Pro-Responsibility

Dear Editor:

The First Amendment grants us freedom of the press, freedom of speech and prevents an established religion. Wait! I almost forgot freedom of assembly! Risman Plaza has been a perfect example of the exercise of the First Amendment the last couple of days with the anti-abortion group called the Genocide Awareness Project. Being pro-choice, I feel that my views are misinterpreted into something like “pro-choice = anti-life,” which is simply not the case; however, I would be much more receptive to groups like the Genocide Awareness Project if they actually gave women a chance to prevent unwanted pregnancy – perhaps pass out condoms, or information on contraceptives, even directions to some of the closest gynecologists for a healthy check-up. Instead, this group resorts to fear mongering, not to mention grossing out everyone who happens to be eating in the Hub – an overboard amount of shock value. Perhaps next time they could re-think their location? Maybe congregate in front of the M.A.C. Center where people have a chance to digest their food before being presented with giant pictures of aborted fetuses and lynchings? Surely more students would be receptive if given space to eat and breathe. Perhaps give women a chance to defend themselves instead of waving a flier with facts about abortion in their faces without giving them the opportunity to prevent the abortion in the first place?

Abortion is a serious issue – an issue that will never be solved with bloody aborted babies rolling around our campus. How about we put away the fear, the ignorance, the name calling, the fences and bring out the issues at hand? How will we educate the men and women in this country about safe sex? How will we come together as pro-responsibility instead of pro-life and pro-choice?

Pro-choicers could come to Risman with giant pictures of abandoned children and orphans, but what would that accomplish? Nothing but our emotions would be played upon, and the lives of those children would remain untouched. I prefer the intellect, the dialogue and the understanding of a real discussion between opposition which could save so many lives.

Sarah E. Wilson

Junior political science major

Anti-abortion activists aim low

Dear Editor:

I would like to add my 2 cents to the editorial discussion you will likely be having today about the abortion photos in Risman plaza. If there’s going to be an editorial response (and I believe there ought to be) I hope it acknowledges the following flaw with this method of pro-life discourse.

The question to be asked is not “is an abortion disgraceful enough, and are these photos gross enough, to make it illegal?” The three important questions of abortion are to be asked of science first, then the legislature, then the courts:

1. When does a fetus really become a human life? This question is not answered by photos of aborted fetuses, regardless of how human they appear.

2. Based on the definitive, scientific (not religious or visceral) answer to the first question, is abortion really taking a human life?

3. Based on legislative ruling on the second question, what should the legal limitations and ramifications be?

I don’t like being categorized into “pro-life” or “pro-abortion.” I actually hate abortion and I, too, weep for the life that could have been. But I am infuriated by pro-lifers who think the way to settle the debate is through cheap tricks like evoking visceral reactions to billboards of aborted fetuses. That’s sensationalism, not evidence.

I also didn’t like being misled today by signs warning me that I was about to see pictures of actual genocide (I expected photos from Darfur) when I was actually approaching a cheap abortion protest. Such demonstrations are not productive, and more importantly, they are distractions from the real issues.

We all know what an aborted fetus looks like. Great. Now let’s have a real discussion.

Colin Morris

Junior journalism and French major

Preserving resources? Give us our trays

Dear Editor:

Upon going to breakfast this Sunday, I found that Eastway has adopted a new “trayless” policy. In place of the trays are Styrofoam to-go containers and a sign. The sign explains how they’ve switched to this new policy to “preserve natural resources” as washing the trays and silverware uses more than 500 gallons of water, I believe, a month. So I began to wonder, how does using more Styrofoam and plastic silverware “preserve natural resources?” Having always considered water an endless renewable resource, it just doesn’t make sense to me.

It’s obvious that the university is trying to cut costs here, but aren’t we paying enough tuition to afford to have a tray for our meals? Trying to carry two plates and a drink to the register is hard enough as it is; without a tray, it’s nearly impossible. And have you ever tried to eat steak with a plastic fork?

I say stop penny-pinching and bring back the trays Eastway! Not only is it inconvenient, but using more plastic and Styrofoam isn’t going to help our environment at all (like you’ve claimed).

Dylan Sorge

Sophomore integrated mathematics major