More contraceptives not the answer to abortion problem

This is in response to Jorie Slodki's letter ("Columnist should concentrate on Planned Parenthood's good qualities," Jan. 25), which called out Abram Hess' Jan. 18 column for not focusing on making contraceptives more widely available and providing "comprehensive sex education in schools":\nYes, there are ways to avoid the position of having to choose abortion. (By the way, no one ever has to choose abortion.) However, Slodki has failed to mention that the only way to fully prevent oneself from becoming pregnant is to abstain from sex until one is ready to take on the responsibilities that come along with it. She has also failed to mention that while chemical contraceptives can prevent ovulation, therefore preventing pregnancy, they also change the condition of the endometrium.\nIn case ovulation does occur, such that implantation is unable or very unlikely to occur, and since implantation occurs after conception, women who take such contraceptives may have abortions they were unaware could even happen. While I, of course, do not expect that Ms. Slodki believes that life begins at conception, most pro-lifers do, and that is the reason we promote abstinence and call for the end of abortion, not more contraceptives.\nI also find it quite ignorant for one to say that men have nothing to do with abortion. ("a choice that Hess, as a male, will never have to make"). A baby is a product of two individuals, not one. Just because a woman is not required to inform her unborn child's father before she has an abortion does not mean that she shouldn't, does not mean that he should have no say in the matter and does not mean that the abortion will not affect him.\nBreanne Vassar\nSophomore