DAVID REITER
Abortion politics frustrating
Opponents of abortion from both
political parties have jjmple
reason for frustration.
Republican politicians are em
broiled in a debate over whether to
retain the party’s stand against abor
tion, while Democratic politicians fail
to recognize the basis in their own
party for an anti-abortion stand.
The Republicans are caught up in
the “big tent” controversy, generated
by two factors.
The first is a desire to make the
party attractive to a broad range of
people. Before his death, Republican
National Committee Chairman Lee
Atwater expressed this desire by
comparing the party to a big tent.
The second factor is the highly
controversial nature of the abortion
issue. The 1988 Republican Party
platform was opposed to abortion and
advocated a human-life amendment
to the Constitution.
uroups sucn as the National Re
publican Coalition for Choice now
are calling for the party to drop its
official opposition to abortion. They
claim that many will defect from the
party if it does not drop this stand.
. Conservative groups aim to defend
the party’s traditional anti-abortion
position.
Republican Party leaders are say
ing that the party will not change its
position, but they are also stressing
that pro-choice advocates are wel
come. Vice President Dan Quayle
recently told The Washington Post
that although the party has a position
on abortion, “those who disagree w ith
us should not feel excluded because
of that issue.”
Presumably, the political pressure
to change the party’s stand will per
sist into the coming years, but Repub
licans should consider three points in
connection with proposals to drop the
party’s anti-abortion stand.
First, pulling the anti-abortion stand
could have deep repercussions for the
overall party philosophy. The Repub
lican Party exhibits a commitment to
U would be irrespon
sible for a political
party to be silent on
abortion. The gravity
of the issue requires
that it be addressed
from a political per
spective. A political
party should, be cou
rageous enough to
take a stand,
traditional family values. The sanc
tity of human life is an essential
component of this package of
values.
So, an important question is whether
the party’s commitment to traditional
family values is deep or relatively
superficial. If the commitment is deep,
then eliminating the anti-abortion stand
would seriously disrupt the overall
integrity of the party philosophy.
It would be irresponsible for a
political party to be silent on abor
tion. The gravity of the issue requires
that it be addressed from a political
perspective. A political party should
be courageous enough to take a
stand.
The third point concerns the ra
tionality of the reasoning behind the
call for changing the party platform.
This reasoning goes as follows: For
the party to accommodate people from
both sides of an issue, any stand fa
voring one side must be eliminated.
Consider a general application of
this reasoning. If it is reasonable to
broaden the platform on abortion, it is
also reasonable to broaden it on every
other issue. The results would obvi
ously be self-destructive. Broadening
the party platform by removing every
plank leaves no platform.
This shows that the “big tent”
metaphor is dangerous if taken as a
mandate for perpetually broadening
the platform. At a certain point it just
breaks down. A “big tent” may be
nice for camping, but a political party
that accommodates every viewpoint
is useless.
For Democrats opposed to abor
tion, the situation is worse. Their party
also exhibits confusion on abortion,
except in this case the confusion is
well entrenched in the established
party position.
The Democratic Party is commit
ted to the pro-choice view, but this
commitment runs counter to another
fundamental commitment of the party.
Democrats traditionally call on the
government to defend and assist dis
advantaged groups. This tradition
provides a logical basis for a Demo
cratic anti-abortion stand. AH that is
needed is tojecognize that any group
subjected to the practice of abortion
is outrageously disadvantaged.
Unfortunately, it seems that the
Democratic leaders are incapable of
making this recognition. Instead, they
arc committed to the axiom that per
sonal freedom takes precedence over
unborn human life. Their commit
ment to this axiom effectively blocks
them from recognizing the disadvan
taged status of the unborn.
The politics of abortion display
considerable confusion. For political
observers opposed to abortion, this
confusion is frustrating. For the un
born, it is lethal.
Reiter is a graduate student In philosophy
and a Daily Nebraskan columnist.
-LETTERS™ EDITOR
Residence hall
telephone policy
unfair to student
Being a long distance from home
means a large phone bill for many
students. I am from the Washing
ton, D.C., area and I call home
quite often. Last month, I had a
very large phone bill. To try to
lower this bill I thought 1 would gel
an AT&T calling card and use some
of AT&T’s other services.
After three lengthy phone calls
with an AT&T representative, two
calls to the university operator and
a visit to the university telecommu
nications office, 1 learned that the
university has a monopoly over the
long-distance phone service to
students living on campus.
Students cannot subscribe to
long-distance companies and their
services. Students have the choice
of either using, as an AT&T repre
sentative put it, “University Bell,”
or taking the walk downstairs to the
pay phone in the lobby.
Students pay enough housing
fees to give them the choice of
long-distance carriers. Students
should be treated as adults and be
given the choice of who their long
distance carrier is going to be.
Currently, the Federal Communica
tions Commission is working on
legislation to prevent blocking of
long-distance carriers. Write to the
FCC and say you support Dockeu
90-313. You should also include a
note with your next phone bill
payment telling the university that
you want a choice over your long
distance carrier.
Brian Kane
freshman
general studies
-presents
MrPeabody
Friday & Saturday
Oct. 25 & 26
(jotfy fa, ooid outfit Of*!*?
Has Babs forgotten the secret to making a
wholesome breakfast? Don't fret. Rock ‘n
Roll Runza now offers you a full breakfast
menu to satisfy your early morning hunger
From waffles to omelettes, we’ll serve you
a homestyle breakfast fresh and fast.
Join us every morning from 6:00 am to
10:30 am for a homecooked breakfast.
„ Checks md Visa accepted.
Parking validated
■Hi, -' i
3T\ X X
Watch for the Bakery and Drive-Thru
Breakfast opening Soon!
Work one weekend a month
and earn $18,000 for colege.
If you have the mind for college, but not the money, the Nebraska
Army National Guard has a golden opportunity for you.
Lend us your brainpower one weekend a month and two weeks
a year, and we’ll give you $18,000 or more for college.
Under the New GI Bill, you’ll qualify for up to $5,000 for tuition
and books. Then you’ll get another $1L000 - or more - in monthly
Army Guard paychecks. Plus, a cash bonus of up to $2,000 as soon
as you finish Advanced individual Training
And if you have college loans, the Guard will
help you pay those off, too, with up to $1500 NEBRASKA
extra per year. No other service offers you so
many educational benefits, and asks so little of
your time.
So, if you can spare one weekend a month
for your country, call your local recruiter.
And help yourself to a higher education.
SSG P. FISHER
473-2162 or 1-800-334-5082 Americans at
Equal Opportunity Employer their best