It seems we have gotten caught on the horns of yet another ethical dilemma touching on birth and age: How old is too old to have children? The Feb. 9 editorial, Improbable babies, states that "it is not right to have a baby simply because you want one..." After citing two examples in which in vitro fertilization may have played a role, it concludes by questioning the ethics of performing such "questionable and costly procedures that... create undeniable burdens on society."

Actually, as a consequence of denying any absolute basis for the value of life, we find ourselves caught in a variety of dilemmas: when is a fetus viable, or when does a person no longer have quality of life, for example. Most people aren't comfortable playing God, but the good news is, you don't have to when you can't afford it. Increasingly, financial considerations are the way out.

After reading Atheist nation by Gwynne Dyer (Feb. 10), I am still unsure how he sees atheists as a majority. As Ayn Rand wrote, "...you should discover some day that words have an exact meaning." Had Dyer looked in a dictionary, he would have discovered that an atheist is one who believes that there is no deity. While mentioning that "on an average Sunday, only six per cent of the population is in church...", he obviously does not understand that lazy Christians are not atheists, just lazy Christians.