To the Editor:

I have been reading The Hustler for over four years. In that time, I have seen many good opinion articles and many bad opinion articles. The worst I can ever remember was published just this past Friday, titled "Abortion is legal, right?"

Many of those who are pro-choice argue that the unborn child is not alive. If we knew that the unborn were alive, they say, it would be morally repugnant to end his or her life. This argument is at least consistent, although scientifically wrong.

The author of Friday's article is not concerned with convincing us that the unborn is not yet alive, however. He openly admits that life may well be there, but then attempts to convince us that it is not wrong to end that life. His argument is not that abortion is not willful homicide; he is trying to tell us that willful homicide is not wrong.

The article's third paragraph is one of the most stupefying pieces of writing I have ever read. Choosing not to create a life is radically different than creating a life and then destroying it. If I build a magnificent house for my friend, and then burn it down while he is out, the moral implications are different than if I had simply not built him a house. The difference can be summed up in a single word: waste. But in the case of abortion, the immediate consequences of that waste are not borne by the destroyer.

I could go on about the article's ridiculous equation of animals with humans, or its failure to recognize the many non-Christian and non-theistic pro-lifers, or its disregard for the principle of civil disobedience, but I'll stop here.

Drew Rankin

Senior, College of Arts and Science