Columnist ignores the real problem of abortion
There were too many facets of Rachel Leavitt’s article for me to touch on in just one response, so I’ll start with her stance on abortion (“Oklahoma: Abortions are none of your business,” Oct. 22, 2009). Her ignorance on the issue was vividly displayed in her article opposing the Oklahoma legislation requiring pregnant females desiring abortions to report their “personal” information.
The biggest defect in her way of thinking is that she doesn’t even mention the welfare of the human being living in the mother’s womb, although I do give her the credit of at least mentioning the “emotional strain that accompanies the decision to abort a fetus.” Not only are you killing a human being by performing an abortion, but a lifetime of emotional distress haunts the potential mothers (in a majority of cases).
Just in case you start to think, “Yeah, but what about rape victims and mothers of children with birth defects?” First of all, each of those cases happens in less than 1 percent of all women undergoing abortions. Second of all, there is another way. There will always be couples out there looking for the “unwanted child.”
The most common excuses that women give for having an abortion actually have to do with “not being ready” or being “immature,” which is why 75 percent of all abortions are performed on women between the ages of 15 and 29. It appears the tendency in our time is to evade obligation for our actions.
The real problem here lies with people that believe it is OK to kill the fetus to get out of the responsibility of parenthood. The hope for us that value the life of the unborn child is that the mother realizes through ultrasound (and an unbiased and informative meeting with a physician) that the child that she created is living inside her, dependent on her next choice.
Kiel Spencer
physiology senior
Wildcat should write about UAPD’s legitimacy
There are photos circulating of a boy who ran a stop sign on his bicycle, then was tackled and held down by two UAPD cops while being handcuffed. I can procure these photos if anyone is interested.
With the chalk arrests not far behind us, perhaps an article about UAPD’s legitimacy (or lack thereof) is necessary? I recall that they recently motioned to be equipped with assault rifles. They should know that their behavior is intolerable, and that the student body is uneasy.
Thomas Shea
biochemistry and molecular biophysics junior
guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces/family_planning_abortions.html
policyalmanac.org/culture/archive/abortion_statistics.shtml
nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21abortion.t.htmlI threw an article from the NY Times in there for you too. I hope this saves you some time.
Statistical Reporting of Abortions Act II, also known as: "What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander," to require the following information to be collected about the FATHER of the unborn child and posted on a public website:1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of father and difference from age of mother
4. Marital status of father (married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married) If married, is he married to the mother of the child or to another woman?
5. Race of father. Same or different than mother?
6. Occupation of father (specify employer and yearly income). If an elected official, list position and voter precinct
7. Residence of father (country, state, county). Same or different household than mother?
8. Total number of previous pregnancies fathered and the number of different women involved.In addition, in an effort to influence the mother's decision about the abortion, all fathers will be required to offer to contribute $10,000/year for 18 years toward the cost of raising the child. I am sure that this information would be much more useful in devising policies to reduce
abortions than the proposed information to be collected from the mother!
Log in to be able to post comments.