Tuesday
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR; MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
Abortion: legality vs. morality
A STEREOTYPE
REBELS
REBECCA NEWELL
As I delve deeper into classes designed to pre- A
pare me for law school — such as communi
cation law and philosophy of law — one of JH .
the most important ideas I’m learning about JH
law is that we often have to go along with things fl
we don’t necessarily agree with in order to pre- fl.
serve our system of democracy. For me, abortion is
one of these issues. Morally, I have some major
problems with it, but from a legal standpoint, I find
myself taking a different position.
With George W. Bush in the White House, the future ^
status of the Roe v. Wade decision is under speculation M
by lawyers, philosophers and the general public. And I
with this giant question mark regarding women’s future 1
reproductive rights, we need to take a closer look at the ’
issue. Though the anti-abortion argument may seem to
make sense to some from a moral standpoint, it’s flawed
from a legal standpoint. And for that matter, so is the pro
choice view. So read over these “ideas for thought” and
take a minute to re-examine your stand on the issue.
Background
The Roe v. Wade decision places no restrictions on
abortions during the first three months of pregnancy.
However, the right to an abortion is not absolute. The
Court said the key point is when the fetus is “viable,” or
able to live outside the womb. Little discussion is about
the rights of the fetus. In the decision, the Court assumed
the fetus doesn’t have rights, or abortion would be con
sidered homicide. The only way to change Roe v. Wade is
for the Court to overturn the decision or for Congress to
make constitutional amendments that would reduce the
rights of women to have abortions.
‘It’s murder*
If abortion were legally considered murder and there
fore outlawed, it would have to be considered premedi
tated murder. Are we, as a society, comfortable with per
secuting women who receive illegal abortions and
sentencing those women to life in prison or capital pun
ishment? Personally, the idea of hunting down women
who’ve received illegal abortions sounds frighteningly
Nazi-ish to me. And yes, that might be taking it to the ex
treme, but our society has fairly clear guidelines regard
ing what we do to murderers.
‘Right to life’
Although Article 14 of the Constitution, which guaran
tees “persons” the right to life, is often used as a basis for
anti-abortion arguments, it also
raises questions as to the defi
nition of a person. How
do you answer the
question “what is
the distinction be
tween a person
and a human?”
A look at other
uses of the word
within
the
finds “all persons
born,” which indi
cates that the word
“person” is meant for
human being who has al
ready been born. It’s easy
gripe about semantics and
choice, but hello, people —
that’
what our Constitution is all about. Some people love to
say, “Just read the Constitution,” whenever a sensitive or
controversial issue comes up. Well, have you actually
read it? Interpreting the Constitution is no easy task.
‘Abortions only in case of rape
or incest’
If you believe the fetus is a person, what if the fetus’s
life is the product of rape or incest? If someone is a per
son, with the right to life, should it matter how he or she
was conceived? And when the mother’s life is threatened
by her pregnancy, whose rights reign? Part of me says if
the mother didn’t have a choice in conception, she
should have a choice in carrying the child to term. But
what about the child’s choice? With the option of adop
tion, we shouldn’t use rape or incest as an excuse to ter
minate a child’s life.
‘No protected right to life’
Can the state have an interest in human life, even if
one doesn’t assert that the fetus has a protected right to
life? Animals do not have a constitutional right to
life, but killing an animal (without a license to do
so, anyway, which raises other questions) is illegal.
The sad thing is, right to life protections haven’t
been “around forever.” In fact, the first child
abuse case was tried under animal cruelty laws.
That’s right — a hundred years ago, animals had
more rights than children. So how far have we
I come?
‘Right to privacy’
The basis for Roe v. Wade is the right to priva
cy, although privacy is not a right explicitly guar
anteed in the Constitution. It falls under the right
to iioerty in tne 14tn Amendment.
So where do you stand? The more I under
stand the issue and the legal arguments, the
more tom I am. But isn’t that the point?
It’s not an easy decision, and those who
\ think it is probably aren’t looking at all
the issues. So consider the basis of your
argument the next time you get into
one. you mignt just imd that you ve
\ learned a thing or two.
V Note: Thanks to Cheyney Ryan
and his “Philosophy of Law” class
for information and discussions re
garding this issue.
Rebecca Newell is a columnist for the Oregon
Daily Emerald. Her views do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald. She can be
reached at rnewell@gladstone.uoregon.edu.
Don’t be silent: report harassment
Guest Commentary
Courtney
Misslin
A very important issue was brought
to my attention Thursday night. While
volunteering as a driver for Saferide,
the campus nighttime shuttle service
for women, I had some rather disturb
ing conversations with my riders. That
is, approximately one-half of my riders
informed me that they had encounters
with a male unknown to them, who
pursued them at night in very inappro
priate ways.
Only two of these women reported
their incidents. The others did not re
port the event because they did not feel
it was serious enough to merit police
attention. I believe that even encoun
ters that do not end in tragedy deserve
to be reported. The number of inci
dents of harassment and attacks is
highly underreported.
This is a problem.
We cannot be scared into silence.
We must be scared of our silence.
Speak up.
I write this in hopes that the cam
pus community becomes enraged by
the fact that women are being ha
rassed on our campus, and that the
campus community acts on its rage.
In one incident just last week, a man
jumped out of some bushes next to
Prince Lucien Campbell Hall and
pursued a young woman who was
talking on her cell phone, mocking
her and scaring her. This is not OK.
This kind of incident deserves to be
reported as much as any “more seri
ous” event.
As long as we do not report each
and every unacceptable encounter, it
is the equivalent to passive accept
ance. Silence will only allow such
events to continue to occur. The cam
pus and Eugene public safety officers
need to be made aware of the facts be
fore they will act. Currently, they be
lieve that a “party patrol” is a priority,
yet each night females are terrified to
walk from one side of campus to the
other.
Females experience justifiable fear
on campus. Consider another story I
was told: One night, a man pursued
two girls as they walked past the
cemetery. He hid behind the trees as
he stalked behind them. This is not
OK. Yet it was never reported.
When incidents are reported, it can
lead to apprehension of individuals
who may be a social threat to our
community and peace of mind. Such
was the case of two girls who were
closely followed into Bean Hall by a
man. The girls were able to notify au
thorities, and the man was success
fully apprehended. Until authorities
realize that occurrences such as this
are common, they will not realize that
immediate action needs to be taken.
I urge anyone and everyone to call
the Department of Public Safety with
information of any incident that has
occurred on or near campus. Even the
occurrence of “mild” harassment is
completely unacceptable. This is a
campus issue that we must deal with.
If you have been pursued, harassed or
attacked, please do not remain silent.
Speak up. Whether it happened last
month or last night, please report your
experience to DPS as soon as possible.
Courtney Misslin is a senior majoring in French.
Poll Results:
Every week, the Emerald prints the results of our online poll and
the poll question for next week. The poll can be accessed from the
main pageof our Web site, www.dailyemerald.com. We encour
age you to send us feedback about the poll questions and results.
Last week’s poll question:
Which is the best gum for blowing bubbles?
Results: 114 total votes
Hubba Bubba—29 votes, or 25.4 percent
Bubblicious—53 votes, or 46.5 percent
Bubble Yum —18 votes, or 15.8 percent
Big League Chew —14 votes, or 12.3 percent
Wow. A question inspired by a drunken argument got more than
100 votes. This is a good thing, really, because blowing bubbles
isn’t just for kids, and those of us who are semi-pro bubble
blowers realize the importance of choosing the correct gum. ft's
good that others also realize the significance.
This week’s poll question:
Which American war’s history do you find the most intriguing?
The choices:
Revolutionary War
Civil War
World War I
World War II
Korean War
Vietnam War