I read “Death Before Birth” with great interest for I am one of the women that article was against. I had an abortion last August and will have one every nine months if necessary till I become crippled or die.
I am a mother of two children, aged two and four. I am 25. The husband is 33. He works only when he feels like it, always seeing to it that I wouldn’t be too desperate to be able to get the law after him.
Last fall our bills were piling up, payment on the house was overdue, each of the children and I with only one pair of shoes with big holes in them, the need for coal for the coming of the winter—and me expecting a baby! I borrowed $25.00 and was determined that to die would be a pleasure compared to the life I was stuck to. (Oh yes, my husband doesn’t believe in contraceptives.)
Two months after the abortion I was taken to the hospital, unable to even get a taxi. I didn’t have one cent that day. I walked home from the hospital the next day following an emergency operation. Four days later, while my husband slept, I got up at six and took the children to a nursery school and went to work in a restaurant kitchen, over the steam table. I was sick. My husband rested at home.
And I should have babies!
I’m telling you I had an abortion. I’ll tell the world that I have no intention of bringing up children like animals, have them grow up to be criminals. I intend to give my children all I can, and I can only do it if I work. I would be unable to work if I had any more children.
I will not have any more children. I’ll die first.—Mrs. P., Toronto.
—Maclean's article was against no one but the abortion racketeers who often exploit such cases as this.—The Editors.
Abortion Is Murder
I am very glad you had the courage to publish Scott Young’s article “Death Before Birth.” I hope many young people will read it, and be made aware of the truth.
The general public do not seem to realize that the unborn child is a separate individual from the moment of conception. So that a procured abortion is murder just as surely as infanticide, whether the law says so or not.—Dr. M. G. W., Toronto.
As I was glancing through your May 1 issue (which I enjoyed very much), I noticed that in the righthand picture on page 9 the word “jewellery” is spelled two ways— with one “1” and two “l’s” on two different signs on the same store in White Horse. No doubt a manifes-
tation of the rugged individuality of the Yukon sign painters?
I wonder if many other readers noticed that detail?—J. R. O’Grady,' Roberval, Que.
—It's nice to get caught in a typographical error that we didn't make! —The Editors.
When I picked up Maclean’s May 1 I recognized Main and Portage, Winnipeg, at once, although I have not seen it for 35 years.
Those of us who have lived in Winnipeg for any length of time will laugh at the hat in the air. Many times I have seen people chasing their hats on that corner and several times have had a run after my own “lid.” Thank the artist for me please, for taking me back so many years.—Mrs. Margaret Coates, Toronto.
—We hear some people just laughed at the hat.—The Editors.
Welcome to China
I just want to drop you a note to tell you how much your magazine has been appreciated out here, since the close of the war and the gradual opening up of communications has made it possible for our friends to forward copies to us. There are quite a few Canadian missionaries in Szechuan and Maclean’s is like a breath from home with its good Canadian flavor. But if you would be perfect you would omit the liquor ads. I am sure they are not necessary for your existence.—Eleanor D. Graham, Fowchow, Szechuan, West China.
No Such Fancies
In Mailbag (May 1) readers from Ottawa and Brandon prove Hugh MacLennan’s point that many Canadians are wearing blinders. They are just the sort of people who keep alive an unhealthy curiosity channelled on our present concepts of immorality, or the hint of it, exposed by certain books.
If those correspondents would see beyond personal distaste into the so-called sordidness of life, and do something active toward making living happier for the “floozies and fiends,” the “degraded specimens of humanity,” they would be of service to their country, not merely being offended by a whiff of reality. The descriptions in a controversial book are not “sick fancies,” not when written by responsible writers like Hugh MacLennan or Gabrielle Roy; they are the reflection of the state of our nation, and reflection is on the bigot more so than on the offender of nice morals. And one does not have to read a deliberately pornographic book. Ignoring them is more effective than blasting them to plague our curiosities.—T. M. K., Toronto.
The story you want is part of the Maclean’s Archives. To access it, log in here or sign up for your free 30-day trial.
Experience anything and everything Maclean's has ever published — over 3,500 issues and 150,000 articles, images and advertisements — since 1905. Browse on your own, or explore our curated collections and timely recommendations.WATCH THIS VIDEO for highlights of everything the Maclean's Archives has to offer.