Diana Ronald-Szabo's Letters to the Editor
The Mountaineer, Waynesville, NC, Fri., March 24, 1989
Forum: Abortion no answer to population problem
To the editor:
With reference to Olen Hardwich's response on March 25 to my March 10 letter claiming that "Population Explosion" is just a myth, I pose the following question: Because landfills cannot be found in this immediate area and because fewer people lived here 50 years ago, are these valid reasons for abortion and euthanasia? That's what is behind this myth.
It doesn't make sense that God would issue the edict, "Increase and Multiply," without providing adequate space for all of humanity, balancing its numbers through daily deaths as well as daily births. It takes audacity to question His authority and integrity.
I don't know the answer to the local landfill problem but it certainly isn't abortion and euthanasia.
Another myth which should be dispelled is the "Poverty Breeds Crime" myth. It is unfair to those who live in poverty and are outstanding, decent, law-abiding citizens, compassionate and caring about the welfare of others. Let's not forget that there are many well-to-do people who commit crimes also.
While some crime may be caused by physical poverty, most crimes are caused by the spiritual poverty that lies within the human heart, which rejects God's moral teachings and falls victim to indulgence of self above all.
Hardwich says, "Let birth control be practiced." Why not abstinence, since most abortions are committed on unmarried women? As the Rev. Dahl B. Seckinger of the Christian Missionary Alliance so aptly put it: "There is an alternative among the unmarried that I haven't seen mentioned -- that of chastity. It is a good alternative. It's foolproof, it is not hazardous to your health, parental permission is not needed, it is not discriminatory between the sexes as either can practice this form of birth control. It is energy-saving. It is tax-free and does not require billions of dollars in federal spending, nor is any red tape involved. I might add that it eliminates much of the danger of contracting venereal disease. Is this too simplistic an answer to the problem? It is medically sound and safe in its practice. There is no question about its moral implications. It is Biblical. Why not deal with the cause rather than effects?"
Hardwich proposes sterilization by the government after the second or third child. What really needs sterilization is Harwich's kind of destructive thinking.
Diana Ronald-Szabo, Canton
Back to Diana Ronald-Szabo's Letters to the Editor