The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

70° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat



    UA game among best in school’s history

    After reading Roman Veytsman’s account Monday of the UA-Villanova game, I wondered if we’d watched the same game. Roman, it’s difficult to lose and it’s been a frustrating year, but geez man, get some perspective! The game that I watched will go down as one of the more memorable in UA NCAA tournament history. Mustafa, Marcus, Hassan and the gang stood toe-to-toe with a No. 1 seed, a team ranked No. 3 in the country in the last AP poll, on that team’s home turf and kept the contest for a spot in the Sweet 16 interesting until the final 15 seconds.

    Our guys left it all on the floor, with abundant fast breaks, steals, reverse lay-ins, dunks, pull-up jumpers and hustling after loose change. Yes, Villanova answered every call, but that doesn’t detract from

    Do we have to have student reporters writing whiny articles that unfairly place fellow student-athletes
    in a bad light?

    the fact that the UA played an outstanding game. Yes, our 3-point percentage was low, but duh, we haven’t shot the three-ball all year, and credit Villanova’s quickness with making it very difficult to get good shots from behind the arc.

    Why not focus on the fact that Shakur, whose three-point percentage this year has been dismal, was 4-for-4 from three-point land in Sunday’s game? Or the fact that our team, whose free-throw shooting was mediocre all year, was 17-for-20 at the line under intense pressure? Or the fact that the UA had more rebounds, more shots, more steals and fewer turnovers than Villanova?

    Honestly, it’s bad enough that we can’t fill the student section at games that umpteen Tucsonans would donate vital organs to attend, but do we also have to have student reporters writing whiny articles that unfairly place fellow student-athletes in a bad light?

    Don Jamison
    Tucson resident

    Ethical issues apply to sperm donation as well

    While I appreciate the concern Michael Mobley expressed in his guest editorial Monday for me and other poor women like me, I disagree with some of his points. I understand the health risks of egg donation are high because of the hormone injections and extraction process. I also understand that the idea of paying me (or someone like me) to donate my eggs can be tempting since I’m extremely impoverished. Therefore, I would weigh the risks as light when compared to my lack of eating (poverty) and potentially could do damage to my body.

    However, I do not believe that what Mobley is advocating is necessarily a good thing. For example, if you make egg donation illegal, then poor women (like poor organ donors) will find an illegal and potentially more deadly way of selling their eggs if they feel that it is necessary. This can be akin to when abortion was made illegal and women found ways to have them anyway. Also, do you mean to tell me that because procedures such as donating sperm or plasma are less risky that it is OK to pay people for them? If you think body parts should not be paid for, then you should include these less risky procedures as well.

    All points aside, Mobley, I again thank you for the concern, but I can make decisions for myself, and I am sure other poor women who are properly informed can make decisions for themselves as well. This issue is clearly the state’s regulation over the individual’s decision. In this supposedly democratic nation, I would hope that big brother would allow me to decide what I should or should not do with my body, but clearly Arizona doesn’t give me that right anymore.

    Laura McCormick
    musicology graduate student

    More to Discover
    Activate Search