This woman was a curious case. She is 45, faithful to her husband. I know she's faithful because she has no reason to lie. Her appointment is over and I will never see her again, nor come into contact with anyone she knows personally. If that were the case and she knew that I would come into contact with such a person, she wouldn't have traveled all the way from Wisconsin to come see me. But then again, if she were faithful, why would she be so cautious as to who knows that she got an abortion.

There's an obvious answer to such an obvious question. There are actually several. The one I'm going to dwell on for the time being is the assumption of misconception. Such an assumption, of course, has ground. Most likely, if an acquaintance (note: not a close friend) heard that she decided not to have a baby while she kept quiet about it (which again brings us to this paradox) s/he would assume the worst situation. In this case, unfaithfulness, which, as I've said before is most definitely not the case.

Her child was to be a boy with a very likely case of down syndrome and other possible defects. She is in her mid 40s, and giving birth could have been just as damaging to her as to her possible son. Her husband and her have been using birth control methods since their last child, however, there are just those times when things happpen. Something happened, and it was an accident. Children shouldn't be accidents, and she knew that. Children shouldn't be punished for accidents.

She did this for her reputation? That's selfish.

She did this to save her baby's life? That's controversial.

She did this to save her own life? That's selfish.

She did this because she had nowhere else to turn? That's an apology.

She's not sorry. Neither is the baby.

The baby is not a baby and never will be.

That's not the way it's supposed to be, but maybe it makes what is supposed to be, better.

What do I care? It's just business.