Pro-cohabitation letter was intolerant

In response to yesterday’s letter to the editor “Marriage isn’t the best choice for everyone” by Tara Bonistall:

Bonistall’s letter in response to Natalie Glover’s original column was ironic and conveyed a message that she herself insinuated was offensive.

Bonistall on one hand claims that she is not patronizing enough to advocate the right choice for each and every relationship. On the other hand, she proceeds to label people who cohabitate as progressive — with the implication that those who do not cohabitate before marriage are not progressive.

The very word progressive is indicative of a lofty opinion of oneself. The use of the word progressive conveys that a person labeled as such is dedicated to forward-moving change and advocates enlightened ideas. This very word itself as used in today’s society by elitists is condescending and often in conflict with the morally relativistic approach that many people take.

Don’t let my assessment get in the way. Bonistall reveals her contempt and condescension for those who do not agree with her worldview when she argues that Glover conveys backward, overly religious views each week.

How ironic that someone who claims to be progressive (and so, presumably, tolerant), is only tolerant of views she herself agrees with. Condescending to people of other views and labeling their views as backward is patronizing and arrogant.

Hypocrisy runs rampant in extreme liberal thought (and conservative as well), and perhaps Bonistall should spend some time actually trying to be truly tolerant rather than tolerant of only that which she agrees with; I am assuming based upon her argument that tolerance is a virtue that she holds to.

Her letter is indicative of a larger issue: People who advocate freedom of speech, religion and expression are very often the same people who detest that exercise in others. Be consistent.

Tommy Juanso

Law student

Pregnancy can threaten a woman’s life

Since Donald Keefe thinks that abortion cannot be justified, I thought I’d help him out a little.

First, knowing an obstetrician-gynecologist “who has never felt it necessary to perform an abortion for ‘medical’ reasons” is anecdotal evidence; unless that doctor has treated every life-threatening pregnancy in the country, his opinion cannot be used as evidence against medical abortion.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few cases where the mother’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy went to full term. First, cancer that has metastasized. A woman can either give birth and die by not controlling the cancer, or she can undergo chemotherapy, likely saving herself and controlling the cancer, and lose her child.

Another is ectopic pregnancy, when the blastocyst stays in the fallopian tube instead of moving to the uterus; the fetus will grow to a certain point then burst the fallopian tube when it gets too large to fit, killing the mother. Unless an ectopic pregnancy is terminated the mother will die shortly after her fallopian tube bursts. Those are just two; there are more.

And as for potential, what about the mother’s potential? A girl in high school who has a child loses all of her potential to keep a child she doesn’t want.

Just because a woman is pregnant does not mean she is no longer human. Unless she is willing, she should not be required by law to keep a child that could destroy her own life.

Bonnie Legg

Dietetics and anthropology senior