A writer from Venice, California, notes: "I'm puzzled when I read that some politician has a moderate view on abortion. Abortion is killing an unborn child. I can approve this, or I can oppose it. But how can I have a moderate view on it? Between life and death there is no middle ground. Death is not moderate in any sense of the word. There is no way to be a little bit dead. Permitting the child to live is the moderate position since it leaves all other options open and possible. Pro-life is not an extreme. Those who target the vulnerable unborn for death are the extremists."

I like this observation, ladies and gentlemen, because it touches on something very important, that when a middle ground is offered as a "moderate view" on abortion, it's never moderate at all.

I've read a number of pieces promoting a kind of middle ground--a so-called "moderate view" on abortion. Every single one of them is pro-abortion. Every single one! How does one offer a moderate view that turns out to be a pro-abortion view? It may be moderate in terms of the reasons , but the result is still the same...a dead child.

Even if I weren't willing, for the sake of being careful not to put a "spin" on my language, to call the unborn an unborn child , as this writer does, still it's an unborn human being . That ought to be clear. And moderate positions and extreme pro-abortion positions both end up the same way, with dead, unborn human beings.

The pro-life position may seem extreme in that no killing of unborn children is allowed (Isn't it odd to be labeled extreme because you believe that the killing of an innocent child is unacceptable?), but it does seem to offer the most options, as the writer points out. I think it's a very compelling point. Good for you, Roderick Gereeney of Venice, California.

Laws that protect human life are vital, and human life is what is at issue with abortion.

I frequently see letters like this one which address the issue of consistency on both sides of the political aisle. Sometimes the criticism is on target, but sometimes it misses the boat, because it ignores critical details.

For example, Republicans are called inconsistent because they say they want to decrease government intrusion in our lives, but then try to restrict a woman's choice to have an abortion. But this miscasts the Republican position. Their appeal for smaller government doesn't mean they believe there should be no laws whatsoever. Laws that protect human life are vital, and human life is what is at issue with abortion. There's no inconsistency here. This objection treats protecting the lives of unborn children as trivial and inconsequential intrusion into our private lives.

But Mary Alice's objection about President Clinton and smoking seems right on target. If a woman, even a teenager, even a minor, even without her parents' consent has an inalienable right to have an abortion, then how does one argue she can't do something less violent to her body than such a medical procedure, and less violent to the body of another human being--the unborn child--than smoking? How does one argue this is no longer an acceptable choice?

This relates to the question of paternalism. How much should the government be involved in taking a fatherly role in protecting you? Whenever the government forces you to protect yourself, that's paternalistic. The government says, "I know what's best for you. I'll protect you from yourself. Do as I say."

There are different views on the amount of government paternalism that is appropriate. I personally think cigarettes are damaging and unhealthy. But I don't think the mere fact that something is unhealthy gives the government liberty to restrict it. I think I'd tend to be in favor of government letting kids smoke if they wanted to--of not restricting that option--because of the issue of freedom. And I'd also be in favor of people driving motorcycles without helmets. I tend to be more libertarian here.

However, with freedom comes responsibility. The two go together. If a smoker gets sick, he shouldn't expect the government to bail him out. If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and crack your head open, don't expect the government to pay the bill. If you want the government to come in like a father and take care of you, then you surrender the freedom to anything you want, just like a child does. As I said, the two go together.

This is where many politicians are inconsistent in their philosophy of government. If the government is not responsible for my personal choices about my own health, fair enough. If I want to smoke, I can smoke, and if I want to drive without a helmet, I can drive without a helmet. That's my own business. If the government is going to get out of private decision making-- especially private decision making that pertains to individual health as opposed to how my actions effect the health of other people--then they should get out of it and let people make their own decisions.

Whatever the threshold, the issue of consistency is important. The irony with the abortion/smoking confusion is that abortion kills another human being--which ought to be the legitimate province of law--yet smoking threatens only the health of those who choose to take the personal risk.

Mary Alice makes a fair point. If the government is willing to say that something as extreme as abortion is a private, personal choice (so much so that even the real father of the girl seeking the abortion can't interfere), then how do they justify their own paternalism by taking a cigarette out of the hand of a teenager because she just isn't old enough to decide for herself?