^ .— . - ----
Readers take stand on abortion issues
Woman has right
to end pregnancy
This is in response to “Readers
debate Heckman's pro-choice view”
(DN, Feb. 14). First, I want to clarify
a fact that has failed to penetrate the
ignorance of most of the pro-lifers:
Pro-choice advocates are not pro
abortion!
We believe every woman has the
right to control what goes on with her
own body. We also believe all pos
sible alternatives should be pursued
before an abortion is considered.
Most importantly, we believe that a
woman has the right to choose to
complete or terminate a pregnancy.
The key word to remember is
“individual.” It should be obvious
that an individual’s body belongs to
only one person. Because every indi
vidual is unique, each person has his
or her own conscious, morals and
religious beliefs. Pro-lifers can't
seem to grasp that fundamental fact.
Instead, they seek to force their own
conscious, morals and religion upon
the remaining majority. They also
seek to control the body of every
woman, something no one has the
right to do except the woman herself.
Kreps’ ieucr exemplifies the scare
tactics used by pro-lifers. The letter
seemed to be lifted right out of one of
those fundamentalist pamphlets on
the subject. These tactics include
false generalizations, irrelevant com
parisons and keeping as far away
from the real issue as possible. All the
while, pro-choice groups and
Planned Parenthood arc educating
the public about the consequences of,
and alternatives to abortion.
A woman’s body is her own busi
ness. Women are competent and in
telligent enough to make rational
decisions without the interference of
pro-life groups.
Keith Richter
freshman
anthropology
wnen me Degins
is the real issue
I was glad to find that in the two
guest opinions (Daily Nebraskan,
Feb. 13) that neither side resorted to
too much rock-headed dogma (inco
herent dogma anyway). However,
they were still arguing, as is prone to
happen in abortion arguments, two
different points. Pro-life sees abor
tion as murder, pro-choice does not.
The only real issue then should be
when life begins.
First of all, let’s examine some
bits of morality that we can all agree
upon: Murder of innocent people is
appalling. It doesn’t matter how you
stand on abortion, capital punishment
or Campus Rec, the senseless slaugh
ter of an innocent human being
arouses in us deep feelings of many
kinds, but all of them point to the
undesirability of the wanton destruc
tion of a life. These feelings arc
magnified when the victim is a child.
There are lew things as repulsive as
an innocent child who has been cut
down before getting a chance to ex
perience life fully. I dare say none
would argue this w ith me who were of
sound mind.
Now, let us assume for a moment
that life does indeed begin at concep
tion, that a fetus is in fact a human
being, subject to the same legal and
moral rights as one who breathes the
atmosphere. If you accept this, there
simply is no justification to kill this
child.
It doesn’t matter that it cannot
sense pain or be self-aware, for we
don’t sentence handicapped indi
viduals who are so hindered to the gas
chamber.
It doesn’t matter that abortions
occur naturally, because diseases,
floods, earthquakes and other such
events that kill people all occur natu
rally. But that doesn’t mean we have
to succumb to them. We can’t justify
killing people because they might get
earner anyway, naturally. Nature
kills, but it docs not subscribe to our
moral assertion that killing is wrong,
thus we cannot justify killing for that
PRO/CON
reason.
We cannot justify killing this child
merely because we suspect it will
grow up in an abusive, poverty
stricken or non-utilitarian fashion. If
that were justification, we’d be burn
ing the poor as fuel. We live in a
mobile society and have no right to
kill someone just because we think
they may not enjoy the station to
which they are bom, for they may
very well be capable of transcending
their disadvantages.
We cannot justify killing it due to
the argument that it is the woman’s
body to do with as she pleases, for the
child’s body is definitely not hers to
do with as she pleases.
Finally we cannot continue to al
low others to kill their own children
just because we would seek a less safe
method were it made illegal. Were
that the case, wc would have to pro
vide mall space and police protection
to crack dealers so dial (hey could do
their business safely. We cannot jus
tify that something is right ju& be
cause a lot of people do it or would do
it anyway. That is why there have
always been laws, and always law
breakers.
Thus, if wc assume that a fetus is a
person, we cannot justify by any
means killing that person.
Now then, what if the fetus is not a
person? If such is the case, there is no
justification for requiring that the
woman who carries it do anything she
doesn’t want with it.
That then is the real argument. Is it
or is it not a human being? If it is, we
cannot harm it justifiably. If it is not,
then abortion is nothing to be upset at.
When then does life begin? I couldn’t
even begin to speculate on when that
might be, but I find it more than a
little disturbing that if it is indeed a
human being, we have seen the deci
mation of millions of people. I know
I don’t quite feel qualified to make
the choice, but I’m inclined to think
that if it is conceived in a duck, laid
by a duck, and hatches as a duck, it is
probably a duck, so to speak.
Brent Knudsen
junior
piano performance
Responsibility has
double standards
In pondering the abortion contro
versy, it staggers me that we can
continue to use phrases like “the
right to control one’s own body’
without its necessary adjunct: The
responsibility to control one’s own
body, especially with regard to sex
ual behavior.
If a man has fathered a child out of
wedlock, he may (quite properly) be
subjected to civil litigation. If pater
nity can be positively established,
this man may be legally required to
provide lor the child’s financial sup
port for 18 years. Society is willing to
compel a man to bear the responsibil
ity and consequences for what he has
done with his body.
Strangely, the taking of innocent
life is considered an acceptable al
ternative to holding women to the
same standard of accountability. The
fact remains that there arc no rights
without responsibilities. Where hu
man life hangs in the balance, the
moral responsibility is infinitely
greater.
Paul Marxhauscn
College of Engineering
Resentment towards
‘anti-choice’ label
From my perspective, Diana
Johnson’s pro-choice stance on abor
tion (DN, Feb. 13) certainly leaves
something to be desired. But 1 am not
writing to claim that her suggestion
that “personhood’’ begins “only af
ter 30 weeks’ ’ is a result of callous as
well as shallow reasoning (though it
it h .nil .1 I i It ,ii "it 1
I also arn not writing to show her
insinuation that abortion is permis
sible because unwanted children will
lead unhappy lives in general is a
gross judgment that we simply don’t
have the right to make (but it is). And
I am not going to rehash arguments
which support my belief that human
life begins at conception (though it
does).
Rather, I am writing in response to
Johnson’s use of a piece of cheap
rhetoric, that is, labeling those of us
who believe that abortion should be
outlawed (to whatever extent) as
“anti-choice.” I have come across
this term several limes since coming
to the university and I resent this
label.
In my pro-life stance, I sincerely
believe that I favor the protection of
an innocent human life. Probably
much to Johnson’s surprise, it is not
my aim to go around oppressing
women (especially ones caught in
such difficult circumstances).
Johnson claims: “But the argu
ment that every U.S. citizen has the
right to regulate their own bodies and
to have control over their individual
choices should stand.” Of course,
this argument should stand. The
problem is that some of us do not see
abortion as an “individual choice,”
but rather as a choice that affects an
innocent human in an obvious way.
As we pro-lifers see it, just as a
mother’s decision to murder her 3
year-old is not an individual choice,
neither is her decision to abort her
unborn child.
Ana as me oia cucne goes, your
right to swing your fist stops where
your neighbor’s chin (or in this case,
umbilical cord) starts.
Johnson need not grant my view
that abortion ought to be made ille
gal. I only wish that she and others
would realize the true motivation
behind my beliefs. That motivation is
to protect what I sec as human life,
not to limit the concept of individual
freedom which the columnist (as well
as myself) so cherish.
Obviously, the government be
comes oppressive when it can regu
late actions which are individuals’
intensely personal concerns.
But when these concerns signifi
cantly affect other people they are no
longer intensely personal. Most of us
who feel that the fetus is a person,
therefore, do not feel that the right to
have an abortion should rest behind
the sacred walls of privacy which the
government must respect.
Women caught in the situation ol
unwanted pregnancy deserve out
support and sympathy. Over thcii
own bodies, they should have com
plete control; some of us (right or
wrong) sincerely believe that the fe
tus is its own person with its own
body (though it lives inside its
mother’s).
I U VI 1 t M l.»ll IV ivil U
to do with her ‘own” body any more
than l wish to tell her which career to
pursue, which man to marry (if any),
or which sexual preference to follow.
Rather, I simply believe that the fetus
should not be described as merely
part of a woman’s “own body.”
Whether or not people agree with
this, they should see that my motiva
tion is to protect life, not to limit
freedom.
Johnson feels that because a fetus
is not a person (before, 30 weeks of
pregnancy anyway), it is part of the
mother’s body over which she should
have exclusive control. Her motiva
tion is obviously to preserve individ
ual freedom; she does not wish to
thwart life. By the same token, my
motivation is to protect life, not to
thwart freedom.
For this reason, I am no more
“anti-choice” than Johnson is “pro
death.” Let’s be fair in our name
calling.
Joe Luby
freshman
engineering
m.j •; , «i i' > .1 <it. I., ti u.” 11> 1
Abortion: Legalized,
premeditated murder
How anyone can possibly support
legalized murder is beyond me.
That’s all abortion is - a euphemism
for cold-blooded, premeditated mur
der.
Every single “fetus” has a God
given, let alone Constitutional, right
to life. If this baby came about as a
result of a woman’s, or man’s (note: I
included men; don’t attempt to label
me as sexist), total irresponsibility in
not using some form of protection,
then these people should be ready to
accept the consequences of their ac
tions.
If the baby came about as the re
sult of a rape, pul it up for adoption. It
could still become a productive
member of society.
If doctors can determine that the
baby is dead, at least remove it by a
Caesarean section and give it a proper
burial. In the most blunt terms, it was
at one time a group of living cells, as
we all are.
I am not legally permitted to go
outside and rip somebody’s limbs off
with a suction machine, or to shoot
someone’s cells full of saline, so why
should a woman be allowed to?
Andrew Meyer
freshman
pre-med
Column lauded for
opposing abortion
After being at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln for four years and
reading various opinions on the issue
of abortion, I cannot stand it anymore
and must put all other commitments
aside to write this.
I must begin by commending the
pro-life guest opinion written in the
Feb. 13 issue of the Daily Nebraskan.
It was definitely one of the belter
arguments for pro-life that I’ve ever
read.
With that, I can now honestly say
that my stomach turns, and I become
truly infuriated every time I read a
pro-choice opinion. It should be
called pro-legalized murder, because
as harsh as it may seem, that is ex
actly what it is. What have these
babies done to deserve death?
Pro-choice individuals argue that
abortion isn’t an issue of the baby
being an inconvenience, but of par
enthood being an inconvenience.
What happened to adoption? No one
ever said a mother welcomes a baby.
Saying “I would be a poor parent,”
or ‘‘I’m not ready for parenthood” is
an obvious excuse, one that is so
blatantly obvious, it mystifies me to
think people can’t sec this.
If one doesn’t want to, can T afford
to, isn’t mature enough or isn’t ca
pable of being a parent, no one is
blaming you. But give your baby up
for adoption. Take a little responsi
bility for your actions, and don’t
murder what you and your lover/
friend solely created.
t_: j_**ii-. __ ji_*r
muuuuuu), ui
orphanages, as an argument for pro
choicc, is invalid, but of which the
solutions are a whole different issue.
I can only say that cities, such as New
York City, arc overcrowded too, but
you don’ t sec the government legaliz
ing murder to decrease the popula
tion.
Secondly, I cannot understand this
absurd idea that abortion is a
woman’s right to “regulate her own
body.’’ How about regulating your
own sexuality? No, I am not saying
the entire population should abstain
from sexual activity. Now that is a
personal choice each one has the right
make for himsclf/hersclf. However,
by making the choice to have sex,
whether it be with or without birth
control, one is making the choice to
carry her baby through to birth should
pregnancy occur.
Women, quit using the sorry ex
cuse dial we should have control over
' oul bodies -- we do have control --
regulated by our brain. I'm assuming
we all have a brain, and wc all have
sexual capacity. If you’re not mature
enough to use the two together and
realize that by having sex you are
accepting the responsibility to possi
bly have to carry a child for nine
months, then you shouldn’t be having
sex. Again, no one says you have to
keep and raise the baby. The choice
here is: For the “pleasure” of sex,
will you go through the “discom
fort” of pregnancy -- should you
have to? I'd say that decision is a lot
easier than the killing or not killing of
your baby.
My opinion docs not apply to
those victims of rape or incest. These
are crimes, not choices.
Debbie Ycshnowski
senior
chemistry, pre-med
Abortion is tiring
as a moral issue
Thai wasn’t the first lime you
voiced your opinion against “pro
choice,” John Campbell. Did you
mean it, really, that if someone pro
vides “rational, philosophical rea
soning” you’ll “shut up?”
I’m getting so tired of all this pre
occupation with abortion as a ‘ ‘moral
issue,” when I believe it boils down
to plain, old, dirty economics.
Will you please THINK? — might
it be that some superior groups wish
to ensure a “next generation of peas
ants” to perform society’s unpleas
ant tasks? (There is some doubt, you
know, what with the AIDS plague,
other health problems, and with abor
tion available).
Could it be that disallowing abor
tion is the most convenient way
they’ve found to accomplish this,
and all of the supposedly intelligent
people screeching, “Right to lifc^’
are not more than their igporwi, ufc..
.. tools? I have noticed, if you hatifc
not, that people who can afford to
travel to get abortions DO, when
necessary, and only the lower classes
are actually forced to reproduce. Is
that really what you want?
Do you think my suggestion ap
pears ridiculous? Not in context, it
doesn’t. I’ve read of a time when the
good people of America wanted more
manpower for their scutwork jobs so
bad that they paid slavers to go to
Africa and kidnap some slaves. Have
you forgotten that? Is it so difficult to
consider forced reproduction when
we KNOW what evil lurks in the
hearts of men.
you ana t doui, jonn, wisn 10 as
sure all babies of a “precious and
sacred” life. The difference between
us is, that I can see, I cannot -- and I
am not ready to propel defenseless
infants into this world with “already
a bad start’ ’ such as poverty, unstable
or incomplete families, or just plain
being unwanted. Poverty is real.
Didn’t you see the building erected
by Early Warning!? Don’t you
CARE?
Won’t you, John, and you others
so staunchly defending the “right to
life” for babies, stop a moment and
REALLY have a care for them? Or
for the miserable children and the
anguished adults they may grow to
be?
Though I am honest enough to say
that it’d be nice (for me) to have
someone funding Social Security
when I am old, I have to philosophi
cally admit that no one: No pregnant
woman, no unborn child, owes that to
me and I won’t ask it of them.
Think about it. This country
could, instead, finally offer that
much-discussed amnesty to Mexican
nationals and get a labor force that
way. It’ll be one or the other, soon i
unlcss a third alternative arises. Eve
rything I’ve mentioned you’ve al
ready heard of in the media. It's all
connected. Did I really have to be
come the matrix?
I hope this argument was rational
enough for you.
Fran Thompson
sophomore
sociology
• » , It * T , (.
