Child Pornography

Regarding the article concerning the Canadian judge who decided the possession of child pornography should not be a crime (Register, Jan. 31 -Feb. 6): There were a lot of conflicting opinions about the relationship between child pornography and the possible resulting sexual aggression against children. While the opponents of this ruling very rightfully aired their serious concerns about the connection, only Archbishop Adam Exner and the quotations from the Holy Father really touched upon another danger, one whose connection with this ruling is direct and not subject to debate — exploitation.

Consider the simple law of supply and demand. Now that Judge Shaw has okayed its possession, the creators of child pornography are in a much more comfortable position, and, knowing their customers can now live without fear of legal repercussion, the supply must be increased to meet the new demand this ruling is likely to spawn. That means more children are going to be lured, coerced, or deceived into this pit.

Someone should question the judge about his stance on that practice. If he is against it, why has he chosen to directly encourage it? If even one more child is exploited in this way because of his ruling, directly or indirectly, Judge Shaw should be held criminally accountable.

Daniel Benson Roswell, Georgia

‘Safe, Legal, and Rare’?

Lies, euphemisms, deceit, fraud, etc. On January 22, 1973, Norma McCorvey became known as Jane Roe and [later] Sandra Cano became known as Mary Doe. There are markers at the National Monument for the Unborn which state in part: “I publicly recant my involvement in the tragedy of abortion ... Norma McCorvey"; and “The Doe v. Bolton case is based on deceit and fraud ... Sandra Cano.”

Abortion has never been found in the Constitution. Justice Douglas claims a right to privacy is in the emanations (vapors) from the penumbra (shadow) of the 14th Amendment. Millions of deaths are caused by illusions the Justices found lurking in the shadows. The shadows are not the Constitution. A shadow is a distortion of the object casting the shadow. Let's put light on the Constitution and get rid of these deadly shadows.

ProChoice is a euphemism and doublespeak. It is a way to claim that they are against abortion yet stridently work for the right to kill children in their mother's womb. They are dishonest with themselves.

We have a President who claims abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” By its definition, intent, and purpose abortion is never safe for the youngest involved. It is not safe for the mother either. Should intentional killing of our posterity be legal? Are millions of intentional deaths annually “rare”?

Henry Honigfort Chesterfield, Missouri