The letter " 'Pro-lifers' sometimes pro-death" (July 26) raises valuable food for thought. One could argue that "pro-lifers" must abhor war and the death penalty to be consistent, and I agree with that proposition. However, there are certainly examples of a "just war" such as World War II, and self-defense to save one's life or family is a justification to the killing of another recognized by all.
Where the writer goes awry in his logic is when he assumes a parental consent law, to prevent a pregnant minor girl from being taken away by a school administrator in secrecy to an abortion clinic, is somehow an instrument of injustice. Suppose the minor girl was impregnated by her abusive and threatening father? How does the mother ever find out about this to stop it?
Also, if all people did practice sexual abstinence until marriage, would not AIDS and all STDs be eliminated within one generation? Wouldn't abortion as a brutal stopgap for failed contraception also become an anachronism?
Pro-lifers can be very consistent and intellectual in their thought processes. I would invite the writer to come join up with us hypocrites; we always have room for another.