University of South Carolina Libraries
Letters to the Editor Gamecock reai CO! ff flfo\ i M \ ne' Two questions for Tommy T. and Jim Rachels: th< Are you prepared to follow the basis of your anti-choice va argument to what would seem its logical conclusion, ac- gu cepting the implications which would seem to follow? Are you prepared to shift the legal "birthday" of a child from sa; the day of birth to the determined day of conception? And ah are you prepared for this to be written into law? thi Second: If you believe what you say you believe, why oft are you not already pushing for this change? rid How can the "murder" of children not even born be pros- wh ecuted under the law which applies to "living" human be- ap ings, unless the law be rewritten to exchange our birth- Nc day for our conception day? ris Was Barney Frank right when he observed that anti -?? llAv U/vrvima ftf /lAn _ cnoice supporujni seem lu ueneve uiai me uegmo <ui luii ception and ends at birth? Can anyone convince us he was wrong? Kevin Lewis Religious studies department ito mi po In response to recent columns by Tommy Touchberry "ri and others, I respond to much of the tired rhetoric that CI Mr. Touchberry offers as sound argument, most of which eo is terribly flawed. Mr. Touchberry writes quite abruptly th that the medical community has established the fact that This is the nigh ' ! ^ The Gamecock lers debate poi nception is the beginning of a new human being." Quite with the offering, indeed. women's There are several points to be made about this. First, equal ps every study that Mr. Touchberry offers to support his women.! im that conception is the beginning of a new human port, des " T ?y a -ii A s, mere are equally as many studies tnat argue otner- accoj ie. In a recent study by a prominent medical society, it against i irgued that until the 24th week of pregnancy, most fe- we want movement is reflexive, and the fetus is not sufficient- was che leurologically developed to feel pain the way that even bodies o: vborns and adults do. Even something as endearing as As a: iking a thumb or kicking is nothing but brute reflex, by (mis> Point: Statistics and studies are never wholly reliable to you th irces of information, and one must consider the bias im- already ] :it within the studies, who is employing the study and sequenc s motivation for one to offer such an inductive argument, "pro-sec order to determine the degree of belief that we should ve about them. Second, the question that is rightly of concern is the j begged by Mr. Touchberry, namely at what point does ie" begin, and how much value should we attribute to } outcomes of our decisions? One might imagine that In hi iirs after impregnation cells begin to form the fetus. (I strues a :e certain liberties for the sake of brevity.) The fetus be- First of is to grow at a constant rate, with new cells growing all pro-1 jry few hours. not the i Any decision as to what constitutes a human life based In th the cell growth is either arbitrary or, at best, a tempo- set by si ry explanation. Thus the appeal to conception as the an aborl int of origin for human life. At this point, one must ar- lifers ur e (to save the argument) that there is something beyond all othe >logy that characteristically describes human life, thus this, St< j resort to religious beliefs, etc. But this is a matter of then sa] lue and not fact. And so one cannot claim that the ar- If pn ment is true, in any strict sense, much less valid. they wc The rest of Mr. Touchberry's arguments display the they do me ignorance of principles of logic, statistics and prob- decision times, and so it is no wonder tnat ne Diunaers nis way in ui ough fatigued arguments that seem to be repeated as again. I en as any mantra that wagon jumpers mumble as they rights ol le along behind the intelligent. He, like most columnists Stone in to write for this paper, use a trite, banal and uniformed He says proach to arguing social and political issues. The moral: the righ i matter how often one beats a dead horse, it will never were th< e. OUT)pr issue. 1 Brett Moseley form on Philosophy graduate student The rea Stone tl fundam I am writing this letter in response to Chad Stone's ed- grant th rial concerning abortion. Mr. Stone has apparently been But, is i sinformed about a few issues, and I would like the op- say; life rtunity to correct him. He describes all pro-lifers as ration o ghteous", "anti- women's rights" activists and "upstanding Ston iristian soldiers." Wrong. I am pro-life and am not right- "We, an us, against women's rights or religious in any sense of does not e word. that th( Further, Mr. Stone equates the women's movement against | v; - fo j|l :^?lii8iSliB^^^^^B :: ; ' . . "' '; .. : - : .V \ ;hts weekly from 5 pm h ^ ill .-* -* >w for reservations \t to ask her... Thi. rS Tuesday, February 14, 1995 nts of aborti right to have an abortion. Wrong again. Isn't the s i movement also concerned with issues such as ly for equal work and curbing violence against 1 Both are important causes to which I lend my sup- l ipite the fact that I'm pro-life, rding to Mr. Stone, I am a fascist because I am < abortion. After all, we all should be able to do what ; with our bodies, right? However, the last time I 1 eked, it was illegal to inject heroin into our own ] r engage in prostitution. What fascism! v 1 3tudent of linguistics (sic), Mr. Stone is often amused uses of the English language. Mr. Stone, I submit ] lat a woman who willingly has sex with a man has < nade an important choice. A choice' which has con- < aa PorViona "urn. oViniao" ia a misnnmpr Parhans 1 ond chance" would be more accurate. i Stephen Tuholski < Psychology graduate student | s Feb. 2 article on abortion, Chad Stone miscon- ? 1 nd confuses many issues of the abortion debate, all, he makes the tired mistake of believing that ifers are so because of a religious stance. That's case; nothing more need be said about that, e third paragraph, he caricatures the pro-life mindlggesting that pro-lifers think the decision to have tion is an easy one to make. On the contrary, prolderstand the profundity of murder; next to this, r concerns are rather frivolous. In failing to see me portrays the pro-life stance inaccurately. He ya, "It is her life, and it should be her choice." o-lifers thought she were the only one involved, >uld not hesitate to agree with Stone. However, not think she is the only person affected by this ; that makes all the difference, e fourth paragraph, Stone confuses the argument le portrays, the issue as a struggle between the f the woman and the supposed rights of the fetus, amediately disregards this important opposition, the rights of the woman are more important than ts "to free speech and peaceful assembly." If this i issue, pro-lifers all around would (WORDS LEFT oclaim their agreement; however, this is not the he rights to free speech and peaceful assembly ly a side argument in the larger abortion debate. J 1 issue is the woman's freedom and the baby's life. I ien says freedom to control one's person is more | ental than freedom of speech and assembly. I will L lat. (Why not? It is ultimately an irrelevant point) it more important than the right to life? (Hard to and liberty go right along together in the Declaf Independence.) That is the real question, e hits his myopic stride at the end of his article, d only we, should be able to decide what does and ; happen to our own bodies." Even if I were to grant s fetus does not have a body that can be destroyed its will, I still must be struck by the irony of this MValid Wed. gKolValidp mTrea town the" fond to dr feast will dazzle you every i Mignori, mouth-watering Cf Shrimp with our NEW Smol Served with salads, cheese Cookies n' Cream Marshmj a carnation jotroo r the ladies ' V mrnmmtm:,, ttitMline $47?? s is the place t . H# 7 on argument ientence. It really would be nice if we did have control over our sodies; if we did, there would not be any unplanned preglancies about which to have this discussion. The fact is that we do not have complete control over JLU UVU1CO. Pro-lifers simply say that if you should exhibit such a ack of control, certain other controls must be imposed to preserve the liberty of all parties involved. (Note: The woman is no longer the only party involved.) If you exhibit control by avoiding fertilization, some pro-lifers (Not all; it is not a homogeneous group.) will not sven think of intruding further on your privacy; it is when jne's self-control falters that pro-lifers want to have controls enacted. Also, pro-lifers never make any of the absurd claims about "breeding machines" that Stone mentions. (Ironically, I believe Planned Parenthood was founded by eu^enicists that believed the poor should not reproduce.) These are the inaccuracies I found in Stone's portrayal of the pro-life stance. (Note to Sharon Friedman: Up until now, I have not even mentioned God.) Timothy Maher Philosophy graduate student / 11 icc Ani y :' ||mrr I.T l\r Jl ^ jl II/KsIALj i Valentine's Day t yourself to the new talk of the i. Th e Melting Pot is teaturing Big Night Out" combination ue dinner for two. From salads jssert, this four course fondue >tep of the way! Tender Filet licken and Salmon, succulent <ey tomato basil cream sauce! i fondue appetizer AND flaming illow Dream chocolate fondue. ?the? MELTING. POT^ A Fondue Restaurant o take her. f' f