Editor:
John Keisling is truly the worst satirist I have ever read. To make a "witty" comparison between the actions of Susan Smith and abortion (infanticide) is not only uncouth but also unwise. A satire is supposed to be recognizable within the text; the fact that the reader needs to be informed at the end of the text is proof of feeble work.
Beyond this, may I remind Mr. Keisling that any essay, be it persuasive or otherwise, requires facts. To simply say, "They [Susan Smith's children] would have grown up unwanted and unloved, merely an undue burden to their mother and to society," is not enough. Where are the details? Just because this is a satire (a very poor one at that) doesn't mean that the "rules and regulations" from English 101 have gone on vacation.
As any fellow writer should, I applaud Mr. Keisling on his effort at trying to be original, but I must also say that "Pro-choice arguments favor Susan Smith" falls short in purpose and clarity. Better luck next time.
Harley Ruda
Undeclared Freshman