Recently The Herald has published letters from people who seem to believe that pregnancies are electively terminated only by irresponsible, heartless women, aided and abetted by “money grubbing” doctors. Those letters seem to equate grief and regret with punishment, and list adoption as the only viable alternative to a full term delivery. I admire the writers’ certainty.
When I consider a partial list of things that can make a pregnancy problematic (anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, polycystic kidney disease, rape, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter’s syndrome, lethal dwarfism, child abuse, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele, non-immune hydrops, epilepsy, Hunter syndrome, diabetes, Gaucher’s disease, Krabbe’s disease, acute liver failure, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and being 10 years old), I lack their courage.
Some of the above conditions alone or in combination will inevitably lead to the death of mother, child, or both. Others will lead to substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. I’m sure those who oppose choice are stepping up to support the injured mothers and babies either through taxes or donations.
And of course, there is always a critical lack of those ready to adopt special needs children; even though those children are among God’s rarest treasures. Surely all who vociferiously advocate against choice are adopting or fostering. Age, health conditions, financial status or family circumstances may not be the disqualifier one might think. Not to adopt would be irresponsible and heartless, not to mention hypocritical.
For answers to adoption questions, go to www.dshs.wa.gov/ca/adopt/how_questions.asp.
Mark Griswold
Mill Creek
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
