Last week the UNews published a letter entitled “Student Clarifies Pro-Choice Stance” written by Jenna Wells. The inaccuracies found therein should be corrected.

Wells incorrectly portrays the Pro-Life movement’s views on prevention. The crux of the Pro-Life argument is that life, when conceived, should be protected because it is a person, and there is a diversity of opinions as to how unwanted conceptions can be averted. Some Pro-Lifers favor contraception while others, including the Catholic Church, support abstinence; both are modes of prevention. However, Wells focuses on the latter mode only, dismissing the fact that the former exists.

The remainder of her letter relies on this erroneous premise but remarkably goes even farther astray from the truth. Wells claims that “if prevention were readily available to women, abortion wouldn’t have to be a resort at all and women would never have to find themselves in an unplanned pregnancy.”

Wells fails to mention that a majority of abortions follow protected sex, not unprotected sex. She also implies that all pregnancies are preventable, which barring some radical surgery, is a falsehood; any sex ed teacher will tell you that there is no fool proof way to avert pregnancy… except by abstinence.

Further, when Wells is not engaging in broad platitudes of abortion being a woman’s “best option” (adoption?) or the need for pro-lifers and pro-choicers to “agree to disagree” (but what about “consensus”?), perhaps most revealing is Wells’ assertion that women “should not have to risk their lifestyle” because they get unexpectedly pregnant.

Absent from Wells’ discussion is the reality that a human being has been unexpectedly conceived. A full discussion of abortion cannot begin and end with prevention, and it must fundamentally account for all of the lives at issue, including the life of the mother’s unborn child. As only a fraction of abortions are administered to preserve the mother’s life, it is exceedingly important that the rights of the unborn — members of perhaps the most vulnerable class of our society — are properly considered and preserved, and not simply dismissed as an inconvenience.

The notion of extinguishing another life to preserve one’s “lifestyle” is not only morally reprehensible, but inappropriate for a Jesuit school devoted to promoting social justice in every respect. We would hope that Wells’ School of Social Work feels likewise.

Gene Diamond
Senior, College of Arts and Sciences
President, Students for Life

Patrick Ishmael
J.D. Candidate, School of Law