Why women may choose abortion

In response to Jack Grimes' Feb. 5, 2003 viewpoint "Why Men Love Abortion," I would like to take the opportunity to question many of his assumptions, as well as offer an alternative view for the outcomes of this much-debated action.

The viewpoint approaches abortion with a woman's welfare as the primary concern. If a woman's welfare truly is at stake here, then let's for a moment examine the ramifications, for both mother and child, of not aborting an unplanned for and unwanted child.

The viewpoint claims that a woman who chooses abortion will end up alone at the end of the experience. How much more alone will this woman feel as she spends the rest of her life single-handedly responsible for a child? Or, alternatively, when a woman has a child but chooses not to accept responsibility, how much more alone will the abandoned child feel? That is, of course, if the child survives being abandoned in the first place.

While I agree that her school or workplace is under no obligation to offer assistance, they are also under no obligation to assist with the long-term care of the child. It would also be much harder and much less likely for a single mother to be able to pursue higher education and full time employment when faced with the responsibility of a child. Without these resources, how can she possibly provide the best care for the child and any other future children?

Now we come to the argument about the woman's family. Since when is the father the only viable source for support? And even given the type of father portrayed in this example, he is much more likely to close himself off to a daughter who is a single mother, rather than one who does not permanently affect her life.

Arguably, these issues can easily be seen from either perspective. But when the viewpoint describes the relationship between the mother and her "life-long" friend, there is no question that the idealistic scene of "life-long companionship" and "deeply intimate bonds" ignores the fact that for 18 years or more after the birth of the child, the mother will be responsible for food, clothing, shelter, education, her own welfare, and will have to provide all of these things without the support of a true companion, namely a person who participates in providing these things.

The viewpoint speaks of robbing a mother of this glorious experience. If the writer can provide scientific data that shows unequivocally that every woman of childbearing capacity sees motherhood as her ultimate goal, then by all means this is a valid point. By this token, if a woman cannot physically bear children, does this mean that her life will be devoid of true happiness?

The viewpoint also questions the "violence" of abortion. What about the violence towards unwanted children blamed for a lost life? What about the violence of hunger, humiliation, cold, or desertion? It is true that the emotional aftereffects of a termination can be devastating, but the aftereffects of single motherhood can be and are much worse. Where will the man concerned for women's well-being be then? He will probably be out "reaping gain on a date" by overwhelming another woman with his sensitivity.

The viewpoint also addresses the agony of the "anniversaries of the never-born." What about the daily agonies of looking at a child who is the result of rape? Or the agony of knowing that there could have been a different life? Or the constant reminder of desertion? It takes fortitude and bravery to face an abortion and its aftereffects. It is unnecessary for the mother to endure any further pain, and selfish to needlessly inflict it on the child.

Finally, I address the viewpoint's reassurance of divine forgiveness to the men and women who had the courage to go through with an abortion, regardless of the consequences, because they knew that it was in their best interests and the child's. My God tells me to care for others, that this is the highest way of life and the best way to honor Him. Until a woman can and wants to devote her life and emotions to a child, that child should not live the alternative.

The writer says that using the word "child" already implies a "commitment to the continuity of life." I respond by saying that his use of the word "life" implies a commitment to just that. Part of life should be the full and wholehearted care and safety of a parent or guardian.

Stephanie Glass is a senior majoring in Political Science.