I am not going to pretend to like logic class—the subject is always difficult or inane, never in the middle. In our logic class, we are required to present two articles per semester. We need to evaluate the arguments in terms of what we are doing in class on the day we present, etc. It’s a relatively simple assignment.

Today I became more agitated than usual when a girl stood up to present a letter to the editor concerning abortion. The author of this letter presented a link between poverty and abortion, saying that if President Bush wants to curtail abortion, he needs to work towards an end to poverty. The girl, and most of the class, felt this was a very strong argument. I was slightly appalled, and it wasn’t because I don’t think that President Bush and everyone else should work to eradicate poverty.

I was appalled because although the initial movements for reproductive freedom aimed to make the service available to everyone, abortion is still expensive and remains out of the price range for many people. There is no direct link between poverty and abortion. The fact that people consistently draw this link makes me furious because it is false. I raised my hand and politely pointed out that abortion remains expensive, that most insurance plans do not cover abortion, and that states will not pay for abortions—so abortions remain out of reach for many women, particularly women living in poverty. You can get welfare after a child is born to help with finances, but you cannot use state funds to have an abortion (this is true of any state in the United States, as far as I know). This seems a little silly to me, considering the fact that abortion is legal, and the procedure is hardly cosmetic.

The girl was absolutely convinced that Planned Parenthood performs free abortions, which is not true. She said that people have abortions because they “can’t afford to have children.� This is partly true, but the difference between not having adequate funds to have a child and actually living in poverty is definitely real. They are not interchangeable and they are not one in the same.

On a deeper level, the link that people consistently draw between living in poverty and having abortions upsets me because it completely subverts what the right to abortion is all about, which is reproductive freedom. Abortion rights are about privacy and being able to control your own body. I fail to understand why people still need to attribute a cause to abortion other than not wanting to have a child. Why is not wanting to have a child not enough? Why is it necessary for so many people who claim to be supportive of abortion to somehow turn the women having abortions into objects of pity, with problems that are always bigger than pregnancy? Health issues, sexual assault, and poverty are just a few of the reasons that people will link with abortion. What if ____? But what if _____?

What if someone just does not want a child?

That should be more than enough—there is no need to link other issues (which are certainly very real and tangible issues) to abortion. The abortion debate should be about choice, not about conditions.