Education the logical choice

Ignoring for a second a reader’s reliance on religion rather than reason, in a letter to the editor (Nov. 6, 2008), Ms. Gosney makes a common error in arguing against Roe v. Wade: the “think who we’ve lost” argument. Why is it always brilliant scholars that we’ve lost? Why is it never the serial killers, bullies, and dictators that we’ll never have the pleasure of experiencing? By her reasoning, we’ve “lost” more than she thinks. Every time a woman menstruates, potential life is squandered. Every time a man ejaculates, the same happens but millions of times over. Surely we don’t advocate continuous pregnancy. That solves the wasted eggs problem, but what of the millions unsuccessful sperm?
I praise Ms. Gosney on seeing the importance of having a choice. It is similar to, in the governor’s blind, ironic boast, Sarah Palin’s touting of their daughter’s ability to choose. I appreciate Ms. Gosney’s position, but all of my (vehemently) anti-choice friends have unfailingly chosen reproduction over adoption. 
I hope we can agree that creating more unprepared teen mothers by overturning Roe v. Wade, which would perpetuate cycles of poverty in many families, is the near-polar opposite to ideal.  Encouraging poverty is unethical of government and immoral of us. Abstinence-only programs are colossal failures. High-quality sex education in all schools, not birthing mandates from a would-be theocracy, will make for healthier, more well-informed young people. A drop in abortion rates and STDs will necessarily follow.    

Mark Specht
St. Louis