The Tech - Online EditionMIT's oldest and largest
newspaper & the first
newspaper published
on the web
Boston Weather: 70.0°F | Partly Cloudy

Letters to the Editor

I am writing this letter to express my anger and concern about statements made in the article "Why abortion must be safe, legal, and funded," by MIT Students for Choice co-founder Emily T. Yeh '93, which appeared in last week's issues of The Thistle and Counterpoint; an article which Tech opinion editor Bill Jackson '93 called "excellent" and recommended we all go out and read ["Thistle, Counterpoint War Rages on Print," Feb. 28].

Yeh begins her article with the statement "Illegal or not, abortion has been practiced in every society regardless of restrictions, since 2500 B.C." What kind of justification is this? Should a society allow an immoral practice to continue just because people have been doing it for a long time?

Yeh then tries to justify the killings by stating that 91 percent of abortions are performed before the child is 12 weeks old. The remaining nine percent represent nearly five million children with legs, arms, fingers, faces, internal organs, and detectable brain activity who were butchered in 1988 alone by "doctors" and "mothers" who did not want them.

Perhaps her article would have been a good place for Yeh to tell why MIT Students for Choice condones a genocide of this magnitude. Instead, what we get are insignificant statistics that do nothing more than justify the killing of children with statements about the "complexity of a woman's decisions." She states that over three out of four of the women having an abortion say having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities, and two out of three say they cannot afford a baby at this point in their lives. So, a significant number of the 24 million abortions performed in the United States since 1967 were done out of convenience.

But perhaps the most alarming of Yeh's arguments are those she uses to justify abortion because of its "population control" capabilities. To Yeh, those of us who value the life of children are "blind to the pressing problems of today's world." And "in China, abortion is mandated by the government in an effort towards population control." Since when are the actions of the Chinese government used as examples of moral standards by which other nations determine their own policies?

Yeh further justifies abortions by giving us "cold facts" about the number of children waiting to be adopted in this country. She states that "adoptive parents usually seek white, healthy infants, often paying large fees to baby brokers or agencies, while infants of color and disabled children wait, often indefinitely for homes." She fails to realize that the reason these children of color are not being adopted is because a disproportionate number of persons of color who would adopt these children are living in poverty or near-poverty conditions and cannot afford the adoption fees.

I bring up these points because I feel our society should be very wary of persons advocating killing as a method of "population control." Statistics do not show that the minority community has a need for these fascist opinions and methods. What we do need is education for our children, jobs for our adults, and reproductive education for all our people.

Our country needs a rational abortion policy -- a policy that grants women of all ages funded access to abortions if they have been victims of rape or incest, or if there is medical reason to believe that the mother's life is in danger. However, the killing of children whose only fault was having a mother who had not yet graduated from college and didn't want a scandal must stop. MIT must stop using our money to pay for the abortions of careless students.

Alfredo J. Armendariz '93