The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/opinion/2007/03/02/letters_to_the_editor

March 2, 2007 > Opinion > Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

By The Rice Thresher Editorial Staff | Thresher Editorial Staff

Anti-smokers mock smoking lifestyle

To the editor:

Hajera Blagg is right that non-smokers’ health comments are trite, but I think critics of smoking have other gripes as well (“Smoker lifestyle scorned, other vices tolerated,” Feb. 23).

Many presume that young people smoke for an image, and folks will criticize an otherwise healthy teenager for smoking because it is viewed as a “bandwagon” activity pursued solely for coolness factor. However, few have the gumption to shout to a smoker, “I think you should discover a more effective way to express yourself as an individual!” and usually resort to blurting out “smoking kills babies.”

Without a doubt, smoking is often an expensive surrender to cultural and corporate propaganda that comes with few, if any, rewards. If non-smokers find this an ego boost, then they have problems as well.

Ian Ragsdale

Hanszen senior

Pro-life can be a choice, too

To the editor:

Regarding Matthew Patterson’s criticism and Carolyn Greene’s defense of Feminists for Life, I agree that counseling should include full access to information, including on the process of abortion (“Feminists for Life do not empower women,” Feb. 9 and “Abortion should not be a choice,” Feb. 23).

Given the risk and damage that abortion poses to women’s health alone, I believe education is the most effective deterrent. I find that by trusting people to use reason to reach the right conclusion, this helps the mind to focus rationally, to avoid making impulsive decisions in haste or emotional desperation.

This happened to me, in 1988, when I planned to have a baby I very much wanted but was pressured by my boyfriend’s suicidal threats to have an abortion against my will and my beliefs. I was devastated, but I learned why pro-life advocates would rather make abortion illegal if nothing else will protect women from having their free choice abused and oppressed by other people, which defeats the purpose of fighting for women’s rights.

Over the years it took to heal my trauma, I realized what a tragic waste it was to see ongoing distrust and competition between pro-life and pro-choice divisions, misdirecting much-needed resources fighting each other through legislation instead of combining efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies, abortions and oppression of women.

In the words of Mary Cunningham Agee, who founded the Nurturing Network to prevent unwanted abortions from social pressures facing college and career women, pro-choice and pro-life are not opposites. I, for one, am pro-life in that I believe in eliminating abortion, not by legislation but by health education — through fully informed choices so no one is ever forced to compromise as I was. I am pro-choice, in that I don’t believe laws can be passed, either for or against abortion, without violating constitutional laws. As long as religious disagreement exists over when a soul enters the body, unless this spiritual question can be agreed upon, no laws can be made by the government representing the public without imposing a bias that violates the equal religious freedom of dissenters.

Pro-life groups such as Feminists for Life offer proof that people can be led to oppose abortion as not being a healthy or viable choice, without abusing legislation to impose this standard. As strongly held as they are, pro-life convictions are freely adopted by choice, thus showing that laws are not necessary to establish that level of understanding.

Emily T. Nghiem

Baker ‘88

End of article

Back to top