|Reviews for Dear Editor|
| HMH chapter 1 . 6/10/2008
"A baby is a living human being, if being a human means having a heart."
Many things have hearts and are not human.
A baby is different from a fetus.
Please cite your sources.
| By Design Juliet chapter 1 . 6/9/2008
Why do you hate it?
| average.snarker chapter 1 . 6/9/2008
I won't bash your ideals, whatever you want to believe in is your own choice, but...it wasn't very good. Admittedly, it was one of the best pro-life tidbit I've stumbled across on the site, but...none of them were any good either.
It's not that it isn't good, it's just flat. It has little emotion and the vocabulary is lacking, fine tune it and post it again, and I believe it will be much better.
The Furtive Oubliette
| Glowing Aura chapter 1 . 6/8/2008
I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with the line about rape. You're saying a rape victim should carry a baby she never consented to just for the sake of the baby? Well, if I was raped-and I wasn't allowed to abort-more likely than not I would miscarry under the instense stress and trauma. Would you then berate me for not being strong enough and unintentionally killing my baby?
| Lorendiac chapter 1 . 6/6/2008
Last year I read an essay on this site by someone who was taking a firm Pro-Choice position. In my review, I tried to concentrate on providing constructive criticism - such as pointing out places where the author's meaning was not as clearly expressed as it could have been, or the "facts" seemed doubtful, or some sweeping assumptions appeared to have worked their way into the essay and thus severely limited the essay's ability to PERSUADE any reader who didn't ALREADY share those same basic assumptions. But I wasn't really trying to argue her into changing any of her opinions which didn't match up with my own beliefs on the subjects at hand. I was just trying to offer tips on how to improve the clarity, accuracy, logical flow, etc., of her own expression of her general ideas. It was an interesting experience.
In the spirit of fair play, I'm now going to take my best shot at doing the same thing for your Pro-Life essay. I didn't agree with every opinion the Pro-Choice writer expressed in her essay last year, and I don't agree with every opinion visible in your essay, but that's not the point. By the way, when I quote passages from your essay, I'll put them between asterisks to make it easier for everyone to see which are your words and which are my words.
* Some people believe that there shouldn’t be any laws and that if the woman decides to not want the baby that she can chose to abort it. *
I don't think that's an accurate statement of the other side's position. As I understand it, the people you're talking about do want SOME laws on the subject - they just want the laws to say, more or less, that the pregnant woman can have an abortion any time she pleases. That's different from having NO laws about abortion.
* Many other people say that the baby growing inside the woman is a living thing and that it has a right as any other living thing. *
"Living thing" is not the right way to put it. Not all "living things" are equal. For instance, if a fly is buzzing around inside my home, that fly is a living thing, and I've never heard anyone deny it - but if I kill it with a flyswatter, I don't get in any trouble with the law! I'm pretty sure some people take much the same attitude toward the fetus growing inside a woman's womb.
In your next paragraph, you specifically talk about whether or not the unborn baby is already a "human being"; that is certainly a very important part of the argument - but there's a huge difference between calling it a "living thing" and calling it a "human being." Many "living things" don't have any civil rights.
* By forty days the baby has brain waves and in fact a human being. *
I think you're missing at least one word. "And is in fact a human being" would make a bit more sense.
* An abortion can only happen in the first three months of a pregnancy. *
The intended meaning of that sentence is unclear. At first glance, it seems as if "abortion can only happen" means you think it's absolutely impossible for anyone to perform an abortion after the first three months of a pregnancy, no matter how hard they try. That doesn't make much sense. In context, I suspect that what you meant to say was something more along the lines of: "If an abortion is going to happen at all, it SHOULD only happen in the first three months of a pregnancy." Or I could be wrong about your intentions! But the way you phrased that sentence is confusing. I think you need to rewrite it to more clearly say whatever point you are trying to make about abortions.
* Many people argue about what if the person was a victim of a sexual attack. The child isn’t at fault. The unborn baby deserves a chance to live. There are many other options, like adoption. Many people in the world cannot have children and would gladly take the child with a no-string attached contract. *
For what it's worth, I think EVERYBODY who worries about the ethics of abortion at all (no matter what position they take) already knows perfectly well that if a woman became pregnant as a result of rape, this sad situation can't possibly be the fault of the unborn fetus.
Beyond that: You mention adoption as an option in that unpleasant situation, but I'm not sure you understand all the objections which the woman who is "only pregnant because of rape" may have to the idea of completing the pregnancy. Your mention of adoption as a viable solution to her problem gives the impression, without saying this in so many words, that the ONLY major objection such a woman in that situation would have would be: "I don't want to keep the child of my rapist, and be responsible for raising that child I never wanted, AFTER the baby is born. Other than that, this situation is not a really serious problem for me!"
That's a very shaky assumption.
I am not a woman, so I'm working on hearsay - but I have the impression that a raped woman usually finds the experience to be incredibly degrading, humiliating, terrifying, traumatic, etc., and wants to put it all out of her mind as much as possible, as quickly as possible, so she can try to get on with her life. If she later realizes she has become pregnant, through NO fault of her own, she is likely to see that as piling extra insult and injury on top of whatever already happened to her, physically and psychologically, at the time of the rape. If you want to persuade any such woman that she is somehow "morally obligated" to spend the next nine months of her life putting on more and more weight and coping with all the other symptoms of pregnancy and the stress of childbirth, just because of what some evil man has literally forced upon her, then you will at least need to start your argument on that subject by understanding and acknowledging how she probably feels about the rape and its consequences (including the pregnancy) at first. Just telling her that "adoption" is an answer to her problem is likely to strike her as showing that you don't really understand the nature of the problem in the first place.
You're certainly entitled to form and express your own opinions on this touchy subject, and if you want to try to write something to peacefully persuade women who have been raped and impregnated that they shouldn't rush off to have an abortion, then that's your civil right. I'm not trying to tell you to change your opinions, nor to stop writing about them whenever you happen to feel like it. (After all, why would you pay any attention if I tried to tell you what to think and what to write?) I'm just trying to offer a tip on how to avoid having "women who became pregnant via rape" simply tune you out after the first ten seconds because of a perceived unawareness of the real horror of the entire problem they are confronting.
| Super Scholar chapter 1 . 6/6/2008
I like your Pro-Life philosophy and I agree!