Bernard Axelrad Scholarship Fund

At my age I have too many scars along with the gray hairs to plunge headlong into the abortion controversy, but some recent events caused me to reflect on the anomalous positions of most anti-abortionists.

Last month my attention was drawn to a picture on the front page of the L.A. Times, showing thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators in Washington, DC, gathered to mark (and protest) the 13th anniversary of legal abortion. Among the speakers addressing the crowd was President Reagan who spoke feelingly of working to overthrow the "tragedy of Roe v. Wade" (the January 22, 1973, Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion during the first three months of pregnancy).

There was even discussion of a Presidential pardon for convicted bombers and arsonists of abortion clinics. The issue of abortion is a highly charged one and no one should underrate the zeal and fervor of the pro-lifers. The irony of endangering the lives of innocent people working in an abortion clinic, in an effort to obstruct abortions of unborn fetuses, is palpable.

Then I had occasion to view Bill Moyer's TV documentary, "The Vanishing Family — Crisis in Black America" which, among other matters, revealed that almost 60 percent of all black children are born out of wedlock and primarily to teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19. These children are raised in abject poverty and without fathers. Joblessness among black youths is almost 42 percent,(not a typographical error). Blacks are about 11 percent of the population but constitute about 50 percent of the incarcerated felons. The principal cause of death among blacks aged 15 to 24 is murder by other blacks.

While the focus of the documentary was on blacks, I suspect the statistics are quite similarly chilling among the poor and disadvantaged of other races, as well. Teenage childbearing cost the nation $16 billion last year. Our foster homes are filled to capacity with children whose natural parents are unable or incapable of rearing them.

Now comes my puzzlement at an apparent inconsistency.

The most vociferous pro-lifers seem to be also the most insistent on cutting back on welfare spending. A recent headline reads: "Reagan Condemns Welfare System (says it's made poverty worse instead of better)." One of the President's recurring and favorite themes is the misguided welfare program, and he has assailed the phenomenon of "child mothers and absentee fathers."

One must wonder at the reasoning of the pro-lifers who hold human life, especially in the womb, so sacred. It is difficult to argue with that estimable conviction; yet, why are they invariably the same people who want to cut back on social services and economic assistance for often unwanted children once they are born?

Does their overwhelming concern for the embryo vanish once it is born? Do they then no longer have any concern or compassion for its fate? It certainly would appear that way if the drastic cuts in social services For the poor, sick and handicapped under the Reagan administration are any criteria.

Maybe I'm missing a point somewhere, but what's to be done with these children after they are horn to the indigent and disadvantaged? Without adequate government assistance these children frequently grow to become transgressors against the society that cast a cold eye upon them. We don't have enough prisons in which to incarcerate them. nor can our overburdened police or court system deal effectively with them.

Without advocating forced abortion in any case, some recognition should be given to the wishes of those women who are carrying a child that's unwanted for whatever the reason.

New genetic technology will compound the problem. Recent advances have enabled scientists to map the genes that cause hereditary disease (such as muscular dystrophy) and detect it in the chromosomes of the embryo so that accurate forecasts can be made that the unborn child will someday fall victim to the disease.

The physical and emotional abuse of our children is a shame of our so-called civilized society. The recent McMartin case testimony is only the tip of the iceberg. Pedophilia and incest are much more common than imagined. I suspect that many of the abusers once may have been unwanted children.

I see no great benefit in bringing children into being by parents who do not want them. If we insist on it, then the logical corollary is to provide nurturing services for them where the mother cannot or will not. Otherwise, we perpetuate and propagate the problem.

At least the Catholic Church, which unremittingly opposes abortion on religious grounds, is consistent in its favoring of government funding for the needy.

As I contemplate the ongoing abortion controversy. I can't help but be perplexed at this basic contradiction on the part of the anti-abortionists. There appears to be a conflict of logic in a policy which on the one hand is insistent on the birth of Fetuses regardless of the mother's wishes, and yet is niggardly in passing out government succor to needy children.

And the ultimate anomaly: The anti-abortionists are usually the most clamorous proponents of capital punishment. Save a life in the womb and snuff it out later.