I want to respond to John Keisling's "Pro-choice Arguments Favor Susan Smith" (Sept. 12). As a female and as a person, this article disgusted me. Susan Smith drowning her children and women ending unwanted pregnancies are so obviously different that his comparison of the two is very offensive. Susan Smith is mentally ill as proved when she drowned her children in a lake. She is a criminal who deserves the stiffest of penalties. Keisling implies that women who are pro-choice deserve the same. In fact, he thinks that women who are pro-choice feel sympathy for Smith. I don't know anyone who feels sympathy for her. Where did he get the idea that pro-choice women are for infanticide? Or is he so ignorant that he thinks killing toddlers and getting an abortion are the same? They are entirely different. Abortions rid mothers of babies that they are not fit to take care of for either mental, physical, or financial reasons, thereby saving these babies from coming into a world where they are not wanted.
One might argue that if Susan Smith had taken advantage of her right to an abortion, she would not have taken to murdering her children years later. The government gives women the right to make choices for themselves. Keisling seems to imply that this is not only wrong but a sin. He is very discriminatory towards women in his article Ÿ I wonder if his arguments would be different if Susan Smith were a male. It seems that to express his pro-life views he had no other support than to try to tie in a female who's murders the public would find shocking. He should give the readers more credit; we are not confused between Susan Smith's appalling actions and those of normal women getting abortions. His article was way off base and showed a complete lack of intelligence or thought.
Maybe next time he should discuss two topics that have something in common. One idea might be Susan Smith killing her kids and pro-lifers killing doctors. Yeah, sounds about right.
Theater Production Freshman
Read Next Article