-
1 of 10
-
2 of 10
-
3 of 10
-
4 of 10
-
5 of 10
-
6 of 10
-
7 of 10
-
8 of 10
-
9 of 10
-
10 of 10
Letters to the Editor
Archive
Comments
Story
Response to the article “Pro-Choice: The ultimate misnomer” which appeared in the May 4 issue of The Arbiter.
Danny Edvalson wrote a foolish opinion article claiming the term “Pro-Choice” did not accurately represent the position of those who advocate keeping abortions legal and accessible. I’m not interested in arguing against the points he makes so much as revealing some logical dissonances.
Edvalson quoted Dallin H. Oaks, the senior member of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, that a woman is to be allowed an abortion if the pregnancy was the result of rape or would put the mother’s life at risk. Edvalson, however, did not include Oaks’ stipulation that “even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically.”
Oaks claimed, “it should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops …” Though Oaks would appear to be making a legal argument, what he is actually doing is making a religious argument.
Danny Edvalson used a powerful quote from Oaks’ speech, “If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to, but also the responsibility for that fetus.” But Edvalson made a lie of omission in implying this was a legal argument made by Oaks when, in the context of the speech (found at http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6647), Oaks admitted it was the statement of an unnamed “Latter-day Saint outside the United States.”
The choice of having sex is separate from the choice of having an abortion.
Until sex becomes a crime, a woman’s freedom for one should not be restricted by her choice for the other. As to his silly analogy to driving to Mountain Home: driving to Mountain Home is different from moving in, staying nine months, all while risking your health and your life because someone else wants you to stay.
Jonathan Schoenfelder is a junior studying English writing.
Response to the letter to the editor, “Elected by students, not god,” which appeared in the May 4 issue of The Arbiter.
In response to the recent article, “Elected by students, not God,” I find it surprising for a student to be in protest. Believing that our nation was formed “Under God,” it is difficult to comprehend why believers should always, and under every circumstance, cater to non-believers.
I respect the various views held by the students at BSU, and I admit that there is a great deal of give and take on this subject. There are circumstances and settings in which believers can and should respect the differing beliefs of those who might be in attendance.
But let’s not forget this goes both ways – can’t non-believers accept that there are circumstances and settings in which they should respect and “tolerate” the views of believers? It would be wrong for us to always silence our beliefs and values so that you can live comfortably with yours. Let us all, at Boise State University, remember to give and take when it comes to personal beliefs and values.
James Bird is a senior studying accounting.