How often have you heard, or even used, the argument that abortion should remain legal because, otherwise, women would resort to dangerous back-alley abortions? This is the so-called clothes-hanger argument, a reference to the crude and unsafe method of abortion that obviously exposes women to sepsis, hemorrhage, infection, and worse.

Now, pro-lifers, like me, primarily oppose all abortion on simple moral grounds. It’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Secondarily, we argue that abortion is harmful to women.

You defend legal abortion primarily as a matter of absolute freedom to make “intimate and personal choices” that are “central to personal dignity and autonomy.” In your view, it’s morally wrong for me to impose my views on others. Secondarily, you defend legal abortion, as in the clothes-hanger argument, as necessary to protect the health of women in a pregnancy-related crisis.

You also disbelieve our claim to genuinely care about women in pregnancy distress. I say that the proof is there, and fair-minded people see it. Over the last 50 years, pro-lifers opened at their own expense, not demanding taxpayer dollars, nearly 3,000 pregnancy help offices and clinics across the U.S. -- and dedicated their time to help, free of charge, one woman at a time find life-affirming solutions to her pregnancy-related crisis.

In turn, I admit that I think your clothes-hanger........

© American Thinker