I am writing in response to the opinion stated by Stephanie Hopkins regarding the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). We associate choice with our country, America; where we choose how to live our lives. We associate freedom with America itself; the freedom that allows both Hopkins and myself to express our views in a public forum. However, there is no freedom, nor is there any choice, in FOCA.
Is there any freedom in an act that would prohibit doctors from refusing to perform a procedure that goes against their moral beliefs? Is there any choice in a law that would allow a 12-year-old girl to have an abortion without parental consent? These are not only issues over the rights of an unborn child; these are threats to the well being of people already recognized as members of society.
FOCA would not place restrictions on abortions performed viably. Instead, FOCA would legalize abortion at any time during pregnancy if there is any kind of risk to the mother’s health. If FOCA becomes law, an abortion could be legally performed long after the child is capable of surviving apart from the mother.
FOCA has not been introduced to the 111th Congress. However, we now have as president a man who has promised FOCA to Planned Parenthood. This is about choice, the choice of a whole nation. We need to stop and ask ourselves where our priorities lie when masses of people rally for the humane treatment of animals, but no one stops to consider the treatment of the unborn.
Megan Buland
forestry freshman
What about reproductive freedom?
ALSO stop trying to link pro-choice people with PETA-like groups. Seriously, I say eat the animals and your babies! SWIFT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Mr. Darby: “What about reproductive freedom?” you ask. That’s a term coined by Planned Parenthood that means “the freedom to kill one’s own offspring”.
But there’s nothing free about “reproductive freedom”. Abortions cost a lot of money. Society loses a human being that would pay into the social security system one day and we lose the person who would find a cure, teach a child to read, or raise a family.
Then there are the problems down the road that all women who abort experience in terms of emotional and mental stress, psychiatric disorders, increased promiscuity, and of course the loss of her own child, which is a permanent loss.
While I find the pro-choice/pro-life debate thrilling, I am saddened by the apparent inability for some to comprehend the argument I was making in my original letter to the editor. My argument was quite simple.
We can debate the relevance of FOCA if you wish, but the fact is it hasn’t been introduced since 2007. Yes, President Obama promised Planned Parenthood he would pass this legislation in 2007. However, this year (2009) the Speaker of the House said she will not be bringing FOCA to a vote, should it be introduced. One person’s word verses another’s.
By covering many bulletin boards around campus with more than 10 flyers each is excessive and ignorant. One would do.
For students who wish to educate themselves on the Freedom of Choice Act, please visit http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1173 for the complete text of the original bill.
My letter to the Kernel is in response to Megan Butland’s response to Stephanie Hopkins’s response to the FOCA fliers that were in response to a bill that is not in legislation and that will not be called to a vote by United States Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. I am not writing because of the content of the response (Butland’s on March 2nd), but in the way that it was written.
For example, a logical mistake of Butland’s: Megan wrote in her opinion that abortion shouldn’t be legal even if the mother could die from the pregnancy. If the mother, the fetus’s life support, dies, then the fetus will also most likely die. So the baby is dead either way. She errors in her assessment of a simple numbers game: if the mother dies, then she can’t very well spew out any more grade A prime American babies. Duh.
Another example, a catastrophic grammar/language/logic error: Megan writes, “We associate choice with our country, America; where we choose how to live our lives.†My soul is crying right now. Unless I am sorely mistaken, all of us in Kentucky live in America, so it would be useless to use ‘our country’ with ‘America’ in the same sentence. Also, the use of a semicolon is illogical here because she is not combining two independent clauses. ‘Where we choose how to live our lives’ is dependent on the independent, ‘we associate choice with our country, America’ for its conjugation of the verb ‘to associate’. The clause is made dependent by its lack of a complete thought; therefore, the punctuation should be a comma, thus creating a sentence. Megan was attempting to fit a non-essential clause or phrase into her independent clause, but inadvertently created a dependent clause. This stranded dependent clause is an error.
It is redundant to explain that the location of our residence is where we choose to live. The technique of pointing out the obvious can be an effective tool; however, she has not given us any shocking revelation in telling us that we live in America, nor has she furthered her argument about legislation by explaining that our location in America matters. This bill would not affect us if it were passed in China, for example.
I don’t pick on Megan for one bad sentence. She used the semicolon incorrectly in her next sentence as well. Megan also incorrectly used the word viably. She wrote, “FOCA would not place restrictions on abortions performed viably.†What she should have written was ‘after viability,’ or the stage at which the fetus can survive outside the mother’s womb. Instead she described abortions as having a reasonable chance of succeeding or as being financially sustainable. Dictionaries are wonderful tools.
Megan Butland is only a freshman, and I am only using her as an example. I fear for the state of our English 104 courses here at the University. I do not dislike change in language; in fact, the linguist in me craves it; however, I do want my education to mean something. I hope that other people take their education seriously as well. If you really care about something, do your homework, and craft a well-reasoned argument that everyone can understand. It does not help your argument if you write an opinion that sounds childish.
Being a good student, I used a few sources for my letter. http://www.meriam-webster.com and http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/ were very helpful. If you have questions about writing papers, opinions, or other works, seek out the writing center at UK or other help.