Regarding the March 5 letter to the editor, “Taking responsibility for large families,” it is so disproportionately on the woman to decide how many children she can support, in the event of so many varied life events beyond her control; I find it objectionable that a man thinks he can pass judgment on this issue.
I chose to limit myself to two children, because my best judgment told me two was all I could support if my marriage ended.
What I couldn’t know was one of my children would be diagnosed with a cognitive disability. When the marriage did end, I found myself reliant on food stamps and WIC for a while; my child’s needs precluded my ability to work for a few years.
My experience surely taught me I can’t sit judgment on any woman who seeks an abortion for the sake of basic security, no matter I consider abortion the loss of innocent life. Much less, then, can any man sit judgment on a woman (and it is all too often a woman) who is struggling to support her family.
In any case, does the writer seriously propose a child in want should stay in want merely to reduce his taxes?
Zoe Gaston
South Portland
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.