Living proof that not all poor end up badly

I am writing in response to Nancy Knox's article titled "Pro-life advertisements forget who pays the highest cost" from your 10/07/98 edition. In her article, Knox indirectly draws the conclusion that every baby that is not aborted has a greater likelihood of parental abuse, and then follows this by showing example after example of abused child. I know for a fact that she is only half right in her argument. Any baby that is born into a family with inadequate parents is definitely going to be at higher risk for parental abuse, but this criteria spans well over social class and financial means.

All I'm trying to say is not every disadvantaged mother is going to abuse her child because of the stress it brought her, and not every upper class family is guaranteed to be loving parents either.

My mother had the choice to abort my twin brother and I when she was unwed with one child already, while dirt-poor in Chicago. By God's grace and her grit she worked her way through nursing school, got married to a good man (even though my biological father split) and managed to have both of us anyway.

According to Knox's article, I should be a lost cause by now in her hospital, but I'm not because there are no rules saying that I was supposed to be abused by my mother who didn't get an abortion.

Abused children can just as easily come from rich families as poor, all it takes are bad parents. Not every aborted abortion results in an abused child. I am living proof that a loving family, despite their financial means, are what's required for the protection of children.

While we are counting the cost of who pays the most, I have to ask myself if you're trying to tell people that since the kids are going to die anyway, then it's all right to have an abortion? Hopefully by my testimony people can see that it's never a guarantee, children deserve every chance that we can give them. I know that I appreciate it.

Andrew Winslow
Psychology sophomore