Is it me? Or was Friday's letter to the editor, "Abortion is a necessary evil" (CT, Oct. 27) an attempt to end the whole chain of arguments surrounding the recent abortion controversy? Well, it was a sad, ignorant, and hypocritical attempt. The author at first states that he does not agree with abortion, but then turns around and says that abortion is a "necessary evil," and that although some people may not like it, their opinions should not be forced onto others because their opposition "doesn't seem to be curbing people from doing it," and every situation is "different." Let me ask the author this, why do you disagree with abortion?
I'll tell you why I disagree with abortion, and if you disagree with it for the same reasons as myself, I do not follow the logic of dropping my argument for the sake of ending disputes. I disagree with abortion because I view the fetus as equal to a human life (I disagree that a fetus is to a human being as an acorn is to a tree, an example that is popular among pro-choice advocates). If you "abort" the fetus, it is synonymous with taking away a life. It is murder, plain and simple. How can someone who "disagrees" with abortion accept abortion as a "necessary evil"? That's like asking someone to accept murdering little children, or bombing a population of senior citizens to avoid overpopulation, and expecting them to reply obediently without opposition. The author must not really value the life of the unborn baby.
It is easy for someone who views the fetus as merely a "slab o' meat" and not something that's "living" to accept the legalization of abortion. Since they view the fetus as something that is void of "life," why shouldn't the woman's decision be her own? It's just a piece of meat anyway. The only things at stake to people who support pro-choice are the consequences of a life beginning, and how much of a burden that life will be on their's if they have it (how downright selfish and inconsiderate!)! When they "abort" the fetus, they aren't "killing a life," they are simply removing something from the body, like getting rid of a wart. Now, if a fetus was synonymous to a wart, hell, I'd be pro-choice too! But warts aren't analogous to fetuses because warts aren't developing human beings, whereas fetuses are.
People who are for "choice" and not for "life" are literally "anti-life." They are trivializing the value of life so that they are can remove the guilt that comes from actually taking a life. This kind of desensitization is dangerous and detrimental to society.
That other column, "RU-486 takes steps in the right direction, more liberties needed" (CT, Oct. 20) is overwhelmingly absurd. To view an infant as something that is useless to society, and also completely different from a human being because of its physiological proportions is ignorant and shameful.
Human beings, no matter at what stage of development should be valued as human beings and should be allowed their God-given right to live. I ask the author of that column this: What constitutes what is human anyway? There are handicapped people that are born not fully developed and will never reach the potential of an average human being - are they then not considered human either? Do they also not have the right to life? And how about our senior citizen population? To view life as so disposable is not only disgusting, but tragic. His life experience must be completely void of beauty and wholesomeness for him to depreciate life so immensely.
If you think about it, abortion can fall under the term of discriminatory "ageism," since the main difference between an unborn baby and the culprit who wants to abort it is the 15-40 some biological years between the two. Unfortunately, there can be no support group for aborted fetuses, but if there was, I'm sure they would all be marching and holding up signs saying, "Discriminatory Ageism!" outside of the White House.
I agree that as a "free" country we should be given freedoms that allow us to grow and thrive as individuals. While individual liberties are important, I question the intent and future of a "free" country when it suddenly permits people to take away someone else's rights on the basis that their rights matter more, and more specifically so, on the basis that they're "older," "developed" and therefore, more "important."
-Vanissa Chan, Psychology Major/Sociology Minor