Editor:
First of all, I applaud John Keisling's sarcasm. I imagine you've received a deluge of letters praising and damning him, due to the inherent emotional stake many people place in this issue. Next, a statement for Joy Abernathey: decisions of a life and death nature should not be made based on a person's emotional experiences (e.g. I cannot go around shooting people simply because they are intentionally rude to me or prevent me from achieving happiness in the fashion I choose.). You suggested that John Keisling not patronize you, but it is clear that, in your paradigm, anything a man has to say about the issue of abortion is irrelevant. This is because you subscribe to the belief that the entirety of the issue lies in a woman's latitude to control her own body and life. However, you still want men to assume responsibility as fathers for the pregnancies they've collaborated in; that is, once the woman decides singularly that she wants to go through with it. Is a man a person who has a right to a say in these matters, or is a man simply a degenerate sperm donor for a woman to access at will and disregard otherwise? Be careful how you answer, because you cannot have it both ways.
But obviously, the woman's "right to choose" what happens to "her own" body is not the only issue here, as Mark Hedley so astutely pointed out. He mentioned accurately that the current status of rights for unborn fetuses is based on an ambiguity. The Supreme Court threw it's hands up, saying "we don't know if a fetus should be considered a person," and it is this indecision which Mr. Hedley alleges is the basis for the current legal status of abortion. But the "legal" status of abortion presupposes a decision on this front, don't you think? If it did not, abortion would be illegal to give the ambiguous fetuses the benefit of the doubt. So hats off to Mr. Hedley for shining light in this area.
Nick J. Rivette
Chemical Engineering Graduate Student