So, if I understood her correctly, St. Mary's College History Professor Christine Adams is saying that if the truth be known women value "jobs" over parenting, and the fulfillment of such values is just not possible if women are not in control of their bodies ("For women, reproductive rights are economic issues," Sept. 18).
Control, in her opinion, is that women must have the sole elective right to terminate their pregnancies to avoid being discriminated against and bullied by societal laws and mores. Just common sense and birth control practices aren't sufficient. Without the right of abortion, women subordinate their potential economic status to that of men. I actually think that the rational implications of her assumptions make a most demeaning statement about women values and position, and if I were a woman and mother it would be of great affront to my sensibilities as same.
The economic concerns of parenthood are associated mainly with the poor, which in our country paints the inner cities as the bedroom of unwanted pregnancies and abortion by the poor. Stereotypical as that may seem, by demographics the dominant races in the inner cities are African-Americans and Hispanics. Since the Hispanic population is mostly maternal Roman Catholic, economic abortions are not option to that populace; consequently by simple process of elimination that leaves Ms. Adams' target audience to be child-bearing African-Americans. So, the logical conclusion of Ms. Adams' argument is eugenics, racism in its truest form.
Gary R. Gamber, ReisterstownCopyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun