Choosing Whether or Not to Have a Baby

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/opinion/letters/abortion-births.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “My Rapist Apologized,” by Michelle Alexander (column, May 26):

This is an important and courageous essay. As an undergraduate in Boston in 1968, I remember the bag that would be passed around from floor to floor in my “all-girls dorm” to help fund abortions for fellow students. Most of us were no more than 19. No one had much money, but we gave and asked no questions. There were whispers about rape and abusive boyfriends.

I remember the fear and confusion about what an abortion was. We knew so little except that it was dangerous and illegal. But what “choice” did we have? We have that choice now. It is time for our daughters and sons to step up to make sure that choice is maintained.

Ann-Michele GundlachOwings Mills, Md.

To the Editor:

Michelle Alexander’s statement “I did not want to give a baby away” had a chilling note for me. As best as I can gather, in May of 1944 my unmarried 20-year-old mother traveled several hundred miles to an unwed mothers’ home, gave birth to me and then gave me up for adoption.

This was, I am sure, a greatly disruptive ordeal for her, but for whatever reason — the law, her religious beliefs, lack of funds for an abortion or something else — my mother chose to let her growing child live.

I am grateful to her for the 75 years of life that I have had — a life that Ms. Alexander denied her child.

Ronald EatonSan Francisco

To the Editor:

Re “I Want a Baby. I Don’t Want to Force Someone to Have It for Me” (Op-Ed, nytimes.com, May 28):

Elizabeth Keenan writes about how undergoing I.V.F. helped her better understand women who choose to have abortions.

As an I.V.F. baby, I know that — for my parents — the process was all about choices. “Are you willing to travel hours to the clinic for monitoring?” the doctors asked the two of them. “Are you willing to submit yourself to a painful regimen of needles?” they asked my mom. “Are you willing to be the one to deliver the shots?” they asked my dad.

My parents did not owe these sacrifices to anyone. No one expected these sacrifices of them. And yet they chose to take them on, time and time again, for both me and my twin.

I have the privilege of knowing I exist because they chose me — and because they kept choosing me even when doctors advised them to give up. I believe that every person born into this world similarly deserves to feel chosen — to be chosen, in fact.

Juliet IsselbacherNewton, Mass.

To the Editor:

Re “My Reversal on Abortion Rights,” by Rob Schenck (Op-Ed, May 31):

Mr. Schenck, stunningly for a religious person, believes that the utility of abortion trumps the moral argument. Even if he is correct that women, especially minorities, will have difficult lives if forced to deliver their babies, how can this possibly have any bearing on the issue of whether abortion is akin to murder? Should we also euthanize sick people who are an enormous financial and personal burden? Is the morality of ending life sacrosanct or not, regardless of the cost?

If he insists on the utilitarian argument, how about the real possibility that women will slowly learn to be very careful about contraception when abortion as birth control becomes illegal? Or the mother can give the baby up for adoption. Isn’t that a far preferable practical solution than abortion on demand?

For the record, I am pro-choice when the fetus is not viable.

Ari WeitznerNew York

To the Editor:

I am a female law student who, like Rob Schenck, was once extremely pro-life. I realize now that I was wrong. My turning point came because of pro-choice writers who gently questioned, rather than mocked, my position. Like many pro-lifers, I felt defensive because many pro-choicers pillory pro-lifers as religious fanatics or sexists.

Compassionate pro-choice writers eased my defensiveness, showed me why I was wrong and convinced me that pro-life laws would be impractical.

I would like to call for us pro-choicers to show more such compassion to pro-lifers. We can’t convert everyone, especially the rare but influential misogynists. Most pro-lifers believe they are doing the right thing. But if we can show them why pro-choice values are more just, honest and freedom-enhancing than pro-life ones, we can protect Roe v. Wade going forward.

Kelly McDonaldArlington, Va.

To the Editor:

Re “How Phrasing Has Intensified Abortion Battle” (front page, May 23):

For centuries the French have revered ideas and words, hence the unique Académie Française, which dictates the proper use of language. Decades ago, realizing the stigma that could be attached to the term abortion, its defenders in France dropped that word in favor of “interruption volontaire de grossesse,” or I.V.G. In English: “voluntary termination of pregnancy.”

In France you mostly hear I.V.G. used. I think the French are onto something.

Victoria Lewin-FetterMilwaukee