The gamecock. (Columbia, S.C.) 1908-2006, February 14, 1995, Page 7, Image 7
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