To the editor:
I found the College Republicans’ March 8 column to be quite astounding. My amazement was not a product of its poor argument against the right to choose, that women need to be “held accountable” for becoming pregnant. Rather, it was derived from the column’s lack of any factual integrity.
The column claims that women openly used abortion to control their bodies in the ’60s. This is blatantly false, as abortion was illegal until 1973. The column lists many health and psychological problems that might result from abortion, such as infection or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. This is dishonest, as these problems also arise in women who give birth. The claim is made that abortion results in an increased cancer risk. The hypothesis that abortions increase the chances of breast cancer has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community. Its attempted propagation in this column shows a flagrant disrespect for the truth.
Finally, suggesting that unwanted pregnancies that result from rape do not exist, simply because they are not mentioned in one specific article that is referenced, is insane. More mindblowingly, the article cited was from Glamour. That’s right: if something isn’t mentioned in Glamour, it mustn’t occur. The CRs must have decided to focus on that issue’s article about the 99 unspoken sex secrets of men rather than look for one of the hundreds of sources that would have proven their conclusion to be wrong.
But, all of their dishonesty aside, do the CRs have a point? Is abortion an inherently irresponsible act? The answer is clearly no, as they are forced to admit with their own arguments.
The CRs state that one who uses contraceptives is acting responsibly. One who uses contraceptives understands the risks of sex and does not intend to become pregnant. By using contraceptives, one minimizes the risks and as a result has, statistically speaking, incredibly little chance of becoming pregnant. If something were to go wrong, such as if a condom was to break, and one was to become pregnant, the CRs would be quick to say that exercising the right to choose would be irresponsible because the risks of pregnancy were known.
This is not at all consistent. The CRs cannot simultaneously state that a woman acts responsibly when she virtually eliminates the risk of having a child, and is irresponsible because she should have known the risks when events out of her control force her to exercise her right to choose. One cannot be told she should have known the risks if in reality, there was virtually no risk to be had.
In order to be consistent, the CRs must now oppose contraception, support the right to choose, or drop their arguments outright. I’m sure they will reveal which route they will take in their next column.
It is an undue burden for any woman to be forced to give birth to a child like the CRs would wish. In reality, the most responsible action is to prevent a child from being born for which one could or would not adequately care. It is the responsible course of action that gives the best possible outcomes for the potential mother whose life would be shattered, for the future child that could not be provided for, and for the society which would be forced to emotionally and financially support tens of thousands of such children. To oppose the right to choose while ignoring such a position’s consequences is where the real irresponsibility lays.
Austin Randazzo
PHYS ’07
