To the Editors of The Crimson:

For someone engaged in the pursuit of Truth. Michael Pakaluk (Teaching Fellow in Philosophy) goes out of his way in his letter of April 22 to misrepresent the recent event, Abortion: Whose Life, Whose Choice? His letter is so fallacious and hysterical as to perhaps not warrant considered response; however, the issue is an important one and deserves deeper discussion than that presented in his letter.

First, let me respond to Pakaluk's characterization of the event--a panel discussion followed by question and answer period itself. He attempts to portray the organizers (of which I am one) and speakers as singleminded selfish baby-killers who have no interest in discussing the complexity of the issues. He does not, of course, mention anything the speakers actually said--for example, one speaker's description of the kind of process women choosing to have an abortion go through, or another's recounting of her own shift from an anti-choice to a pro-choice position. Further, Pakaluk states "there was no discussion," attempting. I assume, to characterize the whole event as merely an RUS rally in support of destroying children. Well, there was discussion. People who were decidedly anti-choice attended and spoke their piece, as did others with differing views. The director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life fan anti choice group) was there, and he both praised the speakers and afterwards thanked us for holding the event.

Most importantly, no speaker at any time "openly admitted that an abortion kills a human being, but said that abortion must nonetheless remain legal." One member of the audience did express a view, and I'm sure many women feel similarly; that woman, however, was not RUS-sponsored. What the speakers did emphasize is that there is not now and has never been a national consensus, not an agreement among and within different religions, as to when human life begins i,e., at what point abortion can be considered killing a child. The point was also made that the real issue here is forcing women to bear children they do not desire, which itself is a moral issue involving the violation of a woman's ability to live her own life an I control own body.

Pakaluk misses and distorts the point that pregnancy involves not only fetuses but real live women, and that it is a personal and complicated matter for these women. He equates the desire for legal abortion with hedonistic "sexual freedom," apparently never having heard of the fact that all types of women need abortions--married as well as unmarried, monogamous as well as "sexually free." Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion; no one is "pro-abortion." Being pro-choice is, if anything, being pro-women and children, pro-responsibility. At the present stage of contraceptive technology, even in those cases where precautions are always taken, there remains a 5 percent chance of pregnancy. For much of the American population, dented adequate sex education, couseling on reproductive issues, and access to contraception, the chance of unwanted pregnancy is phenomenally higher.

Abortion was not invented in 1973 and will never be legislated out of existence; it is a reality for many women, whether Michael Pakaluk or any of us like it or not. To talk about "life" in reverent tones and willfully ignore the devastating consequences of illegal abortions is the sheerest hypocrisy.

Control of one's reproductive destiny is as both feminists and the New Right fully understand, the key to women's entrance into society as full human beings. Only if women can become mothers when we want, if we want, can we overcome restrictive gender roles and gain the ability to face life with the same options that men take for granted. At the same time, there is no question that children who are brought into the world willingly will be better cared for than those who are not.

Being pro-choice is being pro-life. It is respecting every woman's personal decision to beat children or not to bear children. At this point in history abortion cannot be decreed away, however much we all wish that one day such measures will be wholly unnecessary. In the meantime, abortion can be made state as long as it is legal; our present task is to ensure every woman's control over her own life and the bearing of children who are truly wanted. Toba E. Spitzer '85-'86