Among the Christian constituency at Penn State, there is a tendency towards supporting the only pro-life administration, the Bush platform. The problem is that the abortion issue is only one plank of the platform, a platform which promulgates its ideals for the economy, education, health care, the military and numerous other plank issues.

Hence, if a Christian wishes only to cast a vote for the Bush administration based on his stance on the abortion issue, he must also justify the rest of the platform, at least to himself. Thus, the Christian must either prove to himself that the abortion issue outweighs all other issues or he must simply ignore the rest of the platform.

The fact is, the Bush ticket, based on typical Republican ideology, offers an unintelligent solution to the abortion issue. Pro-lifers, whose primary intent is to overturn Roe v. Wade, are simply not moving logically towards a solution to the very problem they see menacing our society. The problem: that people do not accept the consequences of their irresponsible actions and that constitutional rights of a life started at conception continue to be violated.

I liken the pro-life solution (making abortion illegal) to the same Republican "solution" to the drug problem. The Bush administration funneled a preponderance of its sources into intercepting drugs before they reached American mainland. Hence, it was 10 times as hard to get drugs into the United States. Accordingly, drugs were 10 times more expensive and users had to rob more stores or people to get the money for their next fix; users still need drugs.

If abortion is made illegal, women will still need abortions, it will just be much more dangerous and there is a good chance that more of them will die as a result. Thus, this is not a logical, pro-life solution.

As with the drug issue, the source of the problem is "what creates the necessity for abortion?"

I do not think that any pro-lifer could soundly argue that women seek abortion because they simply want to murder a child. Another argument must be examined.

If ensuring that each child conceived is born is the primary concern of every pro-lifer, the movement must strive to create a reason for doing so. Women must feel that their child has an opportunity to live a satisfying life, not just with adopted parents. Women, especially those who are impoverished, must be able to provide for their children. In this respect, the Clinton platform is far more "pro-life" than the Bush platform.

A woman must be ensured prenatal care, a promise that Bill Clinton has made and a promise that the Bush health plan cannot make (that being that proper health care is the right of all citizens).

A woman must feel secure that her child will not be raised in abject poverty, even if she is working a full-time job. Two out of three African Americans live below the poverty level at least once before their 18th birthday ("New Politics of Welfare," Robin Toner, The New York Times, July 5, 1992). A woman must feel that her child will have the full opportunity for an education. The Bush administration, aside from the huge cuts it has made to student grant and loan programs, has yet to fully fund the Head Start program, a program which Bill Clinton has administered in Arkansas.

In justifying the Bush platform, I offer but one solution. Do not make any attempt to do so. If $300 billion in annual additions to the national debt, 21 percent increases in spending over four years (rather liberal spending), high unemployment and poverty are your argument for "life" then I find your argument illogical and most unintelligent.

There is far more to life than birth. There are those other 70-some years that follow. A Clinton solution is the real "pro-life" solution. Clinton's plan is to provide liquid opportunities through the benefits of guaranteed health care and guaranteed education. More women will feel comfortable with the real-life opportunities for their expected children.