Spiller writes from "liberal playbook"
Mr. Spiller definitely pulled out the liberal playbook for his column "Don't Change my Mind." His arguments revolve around personal attacks and broad generalizations that are unfounded and don't relate to the issue at hand. We will start with his generalization that "the problem is conservatives don't respect those who don't believe that abortion is murder." Where is Mr. Spiller's evidence? At yesterday's rally the College Republicans who were representing the pro-life side were completely respectful of their pro-choice opponents. Even your staff editorial agreed - "yet without a single fist fight breaking out or a single gunshot being fired, these groups engaged in a highly charged, ideological debate."
He also feels that pro-life supporters need to "get (our) Bibles out of (our) asses." If Spiller chose to speak to any of the people representing the pro-life side yesterday, he would have found that we represent an array of religious beliefs, and that not all of us are part of the religious right.
Then we have Mr. Spiller's personal attack on a fellow College Republican, claiming she "looked like she put hours every morning into looking like Britney Spears." What does this have to do with the rally? The answer is absolutely nothing. By relating this pro-life proponent to Britney Spears, Spiller was trying to cast her in a negative light, hoping to discredit her and her viewpoint.
Finally Spiller says he "didn't see the Republicans handing out condoms at the rally." Instead we were handing out anti-abortion pamphlets. Why would we hand out free condoms? Conservatives believe in individual responsibility; if you want to have sex, then take proper precaution. Pay for your own condoms and birth control.
Spiller's article demonstrates the difference between liberals and conservatives perfectly. Where liberals use unfounded generalizations, conservatives use evidence. While liberals engage in ad hominem attacks that have no relation to the issues, conservatives focus on the issues.
MacKenzie Hyde
psychology freshman
College Republican
Life should be safeguarded
Cory Spiller's April 25 column shows the breadth of the gap between those who support and those who oppose abortion rights.
To the "pro-choice" crowd, it's all about "a woman's right to choose." The nature of the choice is never spoken - why is that? Are "pro-choicers" afraid to admit that they think abortion is a good choice? Yet that is surely what they believe. Why can't they say it?
The fact is that by dwelling on "a right to choose," the goal is to distract attention from what is being chosen; yet that is the heart of the issue! No one disputes a woman's right to choose her hair color, her political party or a thousand other things. But is it her right to choose abortion?
Before the Civil War, many thought that the slaves were not persons, merely property. They were "pro-choice" on slavery. Many even said to themselves, perhaps, "I would never own a slave but I don't want to force my morals on others."
Such a position is morally bankrupt. Even Horton the Elephant (of Dr. Seuss fame) knew that "a person is a person, no matter how small!" If a fetus is a person, then she cannot be killed arbitrarily because her mother doesn't want her. If, as Spiller claims, we can't be sure whether a fetus is human or not, wouldn't it be prudent to assume so until proven otherwise? Isn't life so precious that we should work to safeguard it?
Gordon Zaft
ECE graduate student
Abortion shreds citizens' rights
My letter is in concern to the pro-choice rally yesterday. Many of the arguments I heard pertained to keeping "Christian fundamentalist dogma" from infringing on the right of a woman to abort her baby.
It is a telling duplicity that on one hand a woman can legally terminate her baby's life, while on the other hand a criminal who kills a pregnant mother is frequently charged with two deaths. The only clear difference between the two is that in the former the mother wanted this life terminated, while in the latter the mother did not. It is not right that the mother who aborts should be allowed to terminate a life legally.
The murderer breaks the law; the burglar breaks the law. Never mind that I believe these things to be immoral; this argument falls on deaf ears to many Americans, and understandably so - we believe differently. These things are defined to be crimes because they break down the civilization necessary to keep order. It is this civilization that political systems are established to protect. One universal attribute of civilization is that a person wanting to kill another person is not allowed to do so. By allowing mothers to kill their babies, we are allowing our civilization to be torn away. Abortion is more insidious than murder because the victims are almost invisible, but it has very similar consequences.
Forget moral pleas against abortion - the universal truth is that it shreds the fabric of any society that seeks to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens. Mother Teresa's words are true: "Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want."
Seth Pruitt
international studies junior
