MAILBAG:

I have some comments regarding Ira Werner’s statements (“History shouldn’t dictate morals,” Nov. 6) regarding Michelle Marr’s column (“History calls abortion murder,” Oct. 30).

Werner refers to “two moral questions related to abortion: the way we treat the fetus and how we treat the mother,” and the “definition of human life.”

Under Roe v. Wade the mother is the one allowed to choose to terminate the life of her baby for any reason.

If the mother’s life is endangered by the pregnancy, she has the right to self-protection, and can terminate the baby’s life — an extremely difficult decision.

However, our laws are not consistent. If a pregnant mother is killed by someone else and the life of her baby is lost in the process, interestingly the law is now different. The guilty person is tried not for one lost life, but for two! The law is clear in this instance about defining the baby as “human life.”

Abortion statistics are available, although they are estimates due to privacy laws as well as inconsistent, and sometimes deliberately inaccurate reporting methods by those who perform abortions.

It is estimated that in the United States 3,000 abortions (probably a low figure) take place daily since Roe v. Wade came into effect. We don’t know the exact number before the law either, but if you multiply the estimated daily figure over the 33 years the law has been in effect, it comes to more than 36 million aborted babies. How many does one need to define abortion as a holocaust?

Norma McCorvey, who was the “Jane Roe” in the momentous decision of Roe v. Wade is now a pro-life advocate. One can “Google” her name and find that a “weak, false premise” is what Roe v. Wade was initially based on.

Mary Spuhler

Huntington Beach

Pro-choice’ does not mean ‘pro-abortion’

I read Sounding Off last week and admired Ira Werner’s reasoned and scholarly response to the more shrill Michele Marr piece “History Calls Abortion Murder,” Oct. 30. Werner took issue with Marr’s limited use of Christian history, and some other of the flawed premises on which she based her argument for history’s judgment on abortion. Not once did he use the phrase “bad journalism” that ran in the headline of Linda D. Couey’s letter (“Having a non-left opinion is not bad journalism,” Nov. 13) responding to Werner’s.

Because Werner argued for personal rights over tradition, I guess you could label him a leftist, but he never used the label “right” or “left” himself. He stated his respect for Marr’s right to print her opinion. Couey’s response began, “Good grief. I am so tired of the Left” and then proceeds to flail at Werner for “attacking” Marr. She goes on to say “deal with the right we have to disagree.”

I question her ability to deal with Werner’s right to disagree. I wish people like Couey would realize that when someone respects another person’s right to choose, that doesn’t make them “pro-abortion” it makes them “pro-choice.” I think there are very, very few people who are pro-abortion.

There are very many of us who are pro-choice, and thereby not willing to impose our interpretation of history, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence or any other cultural values, on another person who is making a life-changing decision.

If you are a person who is against the right to choose and you want to make a difference, I say do one or more of these things: 1) make sure children start learning about sex when they get close to puberty, 2) get involved with organizations that are taking care of abandoned or poor children so as to get some exposure to their lives, 3) get involved with adoptions. You might find another focus for your anger.

Linda Dobson

Seal Beach

Don’t expect an apology from Baugh

While I commend the sentiments of those chastising Scott Baugh in their Sounding Off (“Politics deserves better,” Nov. 13), they should be well aware of the futility in making him come clean. Baugh has been the epitome of the “dirty” politician since 1995, when he employed his bag of dirty tricks to ensure getting elected to Doris Allen’s Assembly seat (after she was egregiously vilified and recalled by a hostile GOP right wing). He continued his “slimeball” politics throughout his career in Sacramento and has resumed his penchant for character assassination in the last few years as head honcho for the Republican Party of Orange County. Baugh was behind the effort to prevent then-moderate state Assemblyman Tom Harman from trying to step up to the state Senate by running conservative cipher Diane Harkey at him. Baugh was behind the grossly misleading efforts to thwart AES paying its fair share utility tax in Huntington Beach. Baugh was also behind Measure E (the districting initiative) which would have ruined representative local government here in order to divide and conquer on behalf of his special interest cronies. Yes, politics does deserve better, but it won’t come from an unrepentant Baugh. We will all have to move forward without him.

Tim Geddes