tucsday, October 30, 1979
daily nebraskan
page 5
Continued from Page 4
Abortion is not a "women's issue." Great numbers of
women oppose it. It is not basically a religious issue.
Mctzger and Beranek's own letter points out that there
are "religious people" on both sides of the question. (One
will recall that pro-abortion people used to try to say that
opposition to abortion was only coming from the Catholic
church, and thus should be ignored.) The real issue, which
those favoring easy abortion consistently ignore, is
whether or not the victim of abortion is a person deserv
ing protection. Surely the burden of proof ought to be on
the abortionists. For if they are wrong in their assumption
that the mother does not carry a person within her, then a
human is needlessly killed. Let them prove that the
unborn is only a glob of cells, and not a human.
Ms. Levin's statements on this point were wholly in
adequate. She said that the fact that there is diversity of
opinion ibout when life beings mandates that there must
be freedrm to choose an abortion. That is untrue. Diver
sity of opinion in itself mandates nothing. There was di
versity of opinion about whether blacks would be given
equality in this country, but that did not mean that every
one was free to decide for themselves how to treat them.
Terry Christleib
Graduate student
Quality of life
What is life? Can premeditated killieg be set apart from
murder? In this ever-increasing technically oriented
society, these questions are becoming more urgent.
Certain sectors of mankind have regressed to the point of
total apathy in regard to fellow people. What about those
who are unable to voice their rights? For instance, did the
"thing" (we use this term to avoid semantic arguments)
that was born at University, Hospital on Sept. 6 deserve to
live? According to the law, a child is legally viable if it is
capable of living outside the womb even if it must be
medically assisted. This "thing" lived for two and one half
hours on its own. It was a human being, and it was entitl
ed to all the rights of any other American citizen-"?,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It was alive when
outside the mother. What was it when it was within the
mother? Was it dead? It was a case of spontaneous
generation when it hit the air, right? Wrong, it was a live
human being before it was born too. This child was 22 to
27 weeks old, but yet it could be legally aborted up until
it was nine months of age. The law discriminates against
unborn humans on the basis of place of residence. If the
child is outside of the womb, it is protected. If it is inside
of the mother, it is not.
Next.iet us examine the discussion presented by Jerry
Fairbanks in his article "Regents Grovel Before Money
Whip" (Oct. 23). Mr. Fairbanks argument proceded along
the following line: 1.) He cites the fact that the Regents
made the decision to ban non-therapeutic abortions at
University Hospital, 2.) He then discusses the Tuition
Hike and the Speaker Issue-two issues that were highly
unpopular with the students, 3.) He links all three issues
together-the common denominator being the Regents.
The implication is that since the Speaker Issue and the
Tuition Hike were unjustified, the abortion ban is also un
justified. This is an invalid argument. Just because the
Regents made some bad decisions does not mean that all
of their decisions are bad. To assume there is a link in the
three separate decisions is an erroneous generalization.
Gerald R.Matulka
Senior, Electrical Engineering
Dorothy L. Dobcsh
' Senior, Biology
Teachers College
Linus J. Behnc
Senior, Biology
Teachers College
Pornography dehumanizes
It seems that only a male business major (letter, Oct.
22) could so' totally confuse prudishness with concern
about the dehumanizing and objectification of women in
our society, and be more concerned with money (eg. stu
dent fee increases) than with the human responsibility of
everyone to eliminate the opporessive conditions that all
but white males experience daily. It's true, there's no
money to be made or prestige to be gained by objecting to
the violence, psychic arid physical, that is perpetuated on
women by porno and those who condone it. It's also not a
popular stance, seeing as how it requires a political
analysis of our lives and values, the courage of one's con
victions to stand up and object in the face of uncompre
hending stares, sneers, and jokes about prudes, and a
belief that relationships can be more than simple-minded
thrusting and strutting. Sounds like work, doesn't it, not
to go with a simple impulse and enjoy a violence not per
petuated on YOU instead of thinking about it, making the
connection, and objecting to it out. of gut feeling or on
principle? -
Well, its always unpopular to think about the con-
sequences of our actions, whether we're making a porno
graphic movie, attending it or running an ad for it, but it's
absolutely necessary that we do think, or we may experi
ence the consequences first-hand in a rape, a beating, or in
a sexual slur. Recently, a Harvard University study found
that pornography DOES increase aggressiveness in men
towards women, and that some men as a result ceased to
see rape as a violent crime.
If males were more inclined towards the wholeness of
erotica than pornography, rapes would undoubtedly de
crease, sexual acts would not take on the aspects of a
competitive game, and men just might become better
lovers. If you want to start an organization, try SMUT-Single-Minded
Unwillingness to Think.
, Cynthia McGowan
Grad Student, English
Sndrmttdns
l-FERK
M-F 46
on beer & hi-balls
OPEN
Moa-Thurs. 11-11 pm
Frt & Sat. 11-1 am.
1228 T St.
432-9674
riu 1 1 1 1 Hf
WWUUVJ U LELnj
fills l?tMi S 'Ji.lNil'
U; i:iht (iMItll