.jpg "Danielle Gilbert")
An article praising H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, appeared in Monday’s opinion section of The Collegian. The headline read, “Stumping the Stupak” and celebrated the Democratic victory for the removal of federal covered abortions in health care plans.
However, the article merely scratched the surface of the issue at hand. I find it offensive that a male staff writer who dubs his column, “The Right Tone” tackled and condemned a women’s right issue in such a naive manner. California State University, Fresno’s institutional research, assessment and planning records state that 13,297 women attend Fresno state as of the fall 2008 semester, which is approximately 58.8 percent of the student body. According to Planned Parenthood Marmonte, one out of three women in the United States have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.
A survey conducted by The Collegian last semester, indicated that 70 percent of readers are female. Therefore, coverage of the so-called “gruesome” topic lacked any, if not all, sensitivity with its lead audience.
A wide range of issues associated with voluntary termination of a pregnancy could make abortion the most disputed subject in history — pro-choice, pro-life, the degree of intervention. Since political parties both support and oppose the issue, why shouldn’t The Collegian?
I am not advocating for the abortion of potential life. I am opposing the abortion of women’s rights. That’s right, I said it, you read it, women’s rights. Not a Democrat from Michigan’s right or a conservative from Fresno’s right, but a woman’s right.
Although it takes a quick swimmer, one egg and two to tango, for some odd reason it takes approximately 435 votes to determine whose choice an abortion actually is. Last time I checked, my body was mine, not a body of the House of Representatives.
I do agree with my colleague that Federal funds should not be used to pay for an abortion. Federal funds should be used to pay for the education of safe sex — abstinence, condoms, birth control, the morning after pill, etc. Several abortions are conducted as a form of birth control. However, the case of some does not account for the 85 percent of private-insurance plans that cover abortion services or those who privately pay the $350 to $650 fee for removal of an unintended pregnancy.
Criticizing a process one could never physically understand, will “suck the brains out” of the tone, the reporter’s credibility and solutions brought forth to the Senate.
While some might find the method murderous, the authors of “Freakonomics,” Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt, found evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions.
“Crime began to fall roughly eighteen years after abortion legalization. The five states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced decline earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized abortion in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.”
Whichever choice(s) you support — anti, bi, pro or no choice — a little abortion 101 is in order.
joshua4234 • Nov 25, 2009 at 6:14 pm
First, calling her an idiot solves nothing, and, if anything, it would put her guard up and make her disregard anything you say. Second, your story about nearly being aborted doesn't add any weight to your argument, if one could call it that, and is quite unnecessary.
I too, as a male, disagree with bringing up gender to imply that others' opinion on a matter is less valid. We are all humans and can make a judgment on the morality of aborting a fetus. Saying otherwise is as logical as saying that someone who could never be killed isn't capable of looking at the issue of homicide and deciding whether it's moral or not. Regardless of my stance on abortion, the only way to come to a conclusion on this moral issue is by reasoned argumentation, which can be provided by either gender.
joshua4234 • Nov 25, 2009 at 10:14 am
First, calling her an idiot solves nothing, and, if anything, it would put her guard up and make her disregard anything you say. Second, your story about nearly being aborted doesn't add any weight to your argument, if one could call it that, and is quite unnecessary.
I too, as a male, disagree with bringing up gender to imply that others' opinion on a matter is less valid. We are all humans and can make a judgment on the morality of aborting a fetus. Saying otherwise is as logical as saying that someone who could never be killed isn't capable of looking at the issue of homicide and deciding whether it's moral or not. Regardless of my stance on abortion, the only way to come to a conclusion on this moral issue is by reasoned argumentation, which can be provided by either gender.
RNAC • Nov 20, 2009 at 4:31 pm
A woman’s rights issue? You, Danielle, are an idiot madam. I, myself, was nearly aborted in the womb. There were complications related to my mother’s pregnancy, and the supposed medical professionals involved were leaning towards recommending termination. I’m a male, who nearly lost life before I had the chance to live that life. Just because a woman is cabable of giving birth, doesn’t mean the female populus at large has the right to determine an appropriate stand on abortion—–last I checked, newborns were delivered in both the male and the female variety—-
RNAC • Nov 21, 2009 at 12:31 am
A woman’s rights issue? You, Danielle, are an idiot madam. I, myself, was nearly aborted in the womb. There were complications related to my mother’s pregnancy, and the supposed medical professionals involved were leaning towards recommending termination. I’m a male, who nearly lost life before I had the chance to live that life. Just because a woman is cabable of giving birth, doesn’t mean the female populus at large has the right to determine an appropriate stand on abortion—–last I checked, newborns were delivered in both the male and the female variety—-
Common sense required • Nov 20, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Danielle,
I find it offensive that that you feel you get to determine whether someone has the right to an opinion based solely upon their gender. When you write your opinions, do you carefully divide them so that 42% of your thoughts reflect the so called male position? A rather absurd notion when applied to your opinions, isn’t it? You make the argument that an individual writer of an opinion piece cannot take a position on the abortion issue (at least one you disagree with – I somehow doubt we would have heard from you if he had taken the exact opposite stance), then you proceed to … take a position on abortion.
Much of your article manages to mangle the facts surrounding the issue as well. Just to clarify – the ammendment in question seeks to exclude federal funding for abortions in the proposed health care reform legislation. It does not ban abortion, or tell you what you can do with your body, or that of your unborn child. It is an effort to make sure that millions of taxpayers who oppose abortion don’t have to pay for an act that they consider reprehensible. You can agree or disagree but don’t change the facts. I’ll assume that you are aware that it takes more than the House of Representatives to pass legislation and point out that the right to abortions is currently in place due to a Supreme Court ruling. I’m sure you feel much better that what you get to do with your body is governed by 9 people.
I love the Freakonomics book as well, so lets take that argument a step further. Since abortions prevented tens of millions of unwanted children from being born, presumably a large number of them for financial reasons which apparently would have resulted in them becoming criminals, then shouldn’t it be government policy to encourage abortion in “less desirable” segments of the population? Rather than relying on prevention programs, which are clearly not working, why not send government workers out into poor neighborhoods looking for pregnant women and direct them to the nearest clinic. After all, we might really be able to cut into our crime problem. Abortion as crime control. Just think what J. Edgar Hoover could have done with that one!
You also like to use phrases from the original piece, without any mention of what they originally refer to. You lift “gruesome,” and “suck the brains out” and fail to mention what they were addressing – partial-birth abortion. Remarkably you don’t even mention the procedure, although, since you don’t feel that society gets to put any limits on what a woman can do with her body, I must assume you supoort it. However, one feels about it, the process can only be described as “gruesome” and I would add a tragedy.
Danielle, I respect your right to an opinion and to publish it in the Collegian. You should advocate for your strongly held beliefs. Too bad you don’t feel that others have the same right based upon their gender.
Common sense required • Nov 20, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Danielle,
I find it offensive that that you feel you get to determine whether someone has the right to an opinion based solely upon their gender. When you write your opinions, do you carefully divide them so that 42% of your thoughts reflect the so called male position? A rather absurd notion when applied to your opinions, isn’t it? You make the argument that an individual writer of an opinion piece cannot take a position on the abortion issue (at least one you disagree with – I somehow doubt we would have heard from you if he had taken the exact opposite stance), then you proceed to … take a position on abortion.
Much of your article manages to mangle the facts surrounding the issue as well. Just to clarify – the ammendment in question seeks to exclude federal funding for abortions in the proposed health care reform legislation. It does not ban abortion, or tell you what you can do with your body, or that of your unborn child. It is an effort to make sure that millions of taxpayers who oppose abortion don’t have to pay for an act that they consider reprehensible. You can agree or disagree but don’t change the facts. I’ll assume that you are aware that it takes more than the House of Representatives to pass legislation and point out that the right to abortions is currently in place due to a Supreme Court ruling. I’m sure you feel much better that what you get to do with your body is governed by 9 people.
I love the Freakonomics book as well, so lets take that argument a step further. Since abortions prevented tens of millions of unwanted children from being born, presumably a large number of them for financial reasons which apparently would have resulted in them becoming criminals, then shouldn’t it be government policy to encourage abortion in “less desirable” segments of the population? Rather than relying on prevention programs, which are clearly not working, why not send government workers out into poor neighborhoods looking for pregnant women and direct them to the nearest clinic. After all, we might really be able to cut into our crime problem. Abortion as crime control. Just think what J. Edgar Hoover could have done with that one!
You also like to use phrases from the original piece, without any mention of what they originally refer to. You lift “gruesome,” and “suck the brains out” and fail to mention what they were addressing – partial-birth abortion. Remarkably you don’t even mention the procedure, although, since you don’t feel that society gets to put any limits on what a woman can do with her body, I must assume you supoort it. However, one feels about it, the process can only be described as “gruesome” and I would add a tragedy.
Danielle, I respect your right to an opinion and to publish it in the Collegian. You should advocate for your strongly held beliefs. Too bad you don’t feel that others have the same right based upon their gender.
tjrich09 • Nov 20, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I believe that the argument goes something like this: women who seek abortions are often coming from low income families and dilapidated neighborhoods, and children born into these areas are often more likely to engage in criminal activity. Therefore, if women choose not to have these children for whatever reason, there will be fewer people to commit criminal acts. I’m sure I’ve simplified it a bit, but this is the general basis of the argument. I’m not so sure I buy it, but it also doesn’t sound too outrageous. I’d have to do some of my own research first.
And Danielle, thank you for writing this article. Although I pointed out that Peterson’s article was lacking objectivity, I think you raise a good point about his ignoring (consciously or unconsciously) the “woman” side of the abortion argument, something that is, of course, extremely important. However, I almost feel like you’re saying that only a woman has the right to discuss abortion because only they can understand the procedure. While I do agree with this to a certain extent, it seems like it might exclude all male voices from this discussion. So, perhaps you’re saying that before a male writer decides to tackle this issue, he should first try and understand it from the perspective of a woman, however hard that might be. It’s only too bad that child birth isn’t gender neutral.
tjrich09 • Nov 20, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I believe that the argument goes something like this: women who seek abortions are often coming from low income families and dilapidated neighborhoods, and children born into these areas are often more likely to engage in criminal activity. Therefore, if women choose not to have these children for whatever reason, there will be fewer people to commit criminal acts. I’m sure I’ve simplified it a bit, but this is the general basis of the argument. I’m not so sure I buy it, but it also doesn’t sound too outrageous. I’d have to do some of my own research first.
And Danielle, thank you for writing this article. Although I pointed out that Peterson’s article was lacking objectivity, I think you raise a good point about his ignoring (consciously or unconsciously) the “woman” side of the abortion argument, something that is, of course, extremely important. However, I almost feel like you’re saying that only a woman has the right to discuss abortion because only they can understand the procedure. While I do agree with this to a certain extent, it seems like it might exclude all male voices from this discussion. So, perhaps you’re saying that before a male writer decides to tackle this issue, he should first try and understand it from the perspective of a woman, however hard that might be. It’s only too bad that child birth isn’t gender neutral.
junior • Nov 20, 2009 at 11:17 am
Sure, but what does abortion have to do with the crime rate?
junior • Nov 20, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Sure, but what does abortion have to do with the crime rate?