Ms. Friedman's article ("Anti-abortion methods go too far") concerning abortion methods seemed to dodge very important approaches to this problem. If she would truly like to explore the anti-abortion methods, she must ask the relevant question: Why do anti-abortionists use these methods? While she attempted to answer this question with comments such as: "money, he argues, would help women realize that putting the child up for adoption is another viable option." Or "lawmakers… claim that most women are uninformed about abortion," her early analysis misses the fundamental issue. In the final paragraph she writes, "forcing women to view photos of the unborn children is indecent and oversteps the legitimate bounds of government authority. A women's right to her own body is just that–her right." (emphasis my own). Here is where she unwittingly hits upon the exact problem that lawmakers have. I presume that many do not wish to harm women or infringe upon her rights. But the government also has a duty to protect the innocent and vulnerable. If a woman (or a doctor), in Ms. Friedman's words, sees a picture of an unborn child and then kills it, the government has then failed in its duty. Although she probably did not intend to do so, Ms Friedman has just accused many women (millions) and many doctors of murder. I am certain that they would strongly object to her remarks. Moreover, if her opinion is correct, all human beings have a duty to struggle to find alternatives for women who are, in her words, accomplice to murder. Regards, Jack Koczela [email protected]