An explanation of the prior piece

I'm usually a firm believer that you shouldn't have to explain what you write, but I don't want "A Collective Social Experience" to be taken the wrong way.

The last piece was not an indictment of being pro-choice. In fact, I'm very pro-choice. I was thinking about access to choice, and wanted to explore (and make you think) about how our access to money influences the choices we make. Does that mean a woman who sticks out an unwanted pregnancy is more pious than a woman who takes society's so-called "easy way out"? I don't know. I don't think so, but I've never had to make that choice.

My point is this: I think the piece talks about how access influences choice, but I'm not so sure it doesn't also talk about how choice influences access - that is, a woman whose mother has a child out of wedlock is also more likely to have a child out of wedlock - so our parent's choices influence our choices, whether as a function of wealth, religion, or both.

That's it. I didn't want to delete it, even though I thought about it, but I decided an explanation would be prudent.