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.

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—-

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.

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.

Sure, but what does abortion have to do with the crime rate?