May 4 more than ‘intricate’; it’s history

Dear Editor:

Imagine my surprise when I read the Stater Online for the first time and found the nonsense in the editorial regarding funding for the May 4 Task Force.

An “intricate” part of Kent State history? I think it is a little more than that. It is part of national history. And, I think, we may be reliving it to some extent with the Iraq war and misleading information from national leadership.

Joyce Hann

Class of ’79

Abortion is not a civil rights violation

Dear Editor:

In response to Ed Fisher’s letter to the editor, I am afraid to inform Mr. Fisher that his interpretation of the word “tolerance” needs serious modification. 

Tolerance is not defined as blaming the vicious attack of Matthew Shepard on the victim himself. It is not defined as parading a truck around campus with the image of an aborted fetus plastered on the side. It certainly is not defined as comparing that display to the civil rights movement.

Mr. Fisher’s analogy comparing Matthew Shepard’s murder to abortion is ridiculous and unwarranted. Regardless of Matthew Shepard’s intentions behind being at a bar, he did not ask to be attacked or murdered. He was an unfortunate victim of a brutal bashing due to intolerance directed toward his sexuality.

The difference between Matthew Shepard and a fetus, as disturbing as it is to compare, is that Matthew Shepard was discriminated against solely because of his sexual orientation.

However, it must be Matthew Shepard’s fault, because he “chose” not to perform an extensive background check on the men he met. I am curious to know how many times Mr. Fisher has enacted this “choice” to perform thorough, impromptu investigations of individuals.

Fetuses do not have a “choice” when it comes to abortion because they are not able to make conscious decisions. Abortion is not discrimination against embryos, it is not a civil rights violation and it certainly does not warrant comparison to the civil rights movement.

The issue behind the “Reverse Roe” truck was not solely pro-life v. pro-choice. The issue was the graphic nature of the billboard that was so blatantly disrespectful to the diverse environment of a college campus. It was the callous disregard for women on this campus who have undergone a procedure that is emotionally, physically and psychologically painful. It was the idea that pro-life activists believe they are entitled to impose their convictions upon everyone and that we should all abide without question.

Liberals are not an angry mob in hooded white robes, as Mr. Fisher so kindly referred to the political left. Liberals are people who believe in the freedoms this nation was founded on – the freedom to choose, regardless of the issue.

Elizabeth Waickman

Sophomore public relations major

Obscene pictures can promote reform

Dear Editor:

The statement in the Oct. 14 Our View editorial, “We aren’t arguing abortion rights here – we’re arguing obscenity,” is a tad disingenuous. I don’t recall objections to the obscene pictures from Abu Ghraib prison. They caused a proper fire-storm of outrage that led to justice for POWs in American control. The point here is that the destruction of an innocent human being in its mother’s womb is more outrageous than the despicable acts perpetrated against the inmates of Abu Ghraib. We need to promote the truth of abortion even if it requires pictures of little, broken bodies.

Frederick Walz

Advisor, Campus Right to Life