Choice belongs in women’s hands
I was neither bothered nor surprised to find a column in the Daily Bruin that countered my personal and political sentiments about abortion (“Roe revised stance; so should U.S.,” Jan. 23).
I was, however, quite surprised to see such an important issue dealt with in such simple terms.
The anti-choice rhetoric columnist John Crandall uses focuses on the apparently unquestionable assertion that a beating human heart is what defines human life.
This argument always leaves me frustrated, not because I think it is an indefensible position but because it completely disregards the life of the woman.
Crandall seems to think the fact that the fetus has a beating heart is sufficient reason for a woman to take on the incredible physical, emotional and financial burdens that accompany a pregnancy, regardless of her personal capacity to do so.
The services offered by the crisis-pregnancy centers that Crandall depicts as some panacea for all pregnancy issues cannot eliminate poverty or violence for the women they serve, nor can they assure these women receive sufficient prenatal and postnatal care.
Yes, a developing fetus does have the potential to become a living, breathing child.
I think all sides of the abortion debate would like to see every child welcomed into the safest, healthiest and most supportive environment possible.
And while adoption is an incredible gift a family can give a child without a home, the foster-care system is currently incredibly overburdened: Families are not lining up to take in these kids.
Yes, pregnancy is an amazing part of the human experience, but women who cannot choose when they become mothers can also do nothing to ensure that the conditions of their pregnancy and their delivery are optimal.
Until we make safe, effective contraception available to all women who choose to use it, we must also provide a solution for women who cannot emotionally, physically or financially afford to see the pregnancy through.
Moreover, these women deserve to be respected and supported as individuals enacting their right to determine what happens to their bodies.
If the anti-choice movement has any compassion, they would consider the whole woman before condemning her choice.
Mary Tschann
Graduate student,
UCLA School of Public Health
Christian dogma blinds discourse
In his column, “Roe revised stance; so should U.S.,” (Jan. 23) John Crandall intends for his emotional interview with Norma McCorvey to tug at our heartstrings and to show that even Roe herself wishes to overturn what Crandall refers to as a “terrible injustice.”
For me, however, McCorvey’s testimony only strengthened my stance.
Perhaps McCorvey has lost sight of Roe v. Wade’s advancement of women’s reproductive rights because she is too busy looking for Jesus.
McCorvey’s views on abortion are inherent to her Christian beliefs, and until the U.S. adopts a Christian government (which also happens to be the day that I move to Canada), we should not look to her as a model for legislature that affects millions of women with a plethora of different beliefs.
Crandall’s opinion is similarly blinded by Christian dogma.
Instead of requesting that women simply don’t have an abortion (easier said than done, especially when coming from the mouth of someone who doesn’t have a uterus), why not insist that women grant themselves dignity and make the choice that will best honor their own lives?
Kristen Van Dine
First-year,
Anthropology