Karthikeyan's abortion points argued. by Brian P. Cheek To the editor: I'm writing in response to the January 28 opinion column, "Abortion counters population boom." It appears the young author needs a few lessons in reality, and I am more than willing to step up to the plate as teacher. There are a few grave mistakes on the part of that columnisst that are in deperate need of correction. Point the first: The author is quick to point out that we should improve the quality of life for children in the third world before we move to defend the rights of the unborn. This strategy of "the living come first" strikes me as very heartless and very selfish indeed. Why not make efforts to help everyone, both born and unborn? It is callous to consider only the rights of those who are outside the womb, casting aside those who have yet to be born as a of secondary importance. Point the second: The column focuses on the plight of the starving millions in the third world. However, the dispute has never been over whether or not we should help them, but rather over what might be the best way to go about rendering assistance. Charity in the form of handouts is fine, but only on a temporary basis. If we render such aid and do nothing else, then the situation can never truly improve. Along with short-term charity, the best way to [give] help to third-world nations in the long-term is through the teaching of skills that will enable those countries to take their place in the world market. Not only will they then be self-sufficient, but they will be in a better position to help their neighbors. Attention should also be focused on countries such as China, notorious for human-rights violations. Only by spreading ideas and skills through education, capitalism and democracy can the United States truly help anyone. Point the third: A woman who has just aborted her baby does not become emotionally fragile because she has been "confused" by the pro-life movement. She becomes emotionally fragile because she has just killed a child. Point the fourth: It is a direct insult to Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others of religious faith to term religion as something that "just outlines the code of conduct for us to live," as if spirituality is nothing more than a crutch for those who can't handle reality. It is arrogant to presume that everyone who preaches and practices a religion does so blindly. Frankly, being a graduate student, you should have enough education to better understand just how wrong you are. Perhaps the College of Engineering needs to add a few more liberal arts credits to the curriculum. Point the fifth: At least you make a distinction between contraception and abortion. Yet you still seem to view abortion as a form of contraception to be used for population control. Perhaps you don't understand the distinction after all. Point the sixth: "Instead of trying to prevent abortions ... work on minimizing pre-marital sex, prostitution, incest and rape." Good idea, Karthikeyan, but you don't need the word "instead" -- we should work to prevent all of that at the same time, abortions included. Point the seventh: "Instead of confusing women, make them feel confident about what they are doing." Oh, sure. Now why would I want to make someone feel confident about doing a bad thing? To try and eliminate guilt from the world is to try and eliminate the concept of wrong. "Right" and "wrong" are two very important words. I would suggest that everyone learn them. Brian P. Cheek Undergrad This article was taken from the Feb. 2, 1998 issue of the The News Record, the University of Cincinnati's student Newspaper. Return to Main Page