Dear Noel,

I want to take time out from my longer letter to you, which you will receive on your birthday, Dec. 10, 2004, or thereabouts and read, who knows, maybe in 2010 or 2014, to put down some thoughts that have been troubling me.

I don't know how many other grandfathers there are in the world right now writing to fetuses, but there are probably a few, and they will know, as I have discovered, that it's not so easy. I was going great guns until I wrote myself into this cul-de-sac, amniotic in this case.

It came up because I learned recently that a woman I know may be carrying a severely handicapped child. They can tell a lot these days from those ultrasounds. It is three months old.

Now, the reason why this is a problem for me is because I cannot do what I set out to do, which is write you a completely honest letter, if I ignore it. But how do you discuss abortion with a fetus? I have always been pro-choice, but talking to you this way has made me think more than twice. I guess that's why I've decided to make this part of my letter public. If I'm wrong, at least I'll have company. Isn't this the way women feel about the act itself? It's bad enough to do it, but if they feel they have to, better to do it openly, with t he sanctions of society, rather than all by themselves in the dark.

When I first started writing to you, you had no sex (or name) and were only an inch or two tall (scrunched). Now you are a big boy of seven months and it seems your name is Noel, pronounced as in French, meaning "Christmas," fittingly.

And therein lies the conundrum, the logical gulch. I have been writing to you as spirit, in fact, as the light of the world. If hope does not lie in you, where does it lie--in grasshoppers? Translate this into Christian terms and I think you'll find a not too much revised standard version. I know you have changed a lot in the past few months, but if you are not still you, my whole enterprise here is worthless. My conceit, if you will, becomes a lie.

And now comes the hard part. The same would be true if the ultrasound had shown an abnormal bulge around the neck, as in the case of my friend's baby. How can I say it would not? That would mean that all this time I have been lying to you, and to myself. I wouldn't mind that much throwing the manuscript away; I've done that often enough before. But this time I promised myself, and you, that it would be different. You are coming, and I believe in you, because I am not a grasshopper. I will be here when you come, and I'll have this book for you when you do. It's your birthday present. That is the commitment that I've made, and I'm not going to break it. Not this time.

So there we are. There I am, I mean, up that muddy creek with only a pen for a paddle. I know I'm going to end up saying the thing I least want to say to the person I least want to say it to--that sometimes human beings have to be killed. No, scratch that. Should be killed. Are better off being killed. Can be killed. May be killed. No, scratch all of that. It will take a longer sentence.

First of all we have to admit that what we are talking about is not preserving life but killing. We are talking about when the killing of human beings should be allowed. Secondly, we have to identify the people we are debating this issue with. It is not with Albert Schweizer or with people who share his reverence for life. The so-called pro-lifers, like the Bushmen, certainly do not revere life, and their claim to Christianity is as bogus as that of the Inquisitors. They have killed tens of thousands of human beings, in Afghanistan and Iraq. On top of that, they have comitted this mass murder for reasons that the overwhelming majority of the population of the planet knows were lies. These are also people, for the most part, who believe in capital punishment. How can you discuss "preserving life" with mass murders, warmongers, and hangmen? You might as well discuss sex with a rapist.

So who are our interlocutors in this debate? Where are the Albert Schwiezers of this world? They may be some, but I don't know any. They would be the only people worthy of the mantle of "pro-life," and if we could find them, then the debate could begin. Until then, there is no debate. There are only killers who want to make their own decisions about whom they kill inside their own bellies for understandable and transparent reasons, and killers who are hypocrites and want to and do make our decisions for us about killing people all over the world by the thousands for obscure reasons and transparent lies.

The world is upside down at the moment, Noel. We have a chickenhawk and deserter leading us into unnecessary wars, and mass murderers masquerading as "pro-lifers." It is hard to think of anything more absurd, but that is the world you are coming into. I hope we will at least have a different president by then, which may help a little, but there is still a lot of work to do. I know you will help us.

That's about the best I can do at this point, Noel. My friend hasn't asked me for advice, but if she does I'll read this to her first. I don't know what her position is on the Iraq war and capital punishment, but I would want to discuss these things with her before we discussed her baby or her religious beliefs. In the end she will make her own decision. Fortunately the law in Germany still permits that.

I'll talk to you again soon.

Love,

Michael

© Sept. 3, 2004 Michael D. Morrissey