Letter on abortion shows attitude of past

This is a letter in response to Annie McIntyre's letter Tuesday, titled "Wildcat wrong for covering pro-choice event." Annie has a few gaps in her reasoning process, and I would love to point them out to her. In her article, she twice links abortions to sexual immorality (or immoral sexuality), yet fails to back that claim up. She states that sexual immorality leads to illegitimate pregnancy, which leads to murder. The No. 1 problem that she has is that there is no causality established. Her version of morality holds that unmarried couples should not have sex. She then states that any immorality therein will cause an illegitimate pregnancy. Wrong. Unmarried couples get pregnant, and married couples get pregnant. This notion of illegitimacy died a century ago, when people still dueled to settle their problems. Also, married couples and unmarried couples alike opt for abortion.

Clearly, abortion isn't a treatment that only unmarried, immoral people partake in. This is not a case of Bible-thumpers versus heathens. You can't just say, "I think it's wrong, so knock it off or else." I am a Christian, and I have traveled in many of the same circles as Annie, and I have strong feelings regarding abortion. I do not think, however, that articles with poor reasoning and outmoded ideas of correctness are useful in furthering any discourse or spreading any agenda other than the most hateful and ignorant rhetoric often used by the religious right.

Matthew Montgomery
linguistics senior

Patients' rights come before phar

In response to yesterday's article on the current bill to allow pharmacists to refuse to distribute birth control because of personal moral beliefs: I was outraged to read about the bill proposing that pharmacists' rights as workers were to be considered more important than the rights of the patients, whom they have taken an oath to protect. Women who make a conscious and informed decision to use birth control should not be subject to the moral beliefs of pharmacists or anyone else. This bill is merely a means of state moral control under the guise of the protection of workers' rights. By allowing pharmacists to make this decision and to impose it on their patients, the state bypasses the church/state debate and makes it an individual issue instead.

Well, she could just go to another pharmacist, you might be thinking. Consider the situation of those who live in smaller communities in which there are not abundant health resources or those who live in towns dominated by certain moral standards. Consider the poor, often the most in need of health services, who cannot afford to travel all over town to find a willing distributor of their doctor-prescribed medication. Where does this end? The UA pharmacy distributes hundreds of packets of oral contraceptives a week. Should all that work be dumped on one person because the other pharmacists object? Will workers now be protected from the sale of condoms, pregnancy tests, lubrications, diaphragms or even tampons? Is the drug store counter to be the place of moral debate?

Furthermore, consider the feelings and rights of the patient. Allowing the pharmacist to make this choice for her communicates that she is doing something wrong. It allows the supposedly impartial world of medicine to judge and condemn the individual for her choice. The pharmacist's rights as a health care provider should not be considered above the rights of the patient, or anyone else.

Lucy Blaney
Latin American studies graduate student

State of the Union tackled hard issues

I applaud the president for doing what countless other politicians have failed to do: Tackle the hard issues. In his State of the Union address Wednesday, the president outlined an idea for a comprehensive change to the Social Security system and welcomed any other ideas for change. Most people acknowledge that Social Security is flawed to say the least, but politicians tend to shy away from such hot-button issues. Even if the Social Security plan maintains its solvency through 2042, that's when I reach retirement age. The president is right to not let this generation of people have no alternatives. The president is not taking Social Security away. He is making sure it will be there for us.

Kara Karlson
journalism junior

Informing women of abortion risks not

When I picked up the Wednesday edition of the Wildcat I was thrilled to see that I am not the only one out there who was bothered by the article that covered the rally on women's reproductive rights. I am not attacking Mr. Colick for the article that he wrote. It was very interesting and informative. But as a woman I could not believe that the young lady mentioned in the article (I will not name her) said that informing women of the risks involved with an abortion procedure and the aftermath, during that 24- to 48- hour window, was propaganda. It made me sad to know that the importance of the physical and psychological health of a woman that does have an abortion is so low on her list. I am not in any way a supporter of abortion. I believe it to be vile and disgusting. But it is a reality. I would also like to point out that abortion is not the only choice out there. If a woman decides not to abort her child then she has two other options. One is to own up to her responsibility for the child she has brought into this world or two consider adoption and give him/her a chance to have a future. My advice to the young lady mentioned in the article: Think twice before using the word propaganda in reference to abortion risks and the life of the child involved.

Kristen Biddle
english junior

Elections don't mean victory in Iraq

On Monday, Mike Dickerson claimed that opponents of the occupation of Iraq should "rethink their position" after the "momentous" Iraqi elections, which will make Iraq "a strong ally in the Middle East" advancing "U.S. foreign policy."

I find it amusing that he has made these statements before the vote counting even started. It seems the winners are a group of religious Shiite parties backed by Iran, not exactly the United States' biggest ally. These parties are in fact insisting for a quick United States withdrawal, a feeling that large majorities of both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis agree with, according to all opinion polls (see, for example, www.juancole.com for numbers).

Of course, Mike Dickerson should not worry: The United States, as Condoleeza Rice already said, has absolutely no intention of leaving Iraq any time soon, which makes the elections completely meaningless, since the voters' will is a priori ignored by the foreign occupying power.

There is nothing "momentous" about elections held under the patronage of an occupier who has no intention of leaving, and history has plenty of examples of how they turn out. In 1967 a U.S.-backed "election" was held in South Vietnam. Eighty-three percent of the population there voted, and the U.S. media (see The New York Times, Sept. 4, 1967) considered the high turnout as a proof that the Vietnamese back the Americans, and "Vietcong terrorists" cannot sabotage "the democratic process."

A year later came the Tet offensive. Eight years, 60,000 dead Americans and more than a million dead Vietnamese later, the United States was forced to withdraw and the South Vietnamese government fell to the "terrorist insurgency" of the day.

Had Americans questioned their government and media earlier, the dead of that war might still be alive. I hope they learn their lesson and are more skeptical.

Giorgio Torrieri
alumnus

Virginia bill violates privacy

The true agenda of some, to erode the Constitution and to turn women into baby factories, has become extremely evident. In the Virginia congress there is a bill being proposed. This insane bill would demand that if a woman miscarries, she be required by law to report it within 12 hours or face fines and a year in jail. The medical report from the miscarriage would hold all the woman's information and be submitted to the state. When a woman has an abortion her medical reports submitted to the state do not include their name or any personal information. This bill's purpose is to undermine Roe v. Wade, by making the issue of privacy void. This bill is clearly more of a violation of privacy than of making abortion illegal for other reasons. Women who acquire abortions do not have any personal information disclosed in the report, while this bill would give it all up to the state. But, if everything goes the way it could, in no time abortion will be outlawed.

It will go further than outlawing abortion. Charges against women will occur if a miscarriage occurs by some kind of accident. The charges will range from manslaughter to first-degree murder. An example would be that a woman trips and falls really hard, which somehow damages the fetus and causes her to miscarry. Now if this woman had made any public remarks against having the baby and has an eyewitness of her trying to induce it, then - bam - she's frying in the electric chair. This bill should not be passed not just on the issue of privacy, but because it would lead to future undesired problems. Joey Levy
media arts senior

Students should heed importance of

Out of all the liberal babble that comes out of a college newspaper, the opposition to Social Security is by far the most incomprehensible. Here we have students that on the verge of becoming the American wage earners and taxpayers of tomorrow saying they support a defunct system. I hope college students truly understand the potential of privatized accounts.

Rather than blindly paying into a system where you will never see your hard-earned income again, this is a real opportunity to take ownership of your future with a guarantee that a portion of the money you have earned will be there for you when you retire. This is the opportunity for every wage earner in America to take ownership of his or her future that could even be passed on to whom ever you wish. It's sad to simply downplay the urgency of this problem rather than accepting a long-term solution.

Joey Bridger
alumnus

Complaint on pro-choice coverage

I am writing in response to Annie McIntyre's barrage on the right of women in America to choose. It is attitudes like this that get doctors killed in front of abortion clinics for performing perfectly legal procedures. For your morality, I applaud you for being able to keep your legs closed; but that ability does not make you educated on the pro-choice movement. It has always been my opinion that no one, no matter what they believe, has the right to tell me what to do with my body, just as I do not have the right to tell anyone else what to do with theirs. It has been my experience that anti-choice people only care about the child before birth; after that, it is someone else's concern on how they will feed, clothe and educate that child.

I found it extremely entertaining, however, that you believe the wrong side of the story was presented by this newspaper. There are no wrong sides to a story.

Rachel Heintz
political science senior