Letters to the editor

Avoiding a grueling schedule

To The Editor:

Steve Brauntuch's column ("No excuse for scheduling the final game over spring break," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 03/03/04) about the men's basketball game against Princeton omits some of the most salient factors involved in scheduling intercollegiate athletic contests at Penn: the academic and athletic welfare of our student-athletes and the best interests of our teams from a competitive standpoint.

To have played the Princeton game this week would have required us to have scheduled five games in nine days -- a particularly grueling assignment this late in the season, when teams are physically and mentally fatigued. Included in this time frame would also be the travel to Harvard and Dartmouth, the most arduous and time-consuming trip of the season. Since Penn is usually in contention for the Ivy title and the NCAA bid, placing our team in such a competitive disadvantage is unfair and illogical.

More importantly, students are also taking midterms this week, and to put our players through the added stress of a big rivalry game would not be in keeping with our academic priorities. By not playing midweek, coach Dunphy can give the team and players the necessary time off to concentrate on studying for their exams. Student-athletes on all of our teams appreciate the sensitivity we show in limiting academic/athletic conflicts.

In an ideal world, where academic calendars mesh and scheduling restrictions from the NCAA and Ivy League don't exist, we would most gladly like our last home game to be in front of our students. I know our seniors truly appreciate the support they have received over the four years they have worn the Red and Blue. Right now, though, their primary focus is to ensure that the Princeton game is not their last.

Steve Bilsky

Director of Athletics

Understanding abortion risk To the Editor:

Katherine Lee's letter to the editor ("Misleading information, DP, 03/03/04) fell aptly under the headline of "misleading information." She says, "Neither birth control pills nor emergency contraception are capable of preventing pregnancy if the fertilized egg is already implanted in the uterine lining." Obviously, nothing short of a time machine is capable of preventing an event that has already occurred!

Abortion advocates have attempted to get around the potentially abortifacient nature of emergency contraception by redefining pregnancy to refer to implantation rather than conception. It is important that women know this -- otherwise, women who believe that pregnancy begins when there is a genetically unique human organism growing inside of their bodies will be mislead by abortion advocates claiming that these pills only "prevent pregnancy."

As far as the link between induced abortion and breast cancer, many (though not all) studies show a markedly increased risk. However, there is no doubt among the scientific community that bringing a pregnancy to term does confer a protective effect against breast cancer. It is unfortunate when science is politicized, but it happens on both sides of this issue. I would encourage students to read the relevant literature for themselves. Dozens of papers can be found on a simple PubMed search.

Bill Pottle

Staff

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