Letters to the Editor
Sylke_in_AK
Published Letters: 7
-
Why I am silent on this matter
[Read the article: Duke players cleared]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can’t speak for anyone else but myself, but the reason why I, as a feminist, am silent on this matter now is because I was silent on the matter when it first came out. From the beginning, the inconsistent smattering of facts surrounding this case seemed fishy, and I knew that we needed much more information about what happened before even beginning to guess what transpired at that party. When the Duke case hit the airwaves, I was acutely aware of the silence surrounding this issue from many advocate groups, and I thought: “They’re waiting for the facts too.”
I was surprised by Nifong’s and the media’s spin on this debacle – these boys were wrongly tried in a misguided court of public opinion. I cringed every time I read a blog screaming for these boys’ heads with the same intensity that I cringed every time I read a blog screaming that all women are liars, moneygrubbers, and whores. I am saddened that the accuser chose to lie, and I think she should be held accountable for her words and actions by being charged with slander, false accusations, etc. Words have power (ahem *Imus*), and we as a society need to acknowledge that power and take more responsibility for what comes out of our mouths.
I think this whole debacle is a testament to the need for solidarity in bringing about an end to rape. If there is no rape, there will be no false rape allegations. No one will deny that rape hurts women, now we see that it hurts men too. I think this is all the more reason for women AND men to stand together against rape and work to crush it out of existence.
There are a lot of comments here blaming feminism for the wrongs committed, and the snide questions “Where is the outrage NOW? Why are you all so silent NOW?” To that I say, most of us are silent now because we were silent before. We were waiting for the facts. Too bad Nifong and some media spinners didn’t do the same.
-
You're wrong, Pedestrian
[Read the article: Federal abortion ban roundup]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are wrong about the "life and health of the mother" being protected. As Ms. Ginsburg noted in her lengthy response about this ruling, the life and health of the mother may preclude such an abortion if she can prove her health is at risk in a court of law, on a case-by-case basis. That means every woman who is carrying a baby with hydroencephalitis, a babt with spina bifida, a baby who lacks a brain, a baby who lacks a spinal cord, a baby with too little amniotic fluid, a baby that lacks a pulse, etc. must wait for her day in court to plead her case. Which could take years. Which, I think, is the whole point of the bill.
Of the small percentage of last year's abortions that were performed in the later trimesters, I have no doubt that each one was a heart-wrenching, anguishing ordeal. Most of them were performed because something had gone horribly wrong with the fetus. I think it is a horrific slap to the face to every woman alive, that should she be so unlucky as to carry one of these doomed babies a bunch of old white men with gavels will make it all that much more difficult for her (and her doctor) to do what needs to be done.
This is your "culture of life?" Humiliation on top of pain? Blatant disregard for the health and future of women? Hysterectomies all around?
Your "culture of life" is sick and twisted, and I wish people like you would go live it somewhere else. Leave the suffering women alone.
-
Response
[Read the article: Federal abortion ban roundup]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, you're right Pedestrian, these judges don't give a rat's ass about the health of a woman who happens to be pregnant. Since a D&E is so "icky," women can now choose from other palatable abortion procedures, such as a c-section, or hyserectomy. I don't know if this is a widely-known fact, but when a uterus that contains a fetus is sugically extracted from a woman, it comes out all clean and pretty, and wrapped in a shiny bow. You're right, this is SUCH a better option than that awful, less-invasive D&E.
That a woman has to explain to ANYBODY why she needs to have an abortion procedure, let alone justify it, is ridiculous. Abortion is ugly and it's sad, no matter what procdure is used. Is the fetus any less dead if it's extracted by D&E as when it's taken out by c-section? No, but the woman fares worse, which is what the anti-choicers really want in the end. When there is something so very wrong with a fetus that it needs to be aborted late in a pregnancy we need to support the mother in that very painful time instead of "punishing" her for daring to conceive a sick child.
-
It's not about the children
[Read the article: Supreme Court upholds ban on "partial-birth" abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think this is actually about the babies at all, but about punishing women. There's no difference in deadness between a fetus that was extracted through D&E than one that was extracted through a c-section (or a hysterectomy), but the mother is much more traumatized, at-risk for complications, and scarred for life. A woman choosing to abort a severely ill/brain-dead baby now will not only have to endure the unthinkble, but now she'll have to try to justify herself to a panel of judges before she can even get the procedure, and further endure the cruel label of "murderer!" from those who claim to love life the most.
Don't be surprised when other forms of abortion are found to be "icky," and are outlawed as well. Next it's contraception, because those pro-lifers just love life so much they want this planet to be positively crawling with it. Maybe after that, we can start putting women in jail when they have the audacity to give birth to a baby with a congenital defect.
"Sanctity of life." What a crock.