Michael Gerson states in his op-ed, “Abortion a divide U.S. can’t move past,” (Jan. 20), that Pro-Life is more inclusive than Pro-Choice. Why is it so often men who believe they are authorities on women’s reproductive rights, such as Gerson, or former Rep. Todd Aiken of Missouri, who in 2012 suggested that women who are raped are unlikely to get pregnant?

Gerson speaks of the “selfless motivation of trying to save innocent lives.” Good in theory, but what about the 16-year-old single mother in the real world who is not prepared emotionally or financially to bring up an unwanted child? How is forcing her to have this child going to be more “inclusive?”

The majority of Republicans and Pro-Lifers are unwilling to support Planned Parenthood, counseling, contraception, or any of the alternatives to abortion. How is a young mother to come up with the $233,610 (U.S. Department of Agriculture) it takes to raise a child from birth to 17, let alone get a higher education that would enable her to be financially independent?

In such a case Pro-Choice could be a force for inclusion, where the mother instead of being at the fringe of society would have the possibility of starting a family at such time when she was self-sufficient.

Peter Gross

Deep River