Untitled

This appeared as a letter to the editor in the Dayton Daily News on February 27, 1993.

Civil Rights are the Issue.

Religion and freedom of religion are not the issue. Civil Rights are the issue. By bringing religion into the discussion, those who support abortion as a choice are clouding the picture.

I am a pro-life agnostic. I oppose abortion because it is unjust, and it is wrong. Abortion is unjust because it treats equals unequally. In particular, one class of humans is arbitrarily defined to be inferior in order to protect the self-interest of other classes. Abortion is wrong because it deliberately takes an innocent human life. The abortion battle is between self-interest, on the one hand, and equality and justice, on the other.

As a civil rights movement, the pro-life movement has many facets. We educate the public in many ways: through writing, speaking, and public relations campaigns. We offer free positive alternatives to abortion, including the provision of emotional support during pregnancy, after delivery, and after adoption (if the woman chooses that option); the provision of prenatal medical advice and care; the provision of housing during pregnancy, if needed; the provision of food and clothing during pregnancy and after delivery; the provision of baby furniture; the provision of parenting classes; and assistance with obtaining aid from social service agencies not engaged in abortion. We are active legislatively in supporting pro-life legislation and opposing pro-death laws. We are active politically in supporting pro-life candidates. Finally, we protest injustice by picketing abortion providers.

As a civil rights movement, our membership is diverse. Some are devoutly religious, while others are non-believers. We are brought together by the commitment to equality and justice for all humans: born and pre-born. It is time to bury the "red herring" of abortion being a religious issue.

Byron C. Hall, Jr.

This is a letter to the editor published in the Dayton Daily News on January 1, 1996.

Take a hard look at how we treat all defenseless creatures

Are all values subjective and relative to the person making the value judgment? The Editorial Board of the Dayton Daily News apparently thinks they are, when you consider the interesting juxtaposition of editorials in the December 10 edition of the paper.

In one editorial ("Bucky was more than 'in season'") the death of Bucky, the inquisitive, commuter-friendly deer, was condemned. "Bucky, it seems was more than a deer. He was an ambassador who crossed the line, representing the wild while venturing to the fence to receive a carrot or to have his picture taken by his many admirers.

"His death should provoke us to take a hard look at how we treat those more defenseless than ourselves."

The other editorial ("Congress would do well to wait for Judge Rice's abortion decision"), after describing the D & X abortion procedure, criticized Congress for banning it before Judge Rice made his decision on the Ohio law. The editorial even went on to describe other abortion procedures.

While a tiny fraction of abortions is performed to save the life or physical health of the mother, the overwhelming majority of them are performed for non-therapeutic reasons. Why do the editors condemn the killing of Bucky, but do not criticize such non-therapeutic abortions? Could it be that in the eyes of the editors, Bucky had value because he was known to many people from his many interactions with them, but unwanted, unborn children have no value?

By this logic, weren't those who slaughtered Bucky justified if the only value they saw in him was that of a trophy? Isn't there something wrong with such subjectivity of value?

As one who respects wild creatures and humans for their intrinsic value, I think that we should all be provoked to take a hard look at how we treat all those more defenseless than ourselves.

Byron C. Hall, Jr.