Again Mr. Seberger has failed to read everything before sharing his thoughts. The hypocrisy he spews amazes me. He says he is explaining the anti-abortion stance when all he did was misrepresent Ms. Marcus’s fantastic column as he is misrepresenting my letter. ÿÿÿÿÿHe said I generalized anti-abortionists into a larger political group and that Catholics are largely democrat. A shame his argument is flawed. The current push and worry about the anti-abortion movement comes from our newly un-elected president. ÿÿÿÿÿThis movement, led by the religious right, is the source for any change in the abortion laws. I concede there are democrats who are anti-abortion, but these people aren’t making our laws, which is the source of the debate. ÿÿÿÿÿHe says I’m against children on welfare. I’m saying anti-abortionists are also trying to cut welfare and programs lower-class single mothers need to raise their children, especially if abortion is made illegal. ÿÿÿÿÿAll children should be given a good life if they come into the world. I do not believe living on welfare means a child will have a bad life. Is that simple enough? ÿÿÿÿÿThen Seberger says, “No politician is going to look a raped woman in the eyes and tell her she has to have the child.” You aren’t just talking about compromising issues, you are talking about compromising morality. If it is morally wrong to kill babies because all life is sacred there should be no compromise. You can’t have it both ways. ÿÿÿÿÿ Blaine Moyle

Junior

English