Letters to the editor

Editorializing in an opinions column, oh my!

The piece in the Wildcat about the Center for Bioethical Reform display (“”Warning: Propganda (sic) ahead,”” March 24) shows very clearly that you are not obeying the principles of journalism as they apply to actual reporting, and not editorializing. And we are accustomed to that. Now, here are some questions about the piece.

You say “”Displays like this … distort the complex nature of the issue of abortion, even from the pro-life perspective.”” Please, exactly how does this display specifically distort the nature of abortion? And what do you mean by “”even from the pro-life perspective””? You further say, “”The comparison lacks validity…”” referring to the comparison of the 52,000,000 abortions in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade in 1973 to other genocides. But you make no effort to tell readers about the motive for your opinion. And what is it about this free speech that makes it not “”true speech””? Further along, you refer to the display as “”distorted propaganda.”” Missing is exactly what about the display made you think it was distorted. Why is that missing? Missing also is your explanation of why “”their ends-justify-the-means approach is unacceptable.”” Why is what you consider “”their ends-justify-the-means”” not acceptable? Finally, apparently your last paragraph is intended to somehow indicate that most University of Arizona students are pro-abortion, and while that may be true, it is not true generally. Studies show that most people are increasingly opposed to abortion at will, and among those, young people particularly are becoming more and more anti-abortion.

­

— Luis Howard

Sahuarita, Ariz.

Cartoon no laughing matter

I am writing to express my strenuous objection to the spectacularly bad editorial judgment exercised by the Arizona Daily Wildcat in its choice of a cartoon to mark the passage of the historic national health care legislation. The cartoon, by the notoriously right-wing and racist cartoonist Gary McCoy, repeats a series of claims about the bill that are, quite simply, deliberate falsehoods. To set the record straight (although the Wildcat has already done damage to clarity on this issue): The health care bill emphasizes private insurance and Medicare, and thus is not “”socialist””; it will save more than $900 billion dollars by Congressional Budget Office estimates, not increase deficits; it is designed to eliminate denied coverage; it specifically exempts abortion coverage; and there are no “”death panels.”” These are, quite simply, lies that have been promulgated deliberately by right-wing commentators and politicians. Interesting, when Americans are polled on the actual contents of the bill they approve of its elements overwhelmingly.

The amount of deliberate deception and misinformation about health care reform has been spectacular and deeply disturbing. The Wildcat does the University of Arizona community a deep disservice as a news organization by giving credibility to these baseless claims about the new legislation. We should all be celebrating this important step toward a just society.

Associate professor, School of Natural Resources and the Environment

How to avoid sext-T-Ds

On “”Senate Passed AZ Sexting Law,”” March 23: Seriously, minors should stop, but this issue is important among our age group (college) and beyond. If you’re going to send naked pictures to someone, make sure you are in a stable relationship with someone you trust. Just like making a sex tape. It’s the same concept. There will always be a chance that you’ll see those pictures (or video) later in life. Just be prepared for the consequences.

—Ariel Jeffery

Comments from dailywildcat.com

On ‘Warning: Propaganda ahead’ March 24

Since I was quoted in this article I was just repeating the pro-abortion columnist Naomi Wolf (New Republic) states:

The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers’ practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics. …

How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted by them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view of women is unworthy of feminism.

Naomi Wolf, “”Our Bodies, Our Souls,”” New Republic, Oct. 16, 1996. ­

—Paul Wilson

There should be a billboard titled “”The Consequences of Having No Choice,”” featuring women butchered from getting back-alley abortions. It’ll be just as gory, shocking, and heart-wrenching. But of course, they deserved to die for seeking an abortion, right?

—Jing

Who butchers women in back alley abortions?

Not those who oppose abortion.

Those who think abortion is a good idea are the ones who kill women while performing abortions.

Every woman who has every died from abortion was killed by a pro-abortion person.

—Sgsg