cy is totally dishonest. Except for anhandful of cases, the woman is objectingnnot to the condition of pregnancy,nbut to the prospect of having a child.nEverything testifies to this, includingnmost of the reasons advanced for abortion:na child would interfere with myneducation, my career; I can’t afford tonsupport a child; I have too many childrennalready; the child has been diagnosednas defective; it is the result ofnrape or incest. It’s the child the abortionnis intended to get rid of, not thenpregnancy. Medical practice also testifiesnto this: if there were another conditionnthat entailed the discomforts ofneven an unusually unpleasant pregnancynbut that was guaranteed to clearnup by itself in nine months, no doctornwould feel a surgical procedure wasnjustified to clear up the condition a fewnmonths sooner.nIt is a contradiction to deny thenfather any say as to whether his child,nthe fetus, should continue to live ornnot, and then at birth suddenly acknowledgenthat he has the same relationshipnand responsibility for the childnthat the mother does. Where did thisnrelationship suddenly come from if atnconception nothing happened but antotally self-contained change in thencondition of the woman’s body? Thisnbreak in the organic connection thatnused to tie the male to the family is, innmy view, ominous. Such a break isnwhat abortion laws, in denying the mannany say in the matter, necessarily entail.nForcing the man to support a childnafter birth to whom he was denied anynconnection during the preceding ninenmonths becomes merely an act of thenlegislature, based not on nature but onnthe legislature’s arbitrary decision.n—Mrs. Richard M. HaywoodnWest Lafayette, INnOn ‘OurnStumbling Giant’nHaving served as a pastor and navalnchaplain under the authority of thenUnited Methodist Church, I can trulynappreciate Robert Nisbet’s commentsnconcerning “Christian millennialism”n(December 1988). Methodism and thenNational Council of Churches havenstuffed that concept into the ears ofntheir adherents at every opportunity.nI wish Mr. Nisbet had commentednon the propaganda of the leftists in theirnexploitation of this “moralism,” becausenthe technique they employ is “moralnblackmail.” They look for violations of antarget group’s moral code, a violationnthat allows a behavior that impedes thenadvance of Marxism, and, while pointingnthe accusing finger, loudly cryn”shame!”nThis “moralism” has our chaplainsngoing into combat without the means ofnself-defense, which is giving governmentalnendorsement of the pacifisticnview as being morally right. Our hospitalnships are caught’ in the samendilemma — should they be plainlynmarked, without defense, at the mercynof the enemy? When the moralistsnbegin to dictate who shall give up hisnright to self-defense, these same moralistsnwill also demand the nation give upnits right of self-defense.n—Ernest S. LemieuxnCDR, CHC, USN Ret.nTampa, FLnSERIES OF smsnOR WOMENnnnCHRONICLESnis looking for an assistant editor:nmagazine or newspapernexperience preferred. We are alsonstill taking applications for ourn1989 summer intern; experiencenon a college publicationnpreferred.nPlease send resumes to:nThomas Fleming, EditornChroniclesn934 North Main StreetnRockford, IL 61103nWe inadvertently left out a photo creditnfor the picture of Pete Schaub in ournJanuary issue, page 46. The photo wasntaken by Jon Warren for The SeattlenTimes. —The EditorsnMARCH 1989/5n