Upon reading the column by John Keisling ("Pro-choice arguments favor Susan Smith,") I wasn't quite sure how to interpret it. First I thought that he was being sarcastic. But upon reading to the end, I was amazed to learn that he was serious. I don't know how he can say that killing two growing boys is the same as an abortion. Am I to assume that Keisling believes that when a teenage son/daughter becomes too annoying and troublesome, that the parent has the legal right to terminate their life? When a woman becomes pregnant, she then has to make the decision to have an abortion or not. There is no going back. You cannot have a child and put off the decision two or three years down the road.
Keisling truly believes that the Smith children are better off now than if Smith had not murdered them. Under the constitution, every one has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It was partly written to protect those who could not protect themselves. Therefore, Smith deserves all punishment laid upon her.
Clearly Keisling cannot predict the future and what would have become of Smith's children. An article of this nature makes me wonder if Keisling actually believes what he writes or simply is hungry for publicity.
Read Next Article