Abortion

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I am staggered by the illogic of Michael Pakaluk's argument against tax funding for abortion. He fails to distinguish between the undesirable role of the state where it imposes its will in "intensely personal matters," and its beneficial role where it facilitates choice in such matters. His argument begins to unravel when he speciously compares the use of public money to facilitate abortion, with its use to facilitate access to a synagogue or church. The risk of pregnancy is an unavoidable, inherent condition of normal adult female life. The risk of not finding the religious facility of one's choice is not an inherent condition of one's humanity.

As his argument begins to get lost it also becomes offensive. He refers to "convenience abortions." If Pakaluk had ever experienced the procedure he would not use such glib language. Abortion is always the lesser of two evils for women, and not a small one on account of being less terrible than bearing an unwanted child.

Finally, he descends into hypocrisy, or confused enthusiasm for his line of reasoning. Denying funds to pregnant women will, he implies, somehow encourage the state to address the more fundamental needs of the poor--education, housing and so on. Who on earth believes that a society which will not help the vulnerable in crisis will get around to helping them with chronic problems? What disingenuous nonsense First-trimester abortions are the sole concern of the pregnant woman, under the confidential advice of her physician. Denial of funds is imposition of parenthood. N. W. Patterson   Lecturer on Celtic Languages and Literatures