To the Editors of The Crimson

As a Radcliffe alumna and mother of two, I find the conclusions drawn from the Women's Sexuality Survey both disturbing and offensive. Michele Orza claims that "goal-oriented" women are more inclined to have abortions than the population at large. What exactly is meant by the term "goal-oriented"? I am sure that other women would agree that no period in life is more "goal-oriented" than pregnancy. I can only assume Ms. Orza wished to imply that career women have loftier goals than those of us dedicated to the successful raising of children.

If Dr. Wacker was quoted correctly as saying. "Those [students who would not abort] are probably the women who have never been pregnant," I find his remarks even more disturbing. Should indeed women who have experienced the sensation of a new life growing within them be the most prone to end that life, he has given a sorry commentary on the moral sensibility of Radcliffe women. I believe abortion to be justifiable under a number of circumstances (rape, for example). I would hope, however, that Radcliffe women would think twice before automatically deciding that a "goal-oriented" view of life, or the embarrassment and inconvenier of unwed pregnancy are reason enough to abort an unborn child. Judith R. Cohen 76