Letter to the Editor
I Bet Mrs. Rawls Wished She'd Had an Abortion
by Jennifer Yoon
Undergraduate

After reading Alec Rawls' article, "Abortion 101: True pro-choice," I am shocked. Appalled. Angry. Disgusted. Violated. I will try, as Alec Rawls urges, to take out the "rhetoric." I will simply show how his claims are simply non-researched polemic.

1) While it is true that 78% of Americans believe that women who have abortions regret their experiences (Wirthlin Poll, 1998), research has shown that when the women themselves are polled most (nearly 70%) report being satisfied with the decision with nearly 72% reporting more benefit than harm, and a 10% LOWER incidence of post-traumatic stress symptoms in the post-abortion group compared to the general population (Major, B. et al. 2000. Arch Gen Psychiatry 57(8), 777-84).

2) He likens having a baby to taking a fifteen unit course with extracurriculars, then cites his sister as an example for how Stanford women should be old enough to start pumping out children, since we are ostensibly the same age as this paragon of womanhood.

3) He also urges us to take a closer look at Planned Parenthood. I did that. Instead of finding a "population control group" I found an organization that "believes in the fun-damental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence" and whose abortion services "must include informa-tion on the nature, consequences, and risks of the procedure, and counseling on the alternatives available to the woman, so as to assure an informed and responsible decision" (www.plannedparenthood.org)

4) He also finds time to launch ad hominem attacks against Professor Ehrlich, calling him "Doctor Death" and saying that when Prof. Ehrlich points out that humans are destroying the earth "no one has ever been more fabulously or more tragically wrong." I can think of at least one other person.

5) Next follows a section of dodgy economics saying that while it would seem that increased population might harm the earth, actually, "well raised children of intelligent parents" will counteract the ill effects of overpopulation. He even graciously allows a small role for "the worst raised children of the most ordinary parents." All this reads like a non-veiled attempt to show that children of his background are of more value than those who are not so well-privileged.

6) He says "the best thing that most Stanford girls will ever have a chance to do for the environment is have a baby," suggesting that it is left for males to undertake more ambi-tious plans to improve the world. I guess girls like Rachel Carson are just flukes.

7) According to Dr. Rawls, women should "embrace their biological urge to reproduce"‹again, no citation to back this up and no mention of men, who are probably out saving the earth via non-childbearing methods.

8) He states that "it is horribly perverse that almost all the pregnant Stanford girls are having abortions." Where are the figures? He never considers the possibility of negative psychological effects of abortion stigma (Major, B & Gramzow, RH. Abortion as stigma: cognitive and emotional implications of concealment. J Pers Soc Psychol 77(4) 735-45).

I am ashamed that harmful and misleading idiocy of this kind is published under a banner that shares the name of the university I attend.

Page last modified on Thursday, 02-Mar-2006 00:25:29 MST.