Abortion debate about more than the fetus
Thank you for Catherine Traywick's column on Monday!
Abortion is obviously a huge issue in America today, even though Roe v. Wade was passed so long ago. But the main points, like actually trying to educate people about sex, are being left out because all anyone can argue about is whether a fetus is a citizen and whether the choice should be made for that fetus.
I think everyone has a right to his or her own opinion, but people should know the facts about this. The truth is that many women went through illegal abortions prior to the passing of Roe v. Wade and were injured, or even died because of it.
Women were going to unsanitary places in Mexico, sticking hangers inside themselves, not stopping at anything to make sure that they would not have a baby.
We should be focusing on educating young adults about how to avoid getting pregnant in the first place.
I am Catholic and grew up with very strict religious beliefs. However, you can't take each woman's individual situation and put one rule on it, which is what everyone needs to understand.
Let's spread knowledge instead of making this debate even bigger than it already is.
Natasha Yousif
Freshman
Violence not the answer for progress
In response to [Garvin] Anders' letter in Monday's State Press [about the hanging of Saddam Hussein], I completely disagree.
Violence to solve a problem only perpetuates the cycle of violence. Take Joseph Sebarenzi, former head of the Rwandan Parliament. He has endured tragedy most of us cannot fathom.
He lost both his parents, seven siblings and numerous other relatives in the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Yet, years later, as a senior government official in a position to exact revenge, he instead pushed for peace and reconciliation.
"Revenge is like adding guilt to victim hood," says Sebarenzi. "It solves nothing. At some point, we have to ignore the past and envision the future."
Rene Herrera
Senior
Bush's stem cell stance not hypocritical
In last Thursday's editorial, "A Confusing Breed of Logic," Bush is ridiculed for his seemingly hypocritical opposition to stem cell research.
I understand that it appears to be a lackluster effort to make a difference by condemning embryonic stem cell research while embryos die in fertility clinics.
However, I don't believe that his stance is fruitless. I also don't know if couples are knowingly destroying those lives, as the goings-on of the fertility clinics aren't as well publicized as this form of research.
What great change has ever bypassed small initial steps and come across as complete in all aspects on the first move? We need to start somewhere. Perhaps this will help to bring the entire issue into the light.
The critics' concern for an illegal embryo market, and with it a devaluing of early life, was too quickly brushed aside. We need only to look at the illegal drug trade to see that the problem is not eliminated even with our best efforts.
Finally, I think it is highly important to note that many of the people trying to make a moral stand for life are not against stem cell research. It isn't stem cell research in general that is protested but the branch that harvests stem cells from embryos.
There are other places to get these cells, such as umbilical cords, which are highly respectable because they hold potential to help the sick without sacrificing another life.
These methods allow us advance without leaving our morals behind.
Steven Cheshko
Sophomore
