Mr. Vachaparambil is right to condemn the media in its scant coverage of the March to Life that took place last Thursday. I agree that a pacifist demonstration involving hundreds of thousands of people in the nation’s capital, during one of the most historical weeks in American history, is worthy of attention. I also commend Mr. Vachaparambil for adopting and professing such a spirited stance on an issue as sensitive as abortion. My concerns with his piece lie in the generalizations he seems to have used in formulating his opinion. I take greatest issue with the following statement: “In America, we have safe havens where infants can be “left” if their parents don’t want them. Having no excuse for preventing the entry of innocent life into this world, we shouldn’t let mere convenience dictate the future of our nation.”

I ask that Mr. Vachaparambil be mindful of the fact that in many cases, a young girl or woman resorts to abortion for reasons other than “mere convenience”. These reasons may range from the easing of psychological and emotional trauma in the wake of rape or incest, to the preservation of the mother’s life, among many others. I encourage Mr. Vachaparambil to refrain from dismissing the validity of such a difficult decision, for millions of women, in one fell swoop.

Abortion is an unpleasant procedure, but by no means is it a justification for passing judgment on all women who undergo it. When assessing the morality of abortion, it is certainly important to consider the life of the fetus, but it is just as important to take the life and well-being of the mother into account. Neither entity should always take precedence over the other. The reality is that the “innocent lives” to which Mr. Vachaparambil refers are encased in the bodies of women with lives of varying situations and circumstances, and of women who are often still innocent themselves. I cannot respect the opinions of people who claim to be pro-life but who are in fact only “pro-fetus”. I hope that Mr. Vachaparambil is of the former camp.