Use of photo in anti-abortion display unethical

In response to David Lee’s contestations about using Matuschka’s photograph in the Justice for All display (“”Artist objects to photo use””), I have this to say: While Lee may have a strong argument about legal use of the photograph, there is much to be said about the ethical use of articles, photographs, etc., without the permission of the copyright holder.

It would not have taken a great amount of effort, I am sure, for Lee or the attorneys representing Justice for All to find Matuschka to ask her permission to use the photo, or to find another photograph just as graphic. Perhaps a photograph of someone who had had an abortion earlier and then later breast cancer would have been more appropriate? After all, according to Lee, there is factual evidence that connects the two, and therefore there must be at least some women out there who would be willing to show their scars for the cause!

Using the photograph was insensitive to Matuschka’s battle with breast cancer. Just because she published a self-portrait of herself for the sake of art and as a political statement does not mean that the struggle, emotions and anguish she went through are any less personal. David Lee’s callousness in his curt response “”You can sue anybody for anything. The question is, can you win?”” is equally crude, rude and unnecessary.

Furthermore, the use of the photograph was deceptive: the original photograph and its original use in The New York Times Magazine in no way referenced the supposed link between abortions and breast cancer that Justice for All claims. Besides, there are many other reports, studies and findings from other respected medical journals that do document physical and mental after-effects of abortion, many of which have been corroborated by other studies in the field.

Justice for All would have been better served by referencing and illustrating those studies, and would have given a little more credence to its position. Instead, the thing most people will probably remember about the display is the over-the-top graphic photographs rather than the actual message.

Amanda Sox graduate student, College of Education

Emotional satisfaction isn’t foundation for marriage

I just wanted to thank Jessica Wertz for writing her column (“”First comes love, then comes marriage?””). With divorce rates as high as they are, you would hope that more people would take a step back and ask themselves what they need to do to stay out of the divorce equation. I think realizing that marriage is more than just emotional fulfillment and that it’s a partnership for life, as Wertz stated, are key to this idea.

I wouldn’t say that any marriage should be purely logistical and totally void of emotional love. I think companionship and emotional satisfaction are also essential parts of marriage, but they’re not the only things it should be built on. When life starts crashing in around you, emotional satisfaction isn’t going to hold your marriage – or your life – together.

I think Wertz hit the nail on the head when she suggested stepping back and discussing the important topics before getting married. Maybe if more couples did so, we wouldn’t end up with so many failed marriages.

Mandy Malmgren computer science senior

LGBT center necessary to serve diversity needs

The support that both Sam Feldman (“”LGBT center necessary, not too costly””) and Joel Shooster (“”LGBT community needs bolstered UA support””) have given for an LGBT affairs center is greatly appreciated. However, as a participant in the focus group regarding this issue, I feel that a few misconceptions need to be cleared up so the UA community is better informed.

An entirely new center to serve the UA LGBT community is not what the focus group proposed to President Shelton. UA Pride Alliance already has its own center. We have no intention of replacing Pride Alliance or any other of the campus LGBT organizations as a source of support for LGBT students.

Rather, what we did propose was a one-room office. This office would serve as a liaison between campus groups as well as the larger Tucson LGBT organizations.

We also hope this office will be able to better address the issues and needs of LGBT faculty, in addition to UA community members who have LGBT relatives and the relatives of LGBT members of the UA community. A new office of LGBT affairs is a huge step toward better serving the diverse needs of the UA community.

Rachael Poe family studies and human development junior

Solution needed for lost Zona Zoo passes

I just got done arguing for half an hour with the manager of the McKale Center ticket office because, between my girlfriend and myself, we could not figure out how to gain admittance to McKale after buying our tickets online.

After receiving about 30 e-mails from the Zona Zoo staff this past week, I decided to buy tickets for my girlfriend and me on the Arizona Athletics Web site. She had registered her Zona Zoo card online at the beginning of basketball season and all I had to do was pop in her student ID number and pay for both tickets on my credit card.

Day of the game, we come to find out that her Zona Zoo card has gone missing. Don’t you think that her CatCard, a printout of the transaction from the Arizona Athletics Web site, a printout of the confirmatione-mail and the credit card used in the transaction would be enough? No!

Apparently, you have to buy a whole new Zona Zoo card for $60 just as “”proof”” of the ticket, despite all of that other physical, tangible evidence and what would, in any other venue, be considered proofs of purchase. She has no intention of going to any other games and we don’t have another $60 to shell out for just this one game.

I like the Zona Zoo card system; I think it rewards people who want to go to the games and those who want to wait longest in line for the best seats. However, this is an example of bureaucracy at its worst. Two students are screwed out of enjoying their evenings because someone wants to jab them for another $60.

Thanks for screwing the little guy. Two more seats in the student section went empty because someone couldn’t recognize the spirit of the law.

Andy Blacetti psychology senior

Editor’s Note: The Wildcat received several dozen letters pertaining to last week’s Justice for All abortion display. Below is a small sample of the letters we received, but due to space constraints, we will not be able to publish any letters on the issue after today.

Sensationalism a non-starter

Politics and beliefs aside, the shock tactics currently on display on our Mall are just tasteless. Should war protesters go ahead and display images of bomb-shattered corpses and screaming servicemen? Should gun control advocates use bloody images of children from accidental discharge deaths?

“”Members of the Justice For All group view the exhibit as the only way for discussion to occur about a sensitive issue””? The only way? Sensationalism should not be used as a basis to start any kind of informed conversation. By all means, free speech and discussion should be cherished, but this is a university, folks. Let’s try for a bit of dignity.

Leave the childish, attention-grabbing antics to the tabloids, the televangelists and (sadly) the politicians.

Keith Siemon molecular and cellular biology freshman

Abortion display hurts pro-life cause

While walking to the Student Union Memorial Center Monday afternoon (for lunch, no less), I was greeted by a sight that, quite literally, stopped me dead in my tracks. Before me, in fantastic detail, stood 20-foot-tall posters – murals would be a more accurate description – depicting freshly aborted fetuses.

Now, I pride myself on being, for the most part, rather stoic towards gore. But this was indescribably vulgar and, frankly, inappropriate. Abortion is, to make a gross understatement, a touchy subject. And although I myself am adamantly opposed to abortion, I found myself feeling indignant about this abusive display.

Gimmicky, attention-seeking, emotionally charged campaigns like this one do a disservice to the cause they profess to support by turning what can be a perfectly rational debate into a showbiz-oriented slugfest. Furthermore, someone who isn’t already convinced of the evils of abortion is certainly not going to be converted by such juvenile tactics. If an opposing organization were to erect huge billboards depicting bombed abortion clinics or bloody photos of the murdered doctors within, I seriously doubt any of my fellow pro-lifers would be magically swayed from their convictions.

And yet here we witness them employing this very strategy to accomplish their goals. Such a strategy is exploitative and disgustingly hypocritical. These people claim to champion the cause of the voiceless, then turn around and parade their corpses before the general public, granting them not a single shred of dignity. The irony of the situation would be hilarious, were it not so sickening.

Frankly, after seeing this spectacle, I’m ashamed to be associated with the kind of people who would put vastly enlarged photos of aborted fetuses on public display. I can only hope that it doesn’t give those on the other side of this debate yet another reason to think less of our cause.

Eugene Shem biosystems engineering junior

Display was ‘tasteless political bullying’

Well, the graphic display of abortion photos on the UA Mall this week managed to do a few things, but what it did not do was provoke thoughtful dialogue among people who may disagree on this issue. The simple fact is, no one on Earth actually likes abortion. Even pro-choice people do not wish that anyone who actually chooses to end her unwanted pregnancy should.

The simple fact is, given the socio-economic bind many people find themselves in, coupled with the imperfect nature of birth control, there simply is no other choice than to allow women to control their own reproductive cycles legally and safely. Should there be a counter-exhibit with graphic pictures of back-alley abortions performed in unsanitary conditions?

Many of the same politicians who call themselves pro-life also voted for the war in Iraq. How about a display of 20-foot graphic photos of American troops or Iraqi civilians blown apart during the last four years? I think the vast majority of UA students are a bit too smart to mistake graphic photos for intelligent discourse on wrenching moral issues. The display was tasteless political bullying and nothing more.

James J. Jeffries IV political science junior

Justice for All seeks justice for some

I’m writing on behalf of the 876 women who’ve died around the world as a result of complications due to unsafe illegal abortions during the four days that Justice For All displayed their monstrosity on our mall. Each day, 219 women die, bleeding to death, ravaged by infection and caustic poisons, yet Justice for All is not picturing their bodies on 20-foot high posters.

Where is the image of Geraldine Santoro, found dead by a chambermaid, naked, alone and in a pool of her own blood after an unsuccessful abortion attempt before Roe v. Wade? Where are the descriptions of the home remedies women turn to without safe and legal abortion access: the hangers and knitting needles thrust through uterine walls, the lye douches and the bodies of women who’ve thrown themselves down flights of stairs in their efforts to terminate their pregnancies?

Justice for All is opposed to abortion, but women will get the procedure whether it’s legal or not. According to the Access Abortion Project, of the 46 million abortions that occur annually worldwide, 20 million of them are performed in places where the act is against the law.

Rather than spending money on pictures of late-term aborted fetuses (a practice which is already against the law in the United States), rather than shocking the public with images of fetuses lacking the central nervous systems and consciousness to feel pain or fear, let’s concentrate on the women who receive inadequate and deadly services every day. Justice for All is a misnomer when what they really mean is justice for some. Anti-abortion is not pro-life if you have to choose who to save.

Cassie Kneuss pre-education senior

Responses bespeak moral decay

It is more than a little disturbing to read the various letters to the editor and the comments on them concerning the images of aborted children being shown on the UA Mall. I am disgusted that people seem to be more upset over the fact that they have to see these brutal images than about babies who are quite literally being ripped apart for the sake of their mother’s convenience.

What a sad commentary on the moral state of society that we become outraged because we are forced to confront an unpleasant picture, rather than because of what that picture depicts. How utterly sad.

Silas Montgomery UA alumnus

Future depends on discussion today

In response to the letter “”UA Mall no place for abortion photos,”” the author fails to provide adequate support for restricting such material and there are serious flaws in his line of thought.

The author believes that the university is an inappropriate place for such graphic material. However, universities are supposed to be a marketplace of ideas in which students, professors and such are able to engage in dialogue. Such dialogue allows students to become aware of different philosophies and perspectives. The material that was shown was to make the student body aware of the atrocities of abortion.

Due to the graphic images, the author says he concludes that the organization that displayed such photos do not “”have a good point to begin with.”” Anyone who has taken a basic logic course knows that that conclusion does not necessarily follow. The author’s hasty conclusion is exactly why the display should be allowed on campus.

I read many of the remarks on the boards at the display. Many were ad hominems and did not contribute in a positive manner to the dialogue. These statements add nothing of value to the discussion of abortion. I would have thought that at a university more students would have used their intellect and engaged in thought-provoking dialogue rather than acting like adolescents.

The author seems to be apathetic to the whole situation of abortion. I would not be surprised to find other students who are reading this article to be apathetic, too. Apathy is the plague of our society, culture, and of America.

Now, granted, I am speaking of only a portion of the people. However, future generations will learn from our actions, or lack thereof. The future will be an abyss of moral decay unless people start to care more about pertinent issues.

That is why banning such material should never occur here at the UA.

Christopher Ortiz philosophy senior

Display offensive, inhumane

Three times a week I make a trek through the campus green to return to my dorm for an hour-long break from classes. One day, while making this ordinary walk, I noticed a sign that read, “”Warning, graphic photos ahead!””

I thought nothing of it and continued my journey (why change my path to avoid a few pictures?). To my surprise, there was a festival-like atmosphere surrounding one large display containing pictures of aborted fetuses among other things.

The strategy used by the group Justice for All was to use shock value to make people understand the realities of abortion. By displaying these pictures, they hit anyone who has a soul in the gut and made them face the harsh reality of abortion and its implications.

Now, consider the following: two years ago my sister became pregnant. Due to natural causes she lost the baby early on. Shortly thereafter was a funeral for the “”fetus.”” The funeral was an experience. Seeing my sister, brother-in-law and parents all crying made me cry, all while we looked upon the small white casket. The first thing that popped into my head when I saw this display was that funeral.

It was probably the saddest day of my life and I can only imagine how it was for my sister. Following that memory, I realized just how unjustified the use of these photos was. What if my sister had seen this? She probably would have burst into tears and been in therapy for months. And all for what?

I have no stance on the abortion issue and, even though I’m sure my sister does, we never did anything to Justice for All to deserve this. My point is, the case should be made in a civilized manner. If innocent people’s feelings are being trampled on, then how effective is the case being made?

If anything, this made me realize that while trying to expose inhumanity, Justice for All is, in fact, being inhumane and cruel to make their point. This is just uncalled for and offensive to people like me who have no stance.

Justin Twardowski freshman majoring in physics and math