By Tim Wildmon | AFA President

A few years ago I called the editor of The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Mississippi, after the paper had written a pro-choice/abortion editorial. I wanted to talk to him about what he had written, and see if I could get some answers to some questions I had. He agreed to discuss the editorial with me.

First, I asked him when human life begins and he told me he didn’t know when life begins. “No one knows,” is what he told me. I thought that a silly answer from an obviously well-educated man.
It’s not a trick question. Most of us learned the answer in high school biology if not sooner. Life begins at the union of the egg and the sperm and will continue until natural death unless it is killed or “terminated.”

He – I believe – simply did not want to answer the question because to answer that question would have given me a starting point to discuss when human life should be protected by the law and he – being an obviously well- educated man – knew where I was going with my question. Basically, he was defending his position by pleading the Fifth. But I asked him again, this time giving him some options to chose from.

“At birth? Eight months? Six months? Four months, two days, seven hours and thirty-six seconds? How about when you can see the heart beating at eight weeks?” I didn’t want to be a smart-aleck, but I was making a point. He would not answer. I told him if he didn’t know when life began, shouldn’t he err on the side of protecting the fetus or whatever is growing inside the woman that causes her to see a doctor on the possibility that it might indeed be a human life since it was – indisputably – inside a woman’s womb? He averted the issue and talked about leaving that decision to “a woman’s choice.” I told him, respectfully, that I was talking about life and death here, not the choice between vanilla and chocolate, and that we don’t give people the “choice” of killing other people under any other circumstances in America, save self-defense.

What I concluded from our conversation was that he believes ending the unborn human life is morally acceptable if it was decided by the girl/woman carrying the unborn baby. Millions of Americans hold to this view.

That seems to be the same “logic” on display in the Laci Peterson case in which her widower – her accused killer – Scott, is also being charged with her murder and the killing of their eight-months-in-the-womb son, Conner.

So let me get this straight. If a woman goes to have an abortion, it’s not a human being worthy of protection – but if the unborn baby or fetus is killed by someone else, well then, it is human. That is precisely what famed defense attorney and feminist activist Gloria Allred said on one of the Fox Channel news shows I watched a few weeks back. Where’s the logic in that?

I remember reading a story about a woman in Arkansas who was four months pregnant. While driving, she was struck by the car of a drunk driver. She survived, but her baby was killed. The state of Arkansas took action against the drunk driver and charged him with the death of the unborn baby. A felony. The irony was the woman could have been on her way to the abortion facility in Little Rock and had the baby vacuumed piece by piece from her womb and it would have been perfectly legal. Again, where is the logic or legal consistency in that?

For years those of us who are pro-life conservatives have said the major newspapers as well as the major television newsrooms have a decisively pro-choice (for the mother, but not for the unborn baby) bias.

Now a very interesting internal memo by L.A. Times editor John Carroll to his staff writers has become public. It reads, in part: “The reason I’m sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times.

“I’m no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same.”

This is refreshing to see. I hope more major news outlets will follow Mr. Carroll’s lead and in turn, perhaps, some credibility with millions of Americans who hold conservative views can begin to be restored.