Dear Editor:

I don't know much about Hawaiian politics. I lived there for 3 months a few years ago, and I've read a bit on its history and talked to enough locals to get a feel for some of the tensions between native Hawaiians and the descendants of mainlanders. Historically, there seems little doubt that Hawaii was, essentially, stolen from its people by American business interests - but that's the story in much of the US (and the world) even today.

My only comment is on the use of the word "moderate". What can this mean in reference to an individual whose platform seems to be dictated by big business and who unequivocally supports the Iraq war? Why is being a "far-left liberal" such a bad thing in the US? I do not say this as a sanctimonious Canadian - here in the north, we are suffering through a (thankfully) minority government of Conservatives who are trying their best to turn Canadian foreign policy into a clone of that of the Bush White House. To say that our current government is sycophantic when it comes to the US is not an exaggeration. But this government won with about 36% of the popular vote; the vast majority of Canadians voted for parties to the left of the governing party and there is an excellent chance (fingers crossed) that the Conservatives will be turfed out in the next election. And our Conservatives are probably still slightly to the left of "moderate" Democrats! So, how did the center in the US move so far to the right? And what does it mean for the future of a decent, civil US when the left is - by the standards of the rest of the industrialized world - virtually non-existent as an electoral force in US politics?

I worry about this for self-interested reasons - as far apart as Canada and the US are growing in many ways, including basic values, it is inevitable that many American influences end up filtering through. The present-day far right (by Canadian standards) Conservatives are American-wannabees who are enamored of the US and are trying to remake Canada in the image of our neighbour to the south. Their very presence in Canadian politics is a measure of how the move to the radical right in the US has pulled Canada's political center of gravity further right, too.

I support the efforts of many Americans to reclaim the validity of the word "liberal", but may I suggest that you may also want to start working on reclaiming the meaning of "moderate".

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

I think that this is an excellent article which underlines many of the moral problems inherent with abortion. It is the taking of life - maybe not a fully human life, but a potential himan life, and that is a fact that should matter. Abortion cannot be morally neutral for this reason alone. It is not the same as having any other medical procedure where the only person directly affected is the person having the procedure.

I have to admit that I have not followed this debate closely for several years, but I do recall reading "extreme" feminist philosophers a number of years ago who made the argument that we only bear moral responsibility to other "persons", and that humans did not become "persons" until they were capable of independent action and survival. The upshot of this argument was that a child was not a full "person" until he or she was several years old, let alone as a fetus or even a newborn. This position, as I said, represents an extreme philosophy, and I do not want to suggest that it represents any significant body of thought in the pro-choice movement. But it does demonstrate the exceptional lengths to which some thinkers are prepared to go in order to avoid having to admit the moral ambiguity of abortion. At the same time, it indicates that addressing this issue was a question of significant moral concern.

Contrary to what some of your writers seem to suggest, attitudes to abortion can cetainly reflect social norms. In some countries, lack of availability of contraception has made abortion the norm. It other countries, notably the former Soviet Union, my understanding is that abortion is largely treated as birth control. Here, my impression is that there is not as much an issue of a lack of availability of contraception so much as the social attitude is that abortion really is morally neutral and it is more convenient to abort an unwanted pregnancy than worry about the hassles of contraception.

Ms. Kissling is correct: if we claim to value life, then a recognition that life is lost in abortion is essential. If we want to prevent abortion, we must support contraception, sexual education, and other practices that will ensure that fewer women will need to make this difficult choice. But we should not try to make the choice itself less difficult. There are many decisions that people have to make in life that should be carefully considered before they are made. Whether or not to have an abortion should surely be one of them.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine