Jason Iwig, in his Nov. 19 letter, “Innocent children have right to life,” asserts a lovely ideal. This right-to-life ideal is certainly most moral, uplifting and pretty much right. However, it is only an ideal. The reality of life in America is completely different.

So many anti-abortion activists never consider the consequences of banning abortion. I’m not just talking about women who will resort to back-alley abortions and harm either themselves or their child or both, though that is a part of it. Consider these points:

Some people who choose abortions are doing so because their child has a severe birth defect. By aborting, they avoid either the pain of a stillbirth or a child born only to suffer a few hours, full of tubes.They may have a child that has absolutely no quality of life — it couldn’t walk, talk or breathe on its own. Arguments may be made that the child may still want to live even if it can’t eat or breathe, but that’s the parents’ decision, not the government’s.

Some people who choose abortions are chemically dependent. Many of these people’s children, if born, will be addicted to drugs, have HIV or have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Some of the mothers will be unfit to raise these children, so into the system they go, costing taxpayers thousands of dollars for their care. I guarantee you a conservative who is pro-life will not also be pro-large government programs.

Some people who choose abortions are young, poor or both, and will not make fit parents. Adoption is a hard to choice to make. When their child is born, many who have considered adoption can’t do it, so we have more kids living in poverty and women who are unable to parent effectively. They, too, are going to need government assistance, and more kids will be in the system when their parents can’t take care of them. Again, no conservative is also going to want to implement these programs to help these kids and their parents.

Healthy babies placed up for adoption by women who would have aborted will help flood the adoption market. While this is not necessarily bad, there are thousands of children who already need homes. They’re not all babies, but they still need a home. There are starving orphans in Asia and Eastern Europe. There are unwanted Chinese girls. There are kids whose parents abused them. What happens to these kids when couples can just get a pretty, new baby? They keep living in the system. Shouldn’t we take care of the ones we have before we worry about the ones that might be?

Fighting for the birth of all conceived children might sound like a noble idea, but the reality of it is very different. Banning abortion will have a ripple effect that most anti-abortion activists don’t take into account.

Mr. Iwig, (and all the rest of you), how many children are you planning to adopt to save from an abortion? How many of your hard-earned dollars do you want to donate in taxes to take care of all these kids? Think about the reality of their existence before you argue for some pie-in-the-sky ideal.

Mackenzie Dunn

Alumna