This letter is in response to the Oct. 19 Viewpoint written by Debra Wise regarding abortion.
Typically, I would refrain from broaching the issue of abortion at any time or place. Like most people, and even as a political science major, I simply dread discussing it in any of its numerous forms or variants. It is just one of those issues, like gay marriage or affirmative action, which you pray doesn't come up at the dinner table (or any other time for that matter) for fear that someone will inevitably leave with a black eye or at least a bruised ego if the discussion is allowed to take place.
That being said, I am always in favor of offering one's opinion in the name of positive dialogue. I also think that men are unfairly prohibited from offering their opinion on the abortion issue simply because we will never actually have to have an abortion ourselves.
I think that this unspoken rule is somewhat meaningless and refuse to abide by it.
The inherent problem with the issue of abortion is that there seems to be only two sides of the argument that are expressed in public debate. As an American, you are either for abortion or against it. There is no room for maybe. There cannot possibly be more to the argument beyond if it is right or wrong.
Why does this sort of black or white logic currently define the status quo?
Well, the lack of dialogue can be mostly attributed to the extremist and always obnoxious elements of both sides of the abortion debate. These extremists, armed with their outrageous rhetoric and cult following, have been the main contributors to the breakdown of moderate debate.
On the extreme conservative side, we have the legislation in South Dakota outlawing all abortions, except those "intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother," as stated by the Chicago Tribune. This law also includes the denial of abortion to women who have been raped or have been the victim of incestuous acts. I think it is safe to say that this view is clearly ridiculous, even to someone like me, raised evangelical Christian and taught to believe that abortion is fundamentally wrong.
On the other side of the spectrum, we have the radical feminist sector who seem to claim that women should always be able to abort children as if the "fetuses" were some sort of cancerous growth that can and should be disposed of at a moments notice if the woman so desires.
I find this ideology equally appalling and just as ridiculous as not allowing women to have abortions when they have been sexually violated. What this contingent needs to come to terms with are the moral and ethical consequences of actually having an abortion.
I am not talking about the related consequences of having an abortion three weeks into a pregnancy when the fetus has barely formed. I am referring to late term abortions, where the "fetus" being destroyed could potentially survive and live a normal life if given the proper medical treatment instead of being disposed of.
This fact seems to be conspicuously absent from the repertoire of the most adamant pro-abortionists, like Ms. Wise, who has sympathy for those girls who dump their newborn babies in the trash while simultaneously ignoring the fact that they are complicit in homicidal act. Sorry, Ms. Wise, but most people have a hard time sympathizing with teenage girls who murder infants.
So where does this leave the abortion debate?
Well, like most controversial issues, the moderates must negotiate a compromise of sorts. Specifically, sex education must become a much larger part of elementary and middle school education.
The bottom line is that people, especially teenagers, have always and will continue to not only be interested in sex, but also have sex and lots of it.
The solution is not to deny generations of people the right to information, but rather to actively offer them the tools to make more educated choices.
Beyond education itself, the issue of abortion could and should be avoided if at all possible with the wider use and promotion of oral contraceptives.
Instead of spending millions of federal dollars on abstinence education, which, in my view, is an enormous waste of money, why not push for the free distribution of birth control in every public school in America... or even offer tax breaks to those pharmaceutical companies currently working to create a male contraceptive?
See, I told you the rule prohibiting men from this debate was absurd!
In any case, the key to finding a compromise is keeping the debate away from the extremists who have neither the foresight nor intelligence to offer any meaningful and permanent solution.
Ben Bell is a junior majoring in political science and former columnist for the Tufts Daily.
