To the Editor:

In her viewpoint last Tuesday (“Why I Am Pro-Choice,” The Hoya, Oct. 19, 2004, A3), Rebecca Greene states that people who oppose abortion “will argue that just because a thing is going to happen does not mean we should allow it … I think the only responsible thing to do when you know something is going to happen is to acknowledge the fact and deal with it.”

Rendering a practice legal does not make it just. I strongly doubt Ms. Greene believes that murder or domestic violence should be allowed to protect the safety of the perpetrators “just because they’re going to happen anyway.”

If, out of desperation, I want to take the life of an innocent person, it is not the government’s role to allow this killing just to make sure I am not injured in the attempt.

Rather, the government should first protect the innocent person whose life is being threatened, and, second, help me obtain the resources I need to overcome the challenges or problems I am facing.

As a woman, I do believe I have a pretty comprehensive right over what happens to my body. Even those who question when life begins, however, cannot deny that during an abortion a second body is involved.

For those who doubt the humanity of the unborn, I strongly encourage you to watch an ultrasound. The images of fetal movement and physiology, not to mention the sound of a heartbeat, leave little doubt.

An unplanned pregnancy can be a frightening and confusing time, and women facing one desperately need the support of everyone in our community.

Becca Danis (SFS ’06)

President, GU Right to Life

Oct. 20, 2004

To the Editor:

Many may agree with the moderate nature of Rebecca Greene’s viewpoint “Why I Am Pro-Choice” (The Hoya, Oct. 19, 2004, A2). Greene wrote, “I nor anyone else would ever tell a woman to get an abortion,” (pretty “pro-life” language for someone who is pro-choice) but that women must still have the choice to abort.

To all who sympathize with these sentiments, I have one question – why is abortion bad?

If abortion were not bad, there would be no reason to try to make a distinction between an embryo and a person.

There would be no reason to strive to reduce the number of abortions.

There would be no need to debate when the human is “alive.”

But somehow, even pro-choicers recognize there is something bad about abortion. What is that?

We know that during a pregnancy, an innocent human being is growing inside the mother and an abortion ends this human’s existence. This existence began at conception when the full DNA necessary for all stages of development in the human’s life arrived and when the multiplication of cells began.

If abortion ends the life of an innocent human being, an act we consider to be immoral in all other cases like murder and war crimes, then abortion can’t be a matter of choice.

We all know intuitively why abortion is bad. The only difference is that the pro-life position sees this truth to the logical ramifications it must have in society while the pro-choice position is too afraid to do so.

From the way her article reads, I think Greene is very close to understanding this concept. I hope she re-examines her convictions.

Tim Foley (COL ’06)

Oct. 20, 2004

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

Comments are closed.