Wednesday October 24, 2001

Peterson's knowledge of abortion pathetic

While eating lunch yesterday, an editorial by a history sophomore caught my eye. In the editorial, one Mr. Charles Peterson lectures the campus community on this medical procedure and its ramifications for maternal health, and states that anyone that does not agree with him (in particular, "left-winger(s)") does not arrive at their position on the basis of facts. I find this incredibly interesting given the profound misinformation in his article.

I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life. This ambivalence is the result of the fact that abortion is a legal medical procedure in much of the free world, and whether to have one or not is based on complex medical decisions that the woman makes in consultation with her physician; the rest of us have no business partaking in another individual's medical decisions.

First of all, maternal death is indeed higher in women that have had abortions, but the reasons for this were conveniently left out of the editorial (this, by the way, is a favorite tactic of the Christian Zealots of the Right Wing fringe). The reason that mortality is so high in women that have had abortions is incredibly complex, but here are some principal reasons: the performance of abortions by non-medical personnel and subsequent lack of skilled post-abortion care, death by HIV/AIDS (because many women with this disease choose abortion so they do not pass their immune-system disease to the fetus), and high incidences of malaria and malnutrition in the developing world, which result in women that are too sick to carry a fetus to term, etc.

If you do not believe me, you can begin your medical education by reading a recent article by J. Liljestrand, in Current Opinions in Obstetrics and Gynecology, December, volume 12, pages 513-517, 2000. By the way, this article is full of facts.

Finally, Mr. Peterson also lectured the community on the epidemiology of abortion-related diseases in women. This information was so far off base that I simply do not know where to start. However, Mr. Peterson may wish to start by taking an elective course that we offer in the department of physiology called "How the body works". The course is available for non-science majors, and I think that you really need it.

Ralph F. Fregosi, Ph.D.

professor of physiology

Anti-war protesters counter-productive

What exactly are anti-war protesters protesting? I must admit that I am not smart enough to figure some things out, so I will think aloud here and ask anyone who has any input to please help.

Does the anti-war movement prefer the continued oppression of women? We should not forget that the Taliban does not support allowing women to get an education. Women are also not allowed to show their faces in public, must be in the company of a man when outside the home, and often are victims to genital mutilation.

Do these so-called "peace-lovers" think their own acts of violence will help their cause? Every time we see a protest against the war, it is followed up by reports of injuries and damage to property. There is all sorts of irony here.

Is the anti-war movement naive enough to believe that stopping the bombing in Afghanistan will eliminate the threat of more terrorism in the United States? Our president has repeatedly told us that the bombing in Afghanistan is only one front against the war on terrorism. The bombing of Afghanistan will not eliminate the terrorists already in the United States, but it is not supposed to. The FBI, CIA, the National Guard and the new Homeland Security Department will take care of us here. We will bomb their homes, take their money, and find them one by one. I am confident in our government's ability to keep us safe. I only wish our government would punish terrorists living in the United States under the same criteria the Taliban would use: Skin them alive.

Call me inhumane, call me an idiot, call me crude, call me insane, call me insensitive, but I would rather see the complete elimination of Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon and Iran before I see one more American life taken.

Edward Mariscal

political science senior

Peterson letter irresponsible, neglectful

I agree with Charles Peterson on many points regarding the hypocrisy and absurdity of inflicting violence upon pro-choice people and abortion doctors. Furthermore, one cannot assume that an affiliate from either party is going to state that the insertion of a vacuum into one's uterus to suck out a few cells is a safe and inconsequential procedure. However, it is meaningful to weigh those consequences against the ramifications of bringing an unwanted child into the world.

To be able to look at the pros and cons objectively, it is necessary to view the statistics with a certain degree of scientific integrity. Many of the facts that Mr. Peterson presented implied that having an abortion could cause substance abuse, breast cancer and premature death. What Mr. Peterson failed to report was that just because there is a correlation between abortion and negative health risks, does not mean that receiving abortion services causes those health risks.

Many confounding variables and predisposing factors are also at play. It is irresponsible and negligent to assume the A causes B and nothing else causes B. The distinction between correlation and a cause-and-effect relationship should always be acknowledged when a person reports findings of research in order to properly understand its implications.

Tamara Israel

psychology junior