'Job well done'
I'm writing to address the commentary that was written (yesterday) concerning the pro-choice rally that occurred (Tuesday). I am sure that Cory Spiller will get nothing but negative feedback on his piece, but I thought it was fantastic. I think that he got the point across without being disrespectful or crossing any lines. I agree that most of the pro-life activists need to "get their Bibles out of their asses" and start to find a new approach to stopping the rising number of abortions. If they want to stop so many abortions from occurring, then they need to start by preventing pregnancies in the first place. If they weren't so damn conservative and got up enough guts to address the issue at hand, they might find a solution to their problem.
The point is that this is America and the most wonderful aspect of our country is that everybody has the right to make their own decisions. For some person to hold up a sign that says "Abortion stops a heartbeat," and make me feel like having a choice is a bad thing, is horrible and wrong. I just want Spiller to know that he wrote a great piece and should be congratulated on a job well done.
Melissa Reznik
communications sophomore
Equality root of abortion debate
I find it disturbing that the Wildcat chose to print two letters from men, Gordon Zaft and Seth Pruitt, on why the general public should be pro-life. I am certain that men can never fully understand this issue and therefore shouldn't be pro-life. Once a man has gone through years of cramps, periods and pregnancy scares, then they can tell me if they are still pro-life.
At the root of the abortion issue is women's right to be recognized as being equal to men. There are no laws, that I am aware of, that prohibit men from having something done to their bodies. Women have been pushed down, told what to do and made to feel inferior to men for thousands of years. We are sick of it, and feminists have been fighting for at least the last 150 years to make men see that we are equal to them. If women never get equal pay - which of course we deserve - at least let us decide what happens to our own bodies.
Also, pro-choice people are not in favor of killing innocent victims, as Seth Pruitt said. Killing anything is wrong. However, sometimes an abortion is the best of two horrible choices that millions of women have faced. If pro-life people want to live up to their name and not kill anymore innocent victims, then they should all be vegetarians that are strongly against the death penalty and never kill anyone - especially abortion doctors! At least then I would have a little respect for them. As for now, I have none.
Jennie James
history junior
World not perfect
By the tone of Thursday's "Letters" section, I must be an odd liberal indeed. I have a solid basis for my belief in both abortion and a woman's right to choose.
We do not live in a perfect world. In this world a woman having an unwanted baby can - and will - suffer economically, religiously and culturally. It has been proven that access to abortion gives women who are not ready for children a greater chance at the education and job opportunities, that on a larger scale, can bring an entire nation closer to leaving third-world status. A significant connection has been established between dropping crime rates and access to abortion. I don't like it, but I can't make the truth go away. Less disadvantaged children means fewer criminals. Excuse me if I want to care more for children, women and families who are already here than those who are not children yet.
In a perfect world, contraceptives that a poor family made a sacrifice to buy would work 100 percent of the time. In a perfect world, the government would sensibly oppose both paying for contraceptives and abortion in health care, when free contraceptives would remove most of the need for abortion. In a perfect world, there would be a well-off family for every child that parents did not want or could not care for. In a perfect world, the government would take the child that a woman or family was unable to care for and pay all the costs for adoption, school etc. In a perfect world, we would not need abortion, as much as I hate to admit we need it. If the contraceptives that my fiancee and I used failed and we had a baby, it would destroy our lives. I will not risk a child becoming a criminal in a disadvantaged, destroyed household.
In addition, I also have reasons for a woman's right to choose. No one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.
Joshua White
microbiology senior
Government should not hinder choice
I find it amusing that Tom McDermott - the man who said that conservatives speak from the mind and liberals speak from the heart - is quoted as saying, "Abortion is so repugnant to the very concept of a civilized society that the so-called 'right' to engage in it should never have been recognized."
I find it rather strange that many political conservatives oppose abortion, as well as opposing sex education in the school system, and free and easy access to birth control. Apparently, these conservatives don't see the glaring overpopulation in this and many other countries as a problem. Apparently, nothing is more beautiful than the miracle of reproduction, no matter how much it taxes the economy, the education system or the government. That seems highly illogical to me, and irresponsible to boot.
Beyond that, I find it again a strange contradiction that Mr. McDermott talked about how "freedom and self-determination" were the benefits of capitalism, how they inspired "individual autonomy and economic self-realization," while at the same time espousing the opinion that a woman has no right to choose. While I think everyone has a right to their own personal viewpoint of abortion because it is a "moral" choice to some extent, I absolutely believe that the government has no right to legislate or judicially decide what goes on inside a woman's body. If we start there, what other rights might we lose? Can government then enforce sterilization of both men and women for the public good? Can the government require women to carry babies against their will, a la "The Handmaiden's Tale?" Regulation of the inner workings of the inside of a human body is not for government to decide - it is for us as individuals, to decide and live with.
To put it simply, women should always have the right to bear children free of government interference, but they also have the right not to bear children free of government interference. Government should not legislate morality and should not impose that morality upon half of the population of the United States, and although the Supreme Court that decided Roe vs. Wade may not have had firm constitutional footing, they were at least wise enough to know that.
Melissa Meister
UA law student
Sweatshops not travesty
After reading Laura Winsky's article, I was amazed at how one-sided she is. She says that the Summit of the Americas is "just another opportunity for the travesty of sweatshops to grow." A travesty? I don't think so. A sweatshop provides jobs. They create a job that did not exist before. It is an opportunity to make a living where before there was no opportunity.
She talks about Abigail Martinez who earns 60 cents an hour. How much money would she make if she did not work in a "sweatshop." Nothing! Nada! Now, I know that conditions in her workplace are not the best, but it's better than not working at all.
People like Martinez don't complain when another factory opens up. They see it as another job that did not exist before - it means a better life for them. When factories open up, they drive wages up which benefits the people working there.
As for the point she makes at the end, "it might be interesting to see how many of them (police officers) would have been there that afternoon for 60 cents and hour." My reply is that if this police officer was working in a Central American country, he would show up for 60 cents an hour if his other choice was to earn nothing by not working.
Cesar Canez
finance and accounting senior
Protesters not zealots
I am taking this time to reply to Mr. McDermott's section of free trade. I believe he has many facts wrong. One, the protesters who were out there in the streets on April 20 were not "anti-progress zealots purporting to speak on behalf of people." If McDermott was there he would have seen that we are for progress and equal rights. We want people to be guaranteed their basic fundamental rights, something that the FTAA would not do. Also if he studied the histories of many Central American countries, he would see that their cultures are in danger because of free trade and our lovely global market. Take note of the Maya of Guatemala - as the teenagers get shipped off to work for basically slave labor to produce the clothes we wear, they return home to shun their deeply-rooted traditions and cultures. If the workers try to organize, they will be killed. They are afraid to take a stand against the horrid conditions because they don't want to die. Is that right?
So with the FTAA we will further erode people's cultural values and increase slave labor to make our Levi's. Good-bye human rights. The second issue I want to address is his use of the term Third World. The Third World is dead. It is an outdated Cold War term. I feel it is very ethnocentric for someone to label countries that have not shared in the same economic prosperity as the United States as Third World, implying they are inferior to us. Our economic high times stem out of the back-breaking labor of the Third World. How else will the UA get their Nike uniforms. But what do I know - I am just one of those "anti-progress zealots."
Kathleen Van Vlack
anthropology freshman
