Letters to the Editor

Afraid of what?

To the Editor:

In her recent column, Lauren Bialystok argues that "there is a danger in relying on blanket definitions to solve intricate sociological questions, because the issues are by their very nature dependent on myriad factors."

Indeed, Bialystok's statement is correct when it comes to most social problems, such as depression, addiction or abuse. But in life-and-death situations the stakes are much higher.

When you destroy a child in the womb, you destroy all that exists of another human being. This is what makes the abortion question much more black-and-white than other "sociological questions." When it comes to taking the life of another human being, there is little room for gray. How could it be that the accidental death of an unborn child could be the most devastating event in one woman's life, while death of an unborn child in an abortion clinic is merely the exercise of a reproductive right for another?

Clearly, a mother's personal definition of when life begins is highly variable. Can it be trusted as a good indicator of whether or not an unborn child is worthy of legal protections?

A collective answer would probably be more reliable and more intellectually satisfying; thus, the question of "when life begins" is essential in the debate over abortion. Most Americans would be unable to support abortion if they admitted to themselves that the unborn child was, in fact, a human being. Instead, uncertainty becomes a safe haven for the conscience.

Among the most disconcerting implications of this idea is that, when stretched to its logical conclusion, murder can always be justified, if the victim's life is labeled as "worthless." Can we have individual definitions of when human life begins? No. Society, as a whole, must answer two questions in order to bring closure to the abortion debate: What is it that makes us human? And, can someone else make a decision about whether or not your life is worth living?

So, what are we so afraid of finding out?

David Heitzman

Engineering '02 The writer is president of Penn Pro-Life. Satire needs a message To the Editor:

Never one to censor and a strong advocate of free speech, I nevertheless must take issue with what I can only think must have been intended as a joke in 34th Street Magazine ("Timeline: 125 years of women at Penn," 11/1/01).

The timeline goes on to note womens' involvement in the University, from 1877 until 2001 solely on the basis of women as sexual objects. To whit, the timeline opens with "1877: First woman drops out after successfully finding a good husband in the Wharton School," continues with several references to women using fellatio to enhance their grades and culminates in the ultimate victory for "2001: Penn women are now found very attractive."

As one who has taught and scrutinized literary form, I am well versed in the elements of satire, and never one to censure modest proposals. But every satire must conceal an argument of some sort. I fail to see how belittling womens' involvement in this University by equating them solely with sex and physical attractiveness carries a point other than flat out objectification and misogyny.

I'm not asking that your magazine stop printing stories such as this one. I only ask that you raise your level of sophistication. This timeline was crude, humorless, offensive and in bad taste.

Miriam Jacobson

English Ph.D. student

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.