Writing a letter to the Arizona Republic in response to Susan Estrich's objections to the projected anti-abortion superbowl ad

Opinions@arizonarepublic.com

Re: Anti-abortion ad

Susan Estrich suggests that the country's million and more legal abortions a year are all performed for important reasons, such as rape or incest, or retardation, which were usually the only reasons abortion could be obtained in most states before Roe vs. Wade in 1973. You could not say the father abused you which seems to be justafication enough for her. The point is that most of the a large number of abortions performed in this country now are for birth control purposes. It is legal to get an abortion for any reason up to birth. The media by becoming predominately pro choice has suppressed pro life arguments for years. I don't know how this ad slipped through. I hope that it means less suppression of discussion of the many reasons legalized abortion seems brutal and inhumane to many. One ad cannot possibly represent all the reasons abortion may not be a good idea and to expect one to do so is only another justification for continued suppression of pro life arguments
.
Gerry King Hitt"

This is the letter I sent. Susan Estrich suggests in her column today that abuse by the father is also a valid reason to get an abortion. I thought gee, if all women who got abused by the father of their unborn children got an abortion!!

I want to point out that the media went immediately pro choice once legalized abortion was unexpectedly accomplished with the Roe vs. Wade decision by the Supreme Court, but this has continued to be one of the most divisive issues in our country today. You would not think anybody who worked for a newspaper believed in God or a hereafter or a soul or else none of them had the courage of their convictions. If you were going to lose your job because of your religious beliefs in pro life, you might be tempted to change your mind. Because of the embrace of so many in the media of this new more brutal attitude about the unborn, I had to accept the fact that I was going to be mighty unpopular if I continued to try to be a playwright and novelist and pro life, too. It seemed that the two just weren't compatible even on the less sophisticated supposedly newspaper staff on Arizona's largest newspaper in its largest city, Phoenix. It seemed that a leftist liberal editorial page in the Arizona Republic was supported by the owner and publisher in a supposedly Republican conservative state. So I am sure that no newspaper in the country published more leftist pro choice columnists than the Republic. I know because I was kept so busy for years protesting them.
The newspaper was sold less than 10 years ago to Garnett which also published the national newspaper, Today, which some of you may have read. But the editorial staff retained the man who used to pick those pro choice columns to print, so I am sure he has continued to have quite a lot of influence in keeping the editorial page supportive of legalized abortion. And it would not be hard to find enough pro choice newspaper staff to keep the newspaper just as firmly pro choice as it has been since the Roe vs. Wade decision.
John McCain is notably pro life. Makes no difference. So now I will be surprised if my letter is even printed since very few pro life letters are printed in this newspaper. Yes, you can slant the letter section. Pro life writers can be ignored for years if that is what the editor of the editorial page wants to do, which is why I have almost given up posting in my G4Life blog on AZCentral, the newspaper's blog site. If the newspaper never prints any protest columns or letters, nobody is going to read mine back there on the blog site. There are so many blogs now days mine could easily be overlooked. All the columnists are blogging. It is a good line of defense in order to defuse what the people blog you disagree with, and if you are already an established columnist who are people going to read? Suppression of opinion on this subject has been very effective. You end up having to fight a pro choice media on and on for years.
However if you disagree with pro choice you try to keep your point of view alive even if no one seems to be reading.
I will be surprised if the anti-abortion ad that the controversy is all about will even run, but it is creating a stir at this stage. It suggests that an abortion might have deprived us of a future Heisman winner since one winner's mother had been advised to get an abortion because of a medical condition. She didn't, the baby was fine, and he went on to become the great football player the ad features by name.
But yes that is one disturbing thing about legalizing abortion for any reason up to 9 months. The mother does not have to have 'a good reason.' In previous days most states would allow abortion for only such reasons as incest or rape and in some states tests that proved the baby had Down's syndrome or some other serious impairment. Abuse by the father was not considered a good enough reason. So yes, now days you could be aborting a great athlete, a musical genius, for not very good reasons to my mind.

Religion has become synonymous with believing in a soul and an afterlife, either heaven or hell depending on your history. So I assume that most who believe in legalized abortion don't necessarily believe that these children survive death and we will meet them someday and have to have a discussion about why it was necessary to abort them, that is if we are agreeable to a judgment day and an assessment of our wrong doings.
I am one who thinks I have seen and experienced enough evidence to convince me that there is eternal life. Otherwise why would I feel myself going thousands of miles an hour into space to a place called heaven at the exact moment I may have suffered an interruption of life after an operation? Shortly following a cesarian I dreamed I saw my soul drifting upwards in the form of streams of light with my father who had passed sitting by my bedside. I woke up and felt myself dying and called for help. I felt my heart about to go into cardiac arrest when nurses and doctors burst into the room.
During another time, I ceased to feel, saw a light coming down which I perceived as an angel. I felt ecstasy and prepared to ascend into paradise. The person who had been trying to kill me for several hours had his hands around my throat and at that critical moment he stopped.
I do not feel that members of the media will even allow themselves to be impressed by such experiences. They are not 'scientific.' In other words nothing has been proved. Well, I could hardly go any further than I did into death on several occasions and live to tell about it, but such experiences have been continually dismissed by the media. I call it inability to reason about very complex matters. In other words we are often in the hands of the skeptical who are skeptical to a fault. We all know people who could not be persuaded no matter what evidence a reasonable person be expected to accept. Some skeptical are not reasonable. Yes, they exist, too. Their minds are closed. Yes, people on both sides can have closed minds. A closed mind can be a liberal fault when it comes to an issue like abortion especially. Hey, discussion closed. We now have abortion so accept it!
So we have to keep fighting to lessen the control of the media by the 'non believers.' That is people who equate such experiences as mine strongly suggesting the flight of the spirit from the body as it progresses toward death with the wishful thinking of the religious. I went as far as I could into those realms without actually dying, and I think spirits have visited me in the realm I inhabit in life as well as they could and still be spirits.
Yes, there is brain washing in religion. Religion has always been prey to charlatans who make false claims. By its very nature, religion lends itself to such, but by the same token, the debunkers can be just as insensitive to facts that require a lot of study and analysis to interpret. Nobody said it was easy to come to accurate conclusions about matters we don't know much about. I like to delve into these matters anyway, thinking that is always been the way of man studying what he does not yet understand. I try to figure out how we can get through the naysayers' control of the media. I am tired of them seeing through a glass darkly and getting me upset when I read the newspaper knowing from past experience it is going to be very hard to get anything past their bias. I am one reader and letter writer who does not count because I don't agree with the people who choose what letters to print! What they think is the truth is often very dull and boring and not very inspiring to read. A little conjecture based on facts would certainly liven their publications up, but these people do not have the imagination or courage to risk such thinking.