Both authors of the Feb. 9 "Point/Counterpoint" articles concerning partial-birth abortion overlooked an important point: the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is a blatant attempt to subvert the debate over abortion by appealing to pathos. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban neither increases safety nor prevents late-term abortions. This makes it hard to defend in court: It has to have a purpose, other than just moralizing and invading privacy, which Roe v. Wade and other decisions forbid. So, lawyers must argue that the dilation and extraction method of late-term abortion is less safe than other methods which are often more dangerous and more traumatic. In fact, the Act succeeds only in changing the tenor of the debate over abortion by forcing a seemingly gruesome procedure before the eyes of the public, as Mee-Sun Song '08's piece exhibited. Opponents of abortion are playing on people's ignorance, hoping that partial-birth abortion's physical resemblance to murder will make them accept the word "murder" as abortion's synonym.
Caleb Deats '06
"Anti-Zionist" sect is a fringe group
Having already been implicitly labeled a "village idiot" by Visiting Professor of Political Science Sayres Rudy (for agreeing with Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman that anti-Zionism functions as a mask for anti-Semitism), I must confess to some awkwardness in knowing how best to respond. Perhaps a good way to start is to note that the Jewish village has quite a few idiots: besides Foxman there is Jonathan Rosen, writing in The New York Times (Nov. 4, 2001); Hillel Halkin, Commentary (Feb., 2002); Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic (July 8, 2002); Richard Bernstein, The New York Times (Aug. 4, 2002); Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News and World Report (Nov. 3, 2003); and many more. All of them have written cogently and eloquently about the modern resurgence of anti-Semitism in the guise of anti-Zionism; any one of their articles would serve admirably as an antidote to Rudy's piece.
Rather than offering a rehash of their arguments, I wish to focus on just one tiny piece of Rudy's article, which is not addressed in the above references.
Rudy mentions, almost in passing, the existence of ultra-orthodox Jewish sects, such as the Neturei Karta, who are opposed to Zionism. Now, here is a find! If a Jewish sect can be against Zionism, then surely one can deny the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and be immunized from any accusation of anti-Semitism!
The Neturei Karta and other sects like them are considered, by the vast majority of Jews, to live on the far side of the lunatic fringe. They are driven by narrow theological concerns: They believe that the divine plan calls for the establishment of a Jewish state only after the coming of the Messiah. Since the Messiah has not yet arrived, they consider the present state of Israel to be premature and blasphemous. Such is their zeal to confront heresy that they even cozy up to Israel's enemies, those who deny Israel's right to exist under any circumstances. The latter are of course only too eager to humor "their" Jews, and to point to them in glee: "See? There are even Jews who deny Israel's legitimacy!" Needless to say, none of this earns the Neturei Karta many popularity points in Israel, but such is life in a democracy.
Surely all of this is known to Rudy, who is anything but a village idiot. Which then begs the question: What was the point of bringing this up? Does Rudy find himself on common theological ground with the Neturei Karta, anxiously awaiting the coming of the Messiah so that he can give his stamp of approval to the legitimacy of a Jewish state? Perhaps he will enlighten us.
Professor of Chemistry
Joseph Kushick
Extreme views only hurt the cause
The Feb. 9 Point/Counterpoint on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban typified the invective fired to defend the impractical extremes of political dialogue. I cannot comment on the lack of nuance in the "conservative" view that banning partial-birth abortion is but the first glorious step towards ending abortion (and American immorality) altogether, but, as a liberal, I did feel misrepresented.
I agree with the author that the ban is dangerously vague (possibly applying to early-term abortions) and deliberately irresponsible (providing exception for a woman's life but not for her health). It is part of the incrementalist strategy to dismantle the right to choose, one restriction-and one Supreme Court seat-at a time.
But what gives the conservative strategy its thrust and helps compel its total success, is the willingness of reproductive rights activists to fight back on causes of minimal principle and zero political capital. There is no doubt that partial-birth abortion is gruesome and unaccepted-asserting otherwise simply reinforces the stereotype of callous, militant feminism. It is very rarely performed (less than one-fifth of a percent of all abortions), and the ban does allow the procedure in protection of a woman's life. The courts will ensure that it is allowed for the less dire cases of health as well, though this too is probably unnecessary legal aggression. The line between preserving life and health is fine indeed.
The 10 years of legislative wrangling, the two presidential vetoes by President Clinton and the ready embrace anew by pro-choice advocates of this "cause" has only inflamed, giving conservatives just the catalyst they need to embed the nauseating pictures and cries of liberal inhumanity in the public consciousness.
It is crassly calculating to play cost-benefit with principle. But there is no principle in unfettered freedom, unless pro-choicers are now advocates of anarchy as well. Restricting abortion is no different from restriction of any other right. Today I cannot run for president, but this is no assault on my liberty. Women cannot receive partial-birth abortions, and that is no measure of reproductive freedom.
Abortion is always a tragedy. We must grapple with where the line falls between right and responsibility, freedom and murder-but there is only good if, armed with real choice, the number who choose abortion is minimized. Sex education should be universal, birth control readily available and covered by insurance, morning-after pills available at every pharmacy in the country. This is where the abortion movement has led in Europe, while here at home, liberals, in all seriousness, debate the ethics of requiring parental consent forms for tattoos but not for abortions. The ultimate success of the pro-life movement will be ending abortion; through entirely different means-education and birth control-that can and should be the ultimate success of pro-choice as well.
As far as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, liberals will probably win this battle. But it may cause us to lose the war.
Richa Bhala '07
Respect the Little Red Schoolhouse
The Little Red Schoolhouse has served preschoolers on the Amherst campus for 67 years. These preschoolers adore their Amherst College helpers.
Sadly, these children are now aware of another sort of college student: vandals.
Rocks and beer bottles have broken our windows nine times this school year. Glass shards fly into sinks and rugs and countless other places young bodies explore.
Please help stop these destructive acts.
Thank you.