Editor:

Recently the President of the United States swatted a pesky fly during a televised interview. “Got the sucker,” he exclaimed, with a bit of pride. Not too long after, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) expressed their concern at the Fly Swatter-in-chief’s execution of the fly, stating that “We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals,” then they sent the president a bug catcher to catch future flies and set them free outside. Such care, such concern, such compassion, such moral superiority – such crap.

I don’t know. I guess I take a jaundiced look at one group that espouses protecting the animals that were put on earth for the rest of us to eat, while other groups turn a blind eye to protecting the rights of the most vulnerable of our species – the child unborn. There is something radically wrong here, something misguided, something upside down.

When the President of the United States goes in front of the world and tells all who will listen that we lost our moral compass by “torturing” a few war combatants, who would slit our throats in a nanosecond, then champion the rights of women to “choose,” I listen in disbelief. What do women have a right to choose? Simply stated, it is, I believe, the right to accept and bear, or dispose of, or kill, an unborn child.

I’ve been on this earth well over 77 years and have enjoyed those years immensely. I feel blessed, lucky, privileged and, well, grateful. I had a mother, who suffered, like all mothers giving birth, but who believed I had a right to live and made sure that right was honored. The fact that we were in a deep depression with limited money never crossed her mind. And by her religious convictions, she was willing to give up her own life so that I could live. That’s the kind of mom I had.

And those of you who are reading this had similar good fortune. Isn’t that wonderful, or have you ever thought about it? Simply stated, children conceived have a right to protection. Oh, you can take the moral high ground on “torture” at Guantanamo, or on the rights of animals, but defense of those rights pales in comparison to the rights of the child unborn.

Those who would defend the right to abort an unborn might say: life is hard enough, why bring children into the world permanently damaged by mothers who are addicted to drugs, for example, or who have debilitating diseases such as Downs Syndrome, which unnecessarily affects the quality of life of the child and the rest of the family?

If it comes down to a choice between the survival of the child or me, isn’t the temple of the life-giver as sacred as the life given? If I had obligations, like another child and a husband and could have other children in the future, don’t I have a right to live?

Should a woman be required to bear the unwanted conception of a rapist?

These are very compelling and human arguments, and reflect a degree of sophistication, with elements of truth and self interest parading in front. I respect those arguments, and believe that most women would rather not choose to abort a child unborn. But my parade has the same elements of truth and self interest. I’m glad my mother was not that sophisticated, and to give greater concern for terrorists, flies and dumb animals, well, that dog won’t hunt.

Ron Beatty, Brentwood