Diana Ronald-Szabo's Letters to the Editor

Note from LoveMatters.com: No place of publication is available for this letter.


Nov. 4, 1980

Promiscuity breeds abortion

In the defense of the murder of the unborn (more politely referred to as "Abortion"; this softens the horror), there is an underlying bid being made for promiscuity on the part of the unmarried who wish to continue in their immorality without accepting the consequences. In an effort to ease their conscience they employ all sorts of defense lines to justify their behavior.

They close their minds to the horrible crime of murder, which they commit as a result of a few fleeting moments of indulgence in action outside of marriage to which, according to moral law, they have no right. The defense line that a woman should do whatever she wishes with her own body ignores the fact that an expectant woman has to eat for two and has to think for two, thus proving that her body is not solely her own. There is now a new human life which must be considered...otherwise she would not be expecting.

The point is not whether an unborn baby is or isn't a human being (who else would be growing in a human being?). The point is that there is growth because there is life there, and the taking of this life, whether in its early or advanced stages, is murder! The "Pro-Choice" tag which the anti-life people have attached to themselves suits them perfectly, for it admits openly to the world their intention to choose murder. Many heartaches could be avoided if this problem were solved at its very beginning, and that is through the practice of abstinence.

The following statement from Rev. Dahl B. Seckinger sums it up very well: "There is an alternative for the unmarried that I haven't seen mentioned, that of chastity. It is a good alternative. It is foolproof, it is not hazardous to your health, parental permission is not needed, it is nondiscriminatory between the sexes as either can practice this form of birth control. It is cheaper than any other 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?"

Diana Ronald-Szabo

Pound Ridge

 


Back to Diana Ronald-Szabo's Letters to the Editor