Respect opposing views in abortion debate

Over the past week or so, I’ve been reading the responses in the Kernel to the graphic abortion presentation seen on campus. Most of the responses I’ve read seem to contain two main complaints: that the graphic pictures discourage open, intellectual debate, and the misuse of the term genocide. Even though I am pro-life, I tend to agree with both of these complaints and believe that Genocide Awareness Project went too far. At the same time, I find these complaints ironic, having come from writers that continually use the word “anti-choice” instead of “pro-life.”

I have seen this term used in letters to the editor all the way to Carrie Bass’ most recent column on Friday. This may seem like a small thing to most readers, but it is truly just as much of an intentional, antagonistic use of words like “genocide.” The use of this term also shows the unwillingness to openly debate by the pro-choice side. These writers reduce the argument to one component, that of the choice of the mother. In truth, there is another piece to the abortion debate: the life of the baby that is being ignored by using the term anti-choice.

I want a fair and open debate as much as anyone, but in order for that to happen, there must be respect for the views of others. As long as the term anti-choice is being used, the pro-life view is being disrespected and a true discussion cannot happen. The same holds true for the pro-life side. Calling someone anti-life is just as destructive to a fair debate or discussion. These terms are just masks for the disrespect each side has for each other.

For all those who thought the Genocide Awareness Project presentation was disrespectful, hold yourself to the same standard. Let’s grow up past the name-calling and truly respect different points of view. That might allow for actual conversation, and maybe eventually a move to make some changes in the world.

Zach Purol

Accounting freshman

Forget dictionary, mass abortion is genocide

I am not afraid to say it: The arguments for abortion not being genocide are moronic. If the basis of the argument is Webster’s dictionary, then it’s time to reevaluate the argument. The reason there were pictures of genocide by the abortion pictures was because a torn off arm of a fetus surprisingly (please regard the sarcasm) resembles the lifeless arm of a full-grown adult. Abortion is the ending of a human life, not mere birth control, which prevents human life before it begins. Fetuses are human (as described in the pictures). Murder is the ending of human life. Mass murder is genocide. Mass abortion is genocide. Regardless of what good ol’ Webster says, they are the same.

David Kline

Chemical engineering sophomore