To the editor:

In “Did legalized abortion lead to lower crime rates?” (the editorial by Froma Harrop on April 19), Harrop entices readers while begging the question (i.e., whether abortion is a crime). Then, leaving the effect of abortion on crime unanswered, she concludes with a familiar point. “The abortion discussion should rightfully go beyond a woman’s right to control her body.” But to go beyond that point we must first reach it.

I readily admit that women (and men) have a right to control their body. I deny that this right excludes limitation. For every crime (the subject of the editorial) utilizes a body. Therefore, this right, like all the others, is limited.

I further deny that the unborn are simply a part of the woman’s body. This would mean, in a typical pregnancy, that the woman has a complementary set of hands. Does she control those hands? Harrop asserts that she has the “right” to control them. But what significance is such a right if neither God nor nature gave her the ability to do so? At best, she will guide them indirectly through education, nurture, discipline and the like. She will never control them. That is the right of the child to whom they belong — as it should be.

Michael Riley,

Lawrence