as husband, father, etc., as reasons why the right to abortion makes him “happy,” is unclear. One would expect the exact opposite, since familial relationships should enhance one’s respect for life. Regardless, I hope that The Bulletin can find sufficient wisdom to recognize the inhumanity and evil of abortion, and to become supportive of law that protects life at every stage, rather than law that permits its destruction.