Comment about women's "mistakes" amusing
In the Wildcat's story on the pro-choice rally, I found the following quote from Anthony Nelson of the College Republicans amusing: "It's basically saying, 'Women, it's OK for you to kill your baby,'" he said. "Don't punish your child by killing it because of your mistake."
It's the "your mistake" part I find funny. It calls to mind an image of a woman somehow sitting around accidentally getting pregnant all by herself. Like a woman, turkey-baster full of semen in hand, accidentally slips and whoops! conception occurs.
Rachel Wilson
psychology graduate student
Zygote is not a life
This letter is in response to Gordan Zaft's and Seth Pruitt's April 26 letters regarding the abortion issue. In their letters, it is suggested that abortion is wrong because it is wrong to kill a person. It seems to me that the crux of this issue is when it is correct to consider an embryo as a person. The American Heritage Dictionary defines person as "1. A human being. 2. The living body of a human being. 3. The personality of a human being; self." Given this definition, it is difficult to deny the status of "person" to a fetus in the early third-trimester and beyond due to the highly developed nature of its body/organs, brain and nervous system.
However is a zygote in the first few weeks after conception really a person? The absence of a body, brain and nervous system makes it difficult to ascribe a personality to a zygote, and this fact in conjunction with the absence of the aforementioned bodily components clearly argues that a zygote in the early trimester is not a person. The best that can be argued is that it is a potential person.
I can side with the pro-life movement against late-term abortions because the above definition of a person suggests that the fetus is a person. Mid-term abortions are questionable and are a matter for further discussion. Whether these types of abortion should be considered immoral depends upon the determination of criteria that indicates the presence of a personality and determination of the threshold at which a developing zygote may be said to have a body and thus may be considered a fetus.
However early-term abortions, including those induced very soon after conception via the morning-after pill, cannot be wrong in a moral sense because the zygote is not a person. Most pro-choice sympathizers are fighting for a woman's right to choose an early-term abortion, rather than late-term abortions. However the continued insistence of the pro-life movement that a zygote is a person, in the face of evidence to the contrary, is frustrating; especially when they seek to use this to outlaw not only abortion, but also the use of much-needed chemical forms of birth control that may induce spontaneous abortions in the case of accidental fertilization. Considering a zygote a person or even a potential person is a slippery slope. Should we outlaw male masturbation and barrier methods of birth control because potential people in the form of sperm cells are wasted in the process? Should we outlaw menstruation because potential people in the form of human ova are discarded during women's menses?
Logan Trujillo
psychology graduate student
Abortion violates human rights
I had the privilege to see the pro-choice rally on Wednesday. I say privilege because without the influences of the rally I probably wouldn't have written this or even taken the time to think about the issue. It occurs to me that we live in a society that is so preoccupied with the attainment of instant gratification that the consequences of certain actions are not only disregarded but also legitimated under the guise of rights, such as negative rights in which the populous views that the female subject possesses the right to do with her body as she sees fit.
Well, I agree. The entity of the human body is the property of the mind that governs it and thus possess the right of whatever degradation that individual is given over to. But when one speaks of an unborn fetus, then a whole dimension to the argument materializes. Why do I say this? The average sperm cell outside the human body can survive for just a couple of hours, while inside the female uterus it can survive for up to four days. The average life of the human female egg also has a short life span. These two human reproductive cells on their own have an average life spans that is negligible, from the human perspective. When they are combined, the resulting cells grow to create an organism that has an average life span of about 80 years. I am of course speaking of the human being. Thus logic would dictate that once an egg and sperm combines, a human is formed. This newly formed human is inherently endowed with the same negative rights that are afforded all men and women. Amongst these negative rights in the right to not have ones life unjustly terminated.
My view is not to hamper the rights of the female individual but to point out that a human's right is being violated under the act of abortion. The rights of the human undergoing gestation within the uterine walls of the female. This is my logical progression on abortion. Take it or leave it.
Brian Morrow
accounting sophomore
"Disadvantaged life" argument does not justify abortion
In response to Joshua White's letter, I must agree with him. We do not live in a perfect world. There will always be disadvantaged people and difficult circumstances for many in our country and throughout the world. But to say that abortion is the answer to crime problems and societal distress is a blatant attempt to justify murder. If "less disadvantaged children means less criminals," then why doesn't Mr. White systematically kill the poorest segment of the population to further decrease crime? In fact, this scenario has happened before. Remember the Holocaust? That was a genocide of people the Nazis thought were detrimental to society. Was that right? Justifying abortion with irrelevant statistics like crime-rate figures is not only ridiculous, it is insensitive to the women who have them. How many women actually have an abortion so they can better society? White thinks that murdering the unborn is "caring" for them because of the possibility that they could have a disadvantaged life, and it sickens me. How many outstanding scientists, visionary leaders, fascinating novelists, poets or playwrights never got a chance to become these because their mothers didn't want them to have a "disadvantaged" life? There are countless stories of those who have overcome their circumstances and become great people. Unfortunately, many of these stories will never be written because the people in them were never given their chance.
I would also like to address Mr. White's comment on birth control. There is a safe, inexpensive and 100 percent effective method of birth control - it's called abstinence. If you want to make sure that your relationship is not endangered by an "unwanted pregnancy," then don't have sex when you are not ready.
Ben Notheis
electrical engineering freshman
Column off base
Trying to correct all of the rhetorical and egregious errors in Spiller's article would be like trying to swat flies in a barnyard. So, I will try to cite just a couple. Spiller says, "Most opponents of abortion believe . . . the child is alive at conception. Okay, fine, they can believe that." It is not a belief. It is a known scientific fact. Every human embryologist in the world knows that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. More than doctors and philosophers also know this, especially most mothers! All things can be classified into living and non-living. If a baby is born alive it could not have once been dead or non-living, since the latter cannot convert to living in our world today.
Spiller's bombast might not have been learned in his creative writing major. But if so, it does not speak well for our university. What is more, the Wildcat has no compunction about printing four-letter obscenities. The Wildcat staff must have taken the same classes as Spiller. He also lists himself as a history major. He repeats: "Everyone has (people have) different morals." What twaddle! A pedophile has different morals than I. Spiller wants me to respect that?
Apparently, Spiller has never been taught in his history courses the axiom: All Law Comes From Moral Law. This is why we have laws, and police, jails and prisons. Lastly, the title to Spiller's article is: "Don't Try To Change My Mind." What an arrogant and immature attitude for a university student. What do you think universities are for?
Any questions about human embryology will be answered at my e-mail address: wkisch@netzero.net.
C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D.
UA cell biology and anatomy associate professor emeritus
Globalization protesters help nobody
Globalization has many self-righteous, simple-minded humanitarians up in arms protesting free trade. They hear about the sweatshops and their hearts go out to the exploited, enslaved people in underdeveloped countries. They think themselves so noble and brave for standing up to corporate America in defense of human rights. They walk through small lives and look through small, glazed eyes and want to fight for what's right, they want to fight the good fight for that overworked, underpaid young girl in El Salvador. I applaud your intentions. Parochial Americans feeling so good about themselves compare 60 cents an hour, 15 hour workdays to their own lives, and they overflow with sympathy. The Third World does not need or want your sympathy. They want to survive. By forcing a corporation that employs 300 workers to up wages from 60 cents an hour to $1.80 per hour, you cause them to cut 150 jobs. Who are you helping?
Trade is good. People work for 60 cents an hour because it's the best they can do. There are no world trade protests in El Salvador. It's only big-hearted Americans who don't understand and like the idea of fighting for the less fortunate. So Lora Mackel, get down off your high horse. Cory Spiller, "enslaved" means against one's will. Laura, what is relative is 60 cents an hour compared to hunger. Jessica, Europe is in our hemisphere, get your facts straight. And Tom, you are utterly hopeless, but you've finally stumbled onto the right side of an issue.
Free trade will be the impetus for evolving integration in the Americas, the more we forget about borders and start cooperating the better. Today the population of the developed world is 1.2 billion, underdeveloped world is at 4.9 billion. By 2050 the developed world population is expected to hold steady at 1.2 billion, and the Third World population is expected to grow to 8.9 billion. Not good. Free trade is the first step, the United States must then create incentives for progress (in terms of civil rights, democracy, legitimate government and free enterprise) to the south, and then we can begin to act as one nation from Alaska to Argentina.
Ben Kalt
Spanish junior
