I'm Angry.

Today's WOMAN to WOMAN column in the local paper displayed the sheer egotism of the pro-choice viewpoint. And I'm mad about it.

I'm always angered a little bit by the abortion issue. Abortion is, in my mind, an atrocity. There are so many people in this world who want children that any time one is wasted to abortion is simply horrible to me.

Don't give me the scientific crap either about how it's not really a baby and when life actually begins. People can have babies at 25 and 26 weeks after conception that live. Medical technology has fought a long fight to save these children. And the only difference in these pre-mature miracles and aborted babies is whether or not the parents want them. Excuse me, but that's bull. A baby is a baby is a baby. Regardless of age, location or what anyone else thinks they are, we are talking about human beings. Living human beings.

Which is why the discussion of the rights of pharmacists to refuse prescriptions for the abortion pill (in the paper today) makes my skin crawl. Doctors have the right to refuse to perform abortions. Pharmacists should have that same right.

Before I go on let me quote the feminist idiot who managed to get me stirred up this way--
"We never hear about pharmacists objecting to Viagra refills. Men can go wild, but women are denied the same sexual freedom."

No we are not. We have every bit the same sexual freedom men do without the option of abortion. Isn't it a bit irresponsible to put Viagra and the abortion pill in the same category? We're comparing freedom to perform the act with freedom to destroy the consequences. Obtaining Viagra does not imply that a man is unwilling to care for the woman involved or the resulting children.

Let me quote again--"Should a woman with a high-risk pregnancy be turned down because a pharmacist has determined a fetus' life is more valuable that hers? I doubt moralists would have objections if it was their own child suffering."

Let's turn that question around. Should a woman pre-disposed to high-risk pregnancies abstain from sexual relations? There are a large number of contraceptives available at this time that are reasonably risk free. Shouldn't a woman in this position take the responsibility of checking into that? I know it's not a fool-proof answer, but I believe that freedom to choose is not something you can or should have after the fact. Your choice is made when you have sex.

Beside that, women who have children will tell you that their lives are not as important as their children's lives. This is argument turns completely around if you are talking about a three-year- old. The same woman who just called a baby a fetus in the quote above, would tell you that her children (if she has any, which I doubt) are the most perfect people in the world. If one of my darling daughters became pregnant and had to suffer a high-risk pregnancy, I would support them. But I would not choose my child over my grandchild, or vise-versa. (By the way, what kind of term is "moralist." Shouldn't we all be moral? Is she implying that she is amoral? I already knew she was, but she admits it!)

Granted, you don't always know if you're going to have a high risk pregnancy. Sometimes you just do. But the high-risk pregnancy is not the point being argued. Pro-choice advocates want us to believe that abortion protects the raped, the high-risk, and otherwise helpless victims of pregnancy. In reality, it is a matter of convenience and an attempt to escape the consequences of bad choices-A point that is emphasized by the Viagra comment above.

This is not about pharmacists refusing to dispense life-saving drugs. If we were discussing a pill that cures cancer or diabetes, you could point a finger at the pharmacists that didn't want to give it out. But this is a drug that is specifically manufactured to kill unborn babies. It doesn't promote life. It's death in a bottle.

Shouldn't that bother all of us?