Abortion is murder, says Sartre.  Unfortunately for him and his, the Supreme Court, our common law, and most Americans don't agree with that opinion, which has no basis either in fact or in law.  Okay, so brother Sartre believes this based on a religious doctrine that life begins at conception or shortly after conception, depending on his particular brand of theology.  Well and good for you, Mr. Sartre.  Don't abort, yourself.  Teach your children not to as a part of your religious belief system.  But don't dictate that all citizens must follow your religious values, because we don't, and we won't.

As Justice Harry Blackmun's extensive scholarship in Roe v. Wade demonstrates (Have you read the opinion, Mr. Sartre?), all cultures through time consider birth to be defining moment of humanity, which is why we celebrate birthdays instead of conception-days.  Even the laws of Moses, the basis of Christian belief, likened the unborn to property and mandated a civil, not a criminal penalty if a man caused a woman to miscarry against her will.  The Catholic Church believed for centuries in the doctrine of quickening established by Aristotle, which held that the soul arrived (indicating personhood) when the fetus began moving in the woman's womb some four or five months into pregnancy.  Laws against abortion in America date only from the late 19th century, while all mentions of "person" in the Constitution include the requirement of being born.

Ensoulment at conception (or shortly after it if you're a Mormon) is a Johnny-come-lately religious doctrine, but that hasn't stopped believing fundamentalists from trying to impose this theology on the rest of us.  Christians and others who don't believe in this particular doctrine shouldn't have their liberty restricted by Sartre and his ilk.  It's a sad commentary that a self-proclaimed 'champion of freedom' like Sartre would gladly act to restrict the freedom of young women or families by restricting their right to birth control and family planning, but there it is.

Imagine a large number of Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses inhabited the nation instead fundamentalists like Mr. Sartre.  Would we tolerate statements that the nation's morality required vegetarianism and caffeine-free beverages, or putting an end to the pledge of allegiance because it amounts to worship of the flag?  Would we tolerate a law from Scientologists that no blood transfusions ever be given because the Bible bans the "eating" of blood?  Did we, historically, tolerate the interference of fundamentalists when they told us that the nation must prohibit the drinking of liquor?  We did not.  Neither shall we permit fundamentalists to rewrite the definition of what it is to be human simply to satisfy their religious or moral understanding.

Sartre's counterpoint is typical pro-life--or rather anti-choice, since for them only one choice, one life matters--the life of a mass of cells that might--might--one day be human.  The life and the future of the young woman herself matters little.  In fact, she deserves to be shunned, intimidated, and punished according to Judge Sartre.  Fortunately most Americans don't hold to his churlish attitudes, nor shall we consent to being bound by his religious values.  Worship where you wish, believe what you must, but stop trying to take away our liberties, Mr. Sartre.

James Hall, From the Left

When the 'bad seed' condemns Chuck Colson , he remains true to his nature. Avoid the real issue, "Respect for Life" and substitute a bogus view of life, that has no respect for the existence of every life. Pro-Choice is the ultimate euphemism doublespeak for legal murder. Yes, not just killing; but murder - the cultural acceptance that society can and will allow individuals to decide, who is worthy to live and who can be discarded into the trash.

Attacking Colson for objecting to sex education that promotes the conscious elimination of life that grows within the womb, denies the morality and consistency of his ministry. Proponents, like your NOW friends, are eager to refer your frail frauleins to the Josef Mengele Institute for reproductive selection. Since you are so willing to offer the planned parenthood crowd your morning-after pill, why not dispense your compassion from the Dr Jack Kevorkian clinic - at address RU 486 lane?

The pompous and sanctimonious appeals for a woman's choice is akin to allowing her to select a benign form of execution, since the Supreme Court has ruled that cruel and unusual punishment is illegal. Managing a pregnancy in your world, absolves personal responsibility and guilt. Shame when earned by licentious behavior is appropriate and the price that should be paid. By your amoral relativism, those who shun the immoral behavior of those who shamed themselves, is more of a sin than the act of lewdness.

Those who champion all life, are not condemning to permanent punishment; the mother, or even the father. Our authentic compassion does not demand an 'eye for an eye', but seeks to end the genocide of self deceit. A mothers body is the chantry for her child and the continuance of species. The Mass that is celebrated within herself, is the destiny of the masses of all human beings.

Attempting to deny and evade the inescapable, exposes irrationality. With charges of impugning Colson for not accepting and advocating clinical eradication of the consequences of consensual behavior, you side with the notion that one life has more value then another. Are you so wise, or are immature progenitors, both mother and father, to make that decision? And by what authority do you claim that it is valid to take another life, especially if that life is growing within a vessel, created for the very purpose you wish to deny?

While the tragic loss of life in the WTC at the hands of terrorists, is remembered regularly; we forget or wish to deny, that more abortions take place daily than, those lost by this criminal act. Society is quite comfortable with 'selectivity for life'. Not exactly within our Judeo-Christian tradition, now is it?

If your crowd was serious about the abandonment of babies, you would be favoring adoption as a national policy. Who dumps the infant into a dumpster? Only a person who is totally confused about the sanctity of life or one who cares more for themselves, than the gift that was given to them. When Colson points out that your values are defective, your response is to attack him for condemning your own hubris.

Rationalizing away guilt that should be felt, you are offering an emotional panacea, while absolving accountability. But why should this conduct be any different from all the appeals that the secular relativist make? Instead of promoting techniques of abortion, why are you so opposed to instructions in  morality? The record of those who fear any kind of penalty for immoral conduct, drives them into the implausibility of their own self-indulgence and egotism.

Adherents of principle are not proponents of 'popular culture'. When you justify 'situations ethics', you become a 'matron of genocide'. That is the ultimate 'PC' creed, which you so readily profess. Destroy life whenever and wherever you find it; especially when it seeks and holds sacred values.

James Hall aka SARTRE