LRC: Columnists discuss anti-abortion protests at Notre Dame during Obama's commencement speech
May 19, 2009
Conservative
By John Fay
Prior to 2006, Rick Santorum was one of the most widely hated Republicans in the nation. In 2006, the Democrats ousted him from his Senate seat in Pennsylvania after making him their No. 1 target, all because he uttered three words. During the debate over partial-birth abortion in 2003, Santorum very calmly stood up and said, “It’s a baby.” Santorum and his wife have six children but would have had seven if not for a miscarriage back in the 1990s. Since that incident, Santorum kept a sonar picture on his desk of the child he lost. Nobody could ever make him believe it wasn’t his baby.
President Barack Obama has been known for blunt statements about abortion, too. During the 2008 campaign, he infamously said that he favored abortion because he didn’t want one of his children to be “punished with a baby.” Statements like this — in addition to his loosening of Bush restrictions — have made it very clear where Obama stands.
In the wake of massive protests outside of the University of Notre Dame during his commencement speech, our fearless leader decided to equivocate. He argued that in spite of their differences on abortion, he and the Catholic clergy could work together to lower unintended pregnancies and increase adoption.
What he failed to explain is why he would advocate for policies that are more expensive and time-consuming rather than simply allowing women to get abortions en masse — unless, of course, abortion was morally wrong. To anyone less jaded than Obama, it should soon become clear that no argument employed to justify decreasing abortions is anything less than an argument for eliminating abortions.
There are numerous ways one can frame the abortion debate, but they all end the same way. Biblically, it violates the commandment not to sacrifice children. Medically, it violates the Hippocratic Oath forbidding doctors to do harm. Scientifically, facts show that the human fetus is genetically as human as anyone. In short, from a moral perspective, this issue is very simple. Regardless of whether you are a person of faith or a person of science, the evidence proves that the fetus is a child. This effectively makes abortion infanticide, and as I assume not many people support infanticide, they should also logically oppose abortion.
Obama dislikes this kind of simplicity since it goes against his idealistic vision of a nation where everybody agrees about everything. Such a world can only be achieved if people embrace a laundry list of platitudes that carry no moral weight, like “hope” and “change.” The protests at Notre Dame indicate the futility of running a presidency on such nonsense.
The sometimes-intense reaction to Obama’s presence — like what happened at Notre Dame — is a case study in why abortion has remained one of the predominant political issues facing our nation for the past 36 years. This is where Obama’s utopian vision of a nation united breaks down. He can’t entice the protesters over to his side by advocating abstinence or throwing money at adoption programs. None of those policies will miraculously transform abortion from the banality it is.
The only way for him to calm people’s anger is if he abandons his position and becomes totally and irrevocably anti-abortion. That means putting anti-abortion judges on the courts, pushing for more bills like the partial-birth abortion ban and ultimately working toward the goal of making abortion illegal once more. Finally, he must be prepared to forfeit his precious popularity. He must be prepared to tell people what they don’t want to hear, and he must be prepared for the calumny he will receive from many in the abortion-rights camp. He must, in short, tell the truth.
Rick Santorum got it right. It’s not property, it’s not a tumor and it’s not a collection of cells. It’s a baby. After he said these words, a baby started crying inside the Senate chambers. This was shocking: Babies aren’t allowed in, but, on that day, the voice of the powerless was heard in the halls of power. Just as babies are forbidden to cry out in the chamber, Santorum was forbidden to speak truth for much longer. He was cast out of the Senate, defeated but unbowed. He has been replaced by men like Obama who equivocate, complicate and obfuscate the simple truth. The fetus is a baby, and abortion is wrong.
Reach columnist John Fay at opinion@dailyuw.com.
Liberal
By Chris Jordan
Let’s face it: The abortion debate will probably never end. Assuming that no asteroids strike the Earth anytime soon, Americans will probably still be arguing about abortion for decades to come.
Just last Saturday, I stayed up until 6 a.m. debating and discussing abortion with a friend, and by hour seven of our chat, we had gotten nowhere. We argued all the way down to the very moment when a mere fertilized egg cell becomes a fetus and, hence, a developing human life. My friend argued that before a fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall, it is simply a collection of cells, but after it attaches, it is in the process of feeding and developing into a human and thus should have a right to life. I argued that trying to determine when the exact moment life begins is ridiculous and arbitrary, and thus the decision should be left to the woman and her doctor, as they are most capable of making the right decision in each individual instance.
It boiled down to this: She was not able to accept that it is morally justifiable to take an innocent human life when it has no choice in the matter. I was not able to accept that the government should be making this very private and difficult decision for women.
Perhaps there is no resolution to this debate. This, however, does not mean we can’t restore some civility to the discussion and lessen the divisive nature of the issue.
First of all, not all Americans who are pro-life are right-wing Evangelical fundamentalists who gasp at the mention of the word condom. Many have intelligently thought-out and reasonable positions on the issue. And almost no pro-choice Americans consider themselves pro-abortion or think that abortions are a good thing. In fact, most of us who favor a woman’s right to choose would be happy to see fewer abortions take place in the united States. As former President Bill Clinton famously declared, most liberals would prefer to see abortions that are “safe, legal and rare.”
So while we can work to respect each other, we can also find some common ground on which to move forward. Both sides disagree about whether women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, yet they both generally would like to see a decrease in the number of abortions overall. There’s no reason we can’t have abstinence education alongside comprehensive sex education — safe sex is important to learn about, too — to bring down the number of unwanted pregnancies. And there’s no reason why we can’t work to expand adoptions and improve the foster-care system to make women feel like they have more acceptable alternatives to an abortion.
The ironic thing about the recent Notre Dame controversy is that while President Obama may be a strong supporter of the right to choose, he has repeatedly called for both sides of the debate to work together and focus on shared goals and common ground.
Those who called for his invitation to speak at graduation to be rescinded probably ended up hurting their cause by isolating themselves even further. Their calls did not reflect the majority opinion of American Catholics and ignored how the president has proposed approaching the abortion issue.
A poll taken last week showed that only 34 percent of Catholics in the United States wanted Obama’s invitation rescinded. A majority — 60 percent — supported the university’s decision to invite the president to come speak to students.
I commend Notre Dame for resisting the complaints of this loud and vocal minority and making a decision that was supported by the moderate majority of Catholic believers.
After all, Obama won Catholic support in the election by a 54-45 percent margin over John McCain, an abortion-rights opponent. Rescinding the president’s invitation because of his position on abortion would have been uncharacteristic of a church that is so much larger than a single issue.
The bottom line is that President Obama’s goal does not seem to be a crushing defeat of the pro-life movement.
He wants to engage and work with the other side in order to achieve a common goal.
We should focus on what unites us in the abortion issue. Notre Dame’s decision to welcome the president and reject the ideological purity demanded by protestors is a step in the right direction.
Reach columnist Chris Jordan at opinion@dailyuw.com.
Moderate
By Katie Paff
Last week, the graduating class of Notre Dame, a Catholic university, celebrated commencement. At the ceremony, the school’s high-profile speaker — none other than Barack Obama — was greeted by 300 anti-abortion protestors. Twenty-seven of the protestors were arrested, including Norma Corvey, or “Roe,” from the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
Clutching signs with slogans such as “Shame on Notre Dame” and “Stop Abortion Now,” it was evident the protestors were angry with the university’s decision to invite the president to speak, since he is on the record as being pro-choice and has shown no sign of backing down on this position. Many lamented Notre Dame for losing touch with its religious roots, since the Catholic Church is vehemently opposed to legal abortion at any stage and considers itself 100 percent pro-life.
While Obama was greeted by a storm of applause and widely praised by the graduating class, he was still taken aback when, as he approached the stage, a voice in the crowd yelled, “Stop killing our children.” He was interrupted two other times during the speech by other protestors.
However, Obama ceded no ground on the topic of abortion, nor did he attempt to justify his position.
He did say he supports what he called a “sensible-conscience clause,” which would allow health-care providers to refuse to perform abortions on their own moral grounds, and also admitted that abortion is a “gut-wrenching decision” for any woman to make.
He said it should remain legal, but that society should work hard to reduce the number of abortions performed overall.
Obama’s conscience clause is admirable and an excellent start. He is also right that abortion is a terrible thing. However, the president failed to recognize one thing the protestors were trying to get across: Abortion is taking an innocent life and stopping a beating heart, period. Along with the young and the elderly, unborn children are one of the most fragile and defenseless forms of life and must be defended at all costs.
One common misconception is that everyone who is pro-life is extremely religious. Looking at it from a completely scientific standpoint, there is not one scientific source that does not agree that life begins at conception. Science concedes that life does not begin at birth or in the second or third trimester; it begins the moment the sperm and egg fuse to create an embryo. Key organs begin to develop in the third week of pregnancy, and the heart begins to beat around day 22. At this point, blood vessels have all formed and the entire nervous system has developed. Whichever way it is phrased, the fact is that if an abortion is performed after three weeks — and this is likely, since most women don’t even know they’re pregnant until at least week four — it will stop a beating heart and therefore extinguish human life.
Public opinion is changing on the abortion debate: According to a Gallup poll released last week, the percentage of Americans who consider themselves to be pro-life now stands at 51 percent, up 7 percent from last year.
Clearly, most Americans don’t believe in abortion on-demand, despite what the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) or Planned Parenthood lobby might say. Given these statistics, the presence of anti-abortion protestors at the Notre Dame commencement is not at all surprising.
One praise-worthy thing Obama said was that it is important to make the adoption process easier, as well as to help support women who decide to carry their babies to term. Many pregnant women feel pressured into abortion because they feel it is their only option. They feel the process of giving up their baby for adoption is convoluted and complicated, and they are afraid of being unable to provide for their child. Many of these women go on to have abortions and decades later, still struggle with guilt and shame from their choice to stop their unborn child’s life.
While there is much debate about how conclusive research is about the emotional and psychological implications of abortion, the fact is that there are a multitude of support groups — both religious and secular — for post-abortive women who are searching for healing and who feel their abortion has hurt them in ways beyond the physical aspects. While the numbers concerning physical injuries from abortion procedures remain relatively low, the numbers concerning emotional impact are far less cut and dry.
As the organization Feminists for Life points out in its literature, abortion is a sign that we are failing women if they feel it is their only option. Instead of pandering to the pro-choice lobby, Obama should recognize that a majority of Americans now consider themselves on the pro-life side of the debate and most of the remainder believe it should be an absolute last resort.
Reach columnist Katie Paff at opinion@dailyuw.com.
41 Comments
Rick Santorum! (4/23/03, Associated Press):
"AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society."
Why is this guy still allowed to write after his gay marriage article?
"The only way for him to calm people’s anger is if he abandons his position and becomes totally and irrevocably anti-abortion."
hmm no, I'm pretty sure if he does that, he will piss off about the same amount, if not more, people.
You do realize Bob Casey Jr, the guy who defeated Rick Santorum, is also pro-life, right? And how the heck is being voted out by your people meaning you are banned from stating an opinion that many congressmen state?
Seriously, why the heck is John Fay still writing articles?
Excellent column John! This was money:
"Obama dislikes this kind of simplicity since it goes against his idealistic vision of a nation where everybody agrees about everything. Such a world can only be achieved if people embrace a laundry list of platitudes that carry no moral weight, like “hope” and “change.”
Btw, 35 million babies aborted since 1973. That's 486 Qwest Field's filled to capacity.
Shameful.
And Liberals, John Fay is an OPINION columnist. He wrote an OPINION on gay marriage. How about you show a little of your side's famous "tolerance," eh?
Nick, sorry to be contrary, but what they are showing IS their sides famous "tolerance"! Haven't you figured that out yet? (-: The liberal idea of tolerance doesn't extend to expression of conservative ideas. It's about ensuring that no-one is critical of certain groups or types of liberally-approved conduct. (Just watch the response to this comment.)
Being an Opinion columnist doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of your writing. If you write something that is on a controversial subject or is inflammatory, you can’t expect people not to provide harsh criticism.
@Rebecca
The fact that conservative opinion articles are regularly published at a liberal University, in liberal Seattle more than refutes your implication that liberals are not tolerant of conservative speech. You also confuse legitimate criticism with oppression.
Liberals criticizing a conservative opinion via comments and letters to the editor = Legitimate use of free speech
UW shutting down The Daily because they publish conservative opinions = Oppression
Unless Mark Emmert marches into The Daily’s office demanding they stop printing conservative opinions, I don’t have sympathy for your argument.
Does the GPSS president count or does it have to be the University president? Because earlier this (academic) year, there were demands to replace editorial staff ... although our ever-so-tolerant grad community hasn't figured out how to materialize their discontent into anything more than so much angry yapping.
I do want to add, though, that I don't think all liberals are intolerant or disrespectful of conservatives. I have liberal friends and family, whom I certainly don't want to paint with such a broad brush. While we're at it, I don't think all grads are intolerant nor do I assume that all grads are liberals.
Also, while harsh criticism is within your rights under the First Amendment, I think it would be nice if someone could express their opinion on a controversial issue and - providing that they weren't disrespectful in their presentation - be met with reasoned dissent rather than harsh criticism. That's an ideal that we are far from achieving as a society and I certainly realize that if I choose to open my mouth and speak out, I can expect that a certain portion of the population won't like me and I accept that reality.
The problem is not his opinion; its the fact that is inaccurate and terrible written. Katie Paff is also pro-life, but presents it in a way that is intelligent.
This post by Shin Gu at Washington Coalition sums my problems with the article well: http://blog.washingtoncoalition.com/?...
P.S. Just so we're clear on the context here . . .
"Why is this guy still allowed to write after his gay marriage article?" - Annie T., #2
"Seriously, why the heck is John Fay still writing articles?" - Adam D., #3
"How about you show a little of your side's famous 'tolerance," eh?" - Nick J., #5
As Adam pointed out, perhaps people seek not to censor John's opinion but instead are wondering why he is allowed to continue to write so poorly. Tolerance is one thing, but there is success and failure in journalism. Calling abortion a 'banality' seems like both journalistic and editorial blunder.
Tolerance as a formal legal rationale for the preservation of First Amendment freedoms is a different discussion than the relative "intolerance" of one argument (the implications of a given policy in terms of individual freedom or justice...); and still again different from an intolerant tone on the part of a reader response (ad homenim retorts, for example).
That said, when condemning an entire population of people (GLBQT, for instance) I can see how it would be difficult to respond without blurring those boundaries. Contemporary conservative Christian political discourse is underwritten by the objectification of classes of humanity as somehow intrinsically less than.
Sean, thank-you for taking the effort to break apart the several questions. Yes, the ambiguity of "tolerance" is a part of our problem here. Legal tolerance is different than social tolerance or endorsement. I may "tolerate" someone calling me names in the sense that I don't go demand that they be arrested or fined . . . but I probably wouldn't be looking to add them to be circle of friends any time soon, and if they somehow had gained that kind of trust from me, they'd almost certainly loose it. Legal tolerance is different from approval also. I feel that I can say that ideas and conduct are wrong, and still say in the same breath that I think they should be legal. That's the beauty of America.
Now, as to your point regarding homosexuality, I think a lot of those Evangelical Christians might disagree with your characterization of their belief. I think there is a bit of a definitional disjunct between many supporters of homosexuality and many opponents homosexuality. Supports tend to see it as something you ARE, opponents to see it as something you DO. (And I'm using "you" in the generic sense, not intended as an accusation or assumption about a particular individual or group of individuals . . . ) I won't say no-one sees homosexuals as less than, but I think it would be fair to say that many (though unfortunately, perhaps not all) who believe same-sex intercourse is immoral, believe it is bad conduct but don't hate homosexuals personally.
It always has to come back to the GBLQTOMGLOLBBQ question... lol
Regarding the word usage:
"Banality: Something that is trite, obvious, or predictable; a commonplace"
I don't personally have a problem with abortion, but it IS undoubtedly quite commonplace and arguably rather predictable as well, and John is suggesting that the various policies described will not change that fact.
It's not the word I would have used, but it fits with the last part of the dictionary definition so I don't think it's a blunder. It certainly doesn't imply anything bizarre or drastically change the meaning of the sentence.
Eh, it still feels wrong for his context. Maybe why it's sitting strangely is because I'm pretty sure no one thinks that an abortion is a banality. To call it trite or to assume it's a decision taken lightly is to mischaracterize the majority of the circumstances.
Though I can see how that might appear, since in a world where things are black or white it is probably easier to assume that pro-choicers would rather have drive-thru abortion clinics.
I think that goes to why I think the abortion debate will never end, though. The abortion debate really IS black and white for a lot of people on both sides, and they don't see the other side's concerns as being important. Pro lifers think restricting womens' reproductive choices is a necessary mechanism to protect what they see as unborn children, and pro choicers view abortions (of what they view as just cells, not human lives) as simply what happens when people's right to reproductive freedom is not abridged. The concerns aren't the flip sides of one coin, they're completely different, and are assigned different weights by pro/anti people. So neither side has a reason to take the other's argument seriously.
I fail to see how it is intolerant for me to show my disdain for a newspaper, that is paid for by my University, when it produces a product that I think is below standard. It has little to do with my political opinion. Katie Paff wrote a pro-life article to the right that was actually well thought out, and I made a note of it. I disagree with every sentence Russ writes for the Daily, but I still envy his ability to write such quality prose.
If I was running a blog or newspaper, I would take any concerns over the writing quality of my staffers as a serious issue.
Rebecca F,
I reason that I question why John Fay is writing for the Daily is not because of intolerance. It's because that last time he wrote the Gay Marriage article, it created the biggest uproar in UW daily that I have ever seen. I'm sure you can still remember the pages and pages of editorials that were printed afterwards. While I read various conservative opinions in the daily ever week, I have never seen such a big outcry against an article. This just shows that while most conservative views are tolerated fairly well to the UW population, John Fay's clearly stood out as a poorly written and balantly offensive. That is why I question his involvement as a editorial writer. His job is to write political opinion pieces based on fact and argument, create controvery among UW students. He obviously lacks the skill to write a proper argumentative article.
If the Daily allowed publishment of a racist or sexist article, I imagine the UW response would be the same. I would also imagine that the writer would not be allowed to write such views. John Fay is no different.
"And Liberals, John Fay is an OPINION columnist. He wrote an OPINION on gay marriage. How about you show a little of your side's famous "tolerance," eh?"
The freedom of speech is powerful and one can write what they want. Just like John Fay, the KKK and neo-nazis have the freedom to speak racist comments because it is within their right. However, no credible newspaper would ever publish their editorials or opinions. Even if it were ever published, the public response would be same: there would not be very much "tolerance" for the author.
First off, John Fay is NOT racist! "Just like John Fay, the KKK and neo-nazis have the freedom to speak racist comments because it is within their right. However, no credible newspaper would ever publish their editorials or opinions." (Annie T., #19) Maybe that just came out wrong, but I want to make sure we're clear on that point. If you disagree with my interpretation of Fay, please cite for me at least one instance in which he denigrated anyone because of their race, color, or ethnicity.
Secondly, let me confess that I took Autumn quarter off from UW, so I didn't see the letters-to-the-editor at that time. I have seen the "Gay marriage: Let's stop and think about it" article online and I have browsed over the comments posted to that article online (which are plentiful). I also read the GPSS letter to the editor published Winter quarter and I wrote a letter-to-the-editor in response to that (see Jan. 30 issue).
Thirdly, however, the presence of a public outrage proves absolutely nothing about the rightness of Fay's opinion. It doesn't prove anything about the logic of his argument either. It only proves a lack of tolerance. People were offended. Obviously. You don't have to agree with, or even like, Fay's opinion. As you noted, "freedom of speech is powerful." It wasn't that long ago or far away that GBLT groups relied upon this powerful protection in the face of anti-sodomy laws and public outrage. Fair is fair. Public opinion can't be right both there and here, but the First Amendment can.
Fourthly, while I certainly wouldn't want to trade the level of tolerance I receive at UW for the level of tolerance I would receive in say China or Saudi Arabia, conservative opinions are not tolerated with such good grace as Annie seems to suggest, "This just shows that while most conservative views are tolerated fairly well to the UW population, . . ." Last year, there were protests on at least one or two occasions against College Republican activities, and I believe there have been in previous years too (I transferred to UW in Autumn 2007). It is my understanding that the ASUW Senate, as well as individual ASUW members, have repeatedly taken liberal positions and condemned conservative positions/students. To their credit, ASUW refused to take part in efforts to directly censor the Daily following the publication of Fay's gay marriage column.
Fifthly, I think it's fair to note that GBLT issues (e.g. gay marriage) are hyper-sensitive AND that the Daily chose to publish a provocative graphic next to Fay's column, which probably increased the level of response.
Sixthly, in response to Adam D., It is not inappropriate to express concern about the quality of the student newspaper. It would be inappropriate to submit its content to a public vote or administrative review to "improve quality", however. People will often express opinions with which you disagree and will sometimes not measure up to your expectations of quality. There is a danger in allowing censorship to "control quality", because a subjective view of "quality" can quickly become confused with "content". But I would like to thank you for your cool and reasoned response to my previous comment re: liberal intolerance.
Seventhly, while I'm at it, I'll also note that I am personally rather ambivalent on the pro-choice/life issue.
Eighthly, all questions about writing quality aside, I think it was appropriate and commendable for the Daily to publish side-by-side opposing viewpoints (columns) on gay marriage. While I believe it is within the purview of editorial staff to publish something like the man-sheep picture, I personally do not think that was productive or "quality" - the picture itself was simple enough a child could draw it and the apparent point was lame and offensive . . . so what was the point? If they wanted to be offensive, they should have at least come up with something clever and/or artistic.
Ninthly, to save you the guesswork, I believe that marriage is by it's nature a male-female relationship and therefore, I object to the use of the term "marriage" to describe male-male or female-female relationships, and I also think it is at best unnecessary to extend the same legal standing to male-male and female-female relationships that is given to married couples.
Rebecca, I am not assuming that John Fay is racist, I was simply trying to state that his article created a big uproar that I believe a racist article would also start.
I can tell from your comment that you obviously believe that racism is not a good thing. You state that "the presence of a public outrage proves absolutely nothing about the rightness of Fay's opinion. It doesn't prove anything about the logic of his argument either. It only proves a lack of tolerance." Would you say the same for a racist article? Would you say that readers lacks intolerance to a racist person?
This is the point I'm getting at. Because certain topics and stances/views are taboo to write about, there is a reason that those articles are not published in any well known newspapers. I agree that a conservative view is needed for heated political topics in the daily. However, I personally think the Daily should not have let John Fay write again and should've just hired a different right-winged opinion.
I've read many many conservative editorial views on Gay Marriage. None of them created this much negative replies like John Fay's. The reasons? The writers base their argument on facts and reasoning and does not get personal about a homosexual's psychological condition. That is the line that John Fay overstepped and discredits as a good writer.
Lastly, I am neither pro and anti gay marriage. It personally doesn't affect me so I have no preference.
<<It would be inappropriate to submit its content to a public vote or administrative review to "improve quality", however.>>
Thankfully noone is calling for the Daily to submit all articles for public review. All we are asking is for the editors of the Daily to actually care about the paper that is receiving student funding and do their job.
<<There is a danger in allowing censorship to "control quality", because a subjective view of "quality" can quickly become confused with "content".>>
That is not censorship, it is called editing. Every person who has gone through the writing process knows this. You are edited everytime you write a paper to make sure the quality is good. The Daily, as any newspaper should, does this to make sure their quality is high.
And stop hiding behind the First Amendment as a defense for poor writing. That is irrelevant; noone is telling John Fay he should not have the write to think his views. We are all ripping the Daily, a public institution paid by students, for continuously allowing terribly written articles to print and taking no accountability on it. John Fay isn't even the worse offender (His articles are coherent unlike some articles I seen). This is an issue of making sure that my money as a student is going to something that is worth it.
My comments about the danger of censorship under the guise of "quality" was intended to expound upon why administrative review or popular student vote would be a bad thing, not to say that editors shouldn't uphold a certain standard of quality. If you allow government, student government, popular vote etc. to determine what is or isn't "quality" there is a significant danger that unpopular ideas will be subject to a stricter scrutiny than popular ones, whether deliberately or otherwise.
I feel passionately about the First Amendment and about expression of conservative ideas on campus. The First Amendment is a shield and there is nothing cowardly about demanding its protection. As to your concerns about writing quality, if they are directed toward the Daily in general and not John Fay in particular, and if you are not advocating censorship as the solution, then I really don't have a lot of passion for that discussion.
Whether the topic is homosexuality, race, or anything else, I would say that the presence of a public outrage in itself does prove that the article was wrong or inappropriate. As noted before, depending on the time and place, either side of the homosexual debate could have been considered provocative. The same could be said of race. I think if you went back to the pre-civil-war south, advocating abolishing could have been very provocative and created a furor that would make the outrage after Fay's article pale. Nowadays, if a newspaper most anywhere in the U.S. published an article supporting slavery, there would be public outrage.
Racism is NOT a good thing. And some sort of protestation/rebuttal would be in order if racist views were being seriously promoted in the student newspaper. However, I might add, I still would not support having the administration or student government step in to censor the newspaper.
"There are numerous ways one can frame the abortion debate, but they all end the same way. Biblically, it violates the commandment not to sacrifice children. Medically, it violates the Hippocratic Oath forbidding doctors to do harm. Scientifically, facts show that the human fetus is genetically as human as anyone. In short, from a moral perspective, this issue is very simple. Regardless of whether you are a person of faith or a person of science, the evidence proves that the fetus is a child. This effectively makes abortion infanticide, and as I assume not many people support infanticide, they should also logically oppose abortion."
I think the bigger issue everyone has with Fay's writing is that he really just needs to take a logic course, because he wouldn't write the things he does if he understood the nature of fallacious writing. The above quote is a TEXTBOOK false dichotomy: it presents only two options while omitting viable alternatives, and then seeks to demonize one half of his false dichotomy by suggesting that if you are in favor of abortion, well then by golly you're in favor of murder too! And you wouldn't want that, so logically you shouldn't be pro-choice.
Example: "You either buy me a car or you don't love me anymore. You wouldn't want me to think you don't love me anymore, so logically you'll buy me the car!" This omits an alternative such as "I do love you very much, but I have no money. How about a milkshake?"
Seriously. You learn this in the first few weeks of a freshman level reasoning class. Fay is a hack, and I don't know why the Daily insists on employing hacks. Me saying that isn't liberal intolerance. It's just...logical ;-)
In response to Tim, I would suggest that John's argument was more of an analogy. He pointed out a similarity between infanticide and abortion which he found convincing. If you think there's a significant enough difference between them to discredit that analogy, then that is the approach you need to discredit his argument. I think the general line of argument he used, that it is a human being and deserving of protection as such, is basically what all or most all pro-lifers believe.
I guess I'll also say, quite frankly, that I feel like since I made a half-serious comment about liberal tolerance, I'm being asked to defend whatever Fay says and whatever the Daily does. My point wasn't necessarily that I agree with all the Daily's decisions or that I agree with everything Fay says. For instance, I already told you that I have mixed feelings on abortion. I respect John Fay: I prefer to speak my own words. If you want to know my take on abortion, feel free to ask me. That said, I thought that the overall style of this particular piece was moving and forceful.
It's not an analogy. I apologize for harping on this, but he's not using an analogy to relate abortion to infanticide, he's simply saying they are exactly the same thing and then presenting a false choice between either murdering or not murdering. Remember, an analogy needs primary analogues between two different things, and it seeks to establish a similarity between the two. Fay simply brazenly asserts they are the exact same thing, but does so poorly, because he's committing more than one fallacy here. I only mentioned false dichotomy, but he's also begging the question, because even with the examples he uses he is presupposing the truth of his conclusion as support for the truth of his premises, which is a circular reasoning fallacy that is compounded by his peppering in of other fallacies (i.e. he equates abortion with infanticide, then he somehow leaps straight from that to equating it to the sacrifice of children [which is even more ridiculous, not only because he is equivocating on the meanings of "child" and "fetus," but because the word "sacrifice" implies that there is some greater cause for which you are sacrificing someone, such as Abraham sacrificing Isaac], only using these examples with the presupposition that the abortion of a fetus is self-evidently murder, which is easily beatable circular logic).
@ 34, It's just horrible reasoning, and he loses whatever style points you may deem fit to give him because his position is so entirely indefensible (NOT because being pro-life is a bad position, but because he shoots his own arguments in the foot so damned much that it loses any semblance of "moving and forceful" writing). This is my qualm with Fay's continued employment by this paper. And who knows, maybe the editors of the Daily are more cunning than I give them credit for and they are purposely employing someone this logically incoherent to fill their conservative column position just to sabotage the platform. But don't be duped; I may be pro-choice, but I can recognize when a pro-life argument is being horribly, horribly inarticulated and logically incoherent. Then again, that seems to be a systemic conservative problem these days, and if people want to engage in arguments like this and speed up the movement-wide political death spiral, then I will raise my glass and say no more!
"But don't be duped; I may be pro-choice, but I can recognize when a pro-life argument is being horribly, horribly inarticulated and logically incoherent. Then again, that seems to be a systemic conservative problem these days, and if people want to engage in arguments like this and speed up the movement-wide political death spiral, then I will raise my glass and say no more!" Really? Well, it's good I have someone to tell me that as a conservative, I'm on my way down a "political death spiral" (and probably "horribly, horribly [inarticulate] and logically inchoherent"). While the world around me is unquestionably plagued by many ills, I prefer to contemplate a future in which people such as myself will continue to struggle for better ways of doing things, and I would still like to hope we can make some substantial improvements in this society. But for myself, I decided when I started college that if I was going to go down, I'd go down fighting.
Oh, and that should be "incoherent" - excuse my typing.
Your comment makes no sense. I was not going after anything you said, other than your defense of Fay. My point is only that (a) Fay is a really bad writer and (b) there are far more coherent and less logically worthless ways of making the arguments that Fay is purporting to make. I don't really care about your own conservatism, or your plent-T-plaint posts here (http://tulsa.craigslist.org/rnr/11541...). My comment is mostly about how if conservatives really want to do any convincing instead of just throwing around really horribly reasoned arguments that will appeal to no one but their own echo chamber(which are often arguments which have a valid point, but are made in such a poor manner that they lose all their persuasive power, such as this article), then maybe you should recognize when you need to get a better spokesperson for your views in the campus newspaper.
Everybody listen up. Just think for a second. You're the head editor of the Daily. Some guy that a bunch of people don't like writes a column for you. Then three weeks later, all of you bums are still on the Daily website carrying on about him. This is the 39th post!! You'd be CRAZY not to have him keep writing for you. This is not a charity! The news is a BUSINESS! And you are just proving how effective John Fay has been at keeping the Daily a provocative, if not neccessarily informative media outlet. I guarantee he'll writing again.
P.S. -I totally agree with him. :)
#38 - I quoted the section of your comments I was responding to. The way you talk about a "systemic conservative problem" and "movement-wide political death spiral", suggests you have a problem with more than John Fay.
I don't have any problem with more than John Fay. I'm simply commenting on a general trend; conservative (and especially republican party) identification is at a historic low:
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publica...
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressR...
Now you see what I mean by "systemic problem." Do I have a problem with conservative ideas per se? Well I obviously tend to disagree with plenty of them, but that's not at all the point I am making. My point is that perhaps the movement is losing so many former followers precisely because you allow poor, horribly incoherent and rather hard core right-wing writers such and Fay to do the arguing for you, instead of having a more well reasoned argument to which more people will be receptive.
I AM NOT SAYING THERE IS NO CASE TO BE MADE FOR BEING PRO-LIFE. I RESPECT THE POSITION EVEN IF I DISAGREE. I just know that it can be argued and articulated far, far better than the logical-fallacy-sprinkled polemics which John Fay seems to have an inability to get away from writing, and I don't understand why conservatives might not want someone else making their arguments on the pages of the Daily.
Oh, and @ 39: that argument is just silly and you know it. Saying that Fay is a provocative writer is evading the issue that he is just a bad writer. It is his extraordinarily poor and badly-in-need-of-an-editing-process writing that is the issue here, not the fact that we're still talking about it. For example, a school isn't a charity either; if a school is employing an objectively bad teacher that all the parents keep coming in and complaining about (not because the teacher has opinions that they disagree with, but because he doesn't know how write and is setting a bad writing example for the students), the school shouldn't keep the teacher SIMPLY BECAUSE there are parents coming in and talking about him. That argument holds no water.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
5 Comments
Great job Chris! Having been part of the mentioned discussion, you definitely summarized the sides very gracefully.
Abortion and the debate of when life begins cannot be determined by one person or one perspective. Trying to isolate the biological definition neglects the societal and cultural constructs at work on the individual who seeks a specific definition. The issue is so very volatile because no two people are coming at it from the same perspective.
I reiterate your point that rather than focusing on abortion and whether it is right or wrong, people of all opinions should converge their efforts into making drastic improvements to the foster care system and sexual health education at all ages.
Again, very well written Chris!
Interesting, and intellectually generous--although it's easy to say for me since I don't invest the issue with a moral dimension either way... though I do find the argument that legalized abortion reduces crime to be an interesting one. I suppose I'd have to defer to my suspicion of government in general and be vaguely and indifferently pro choice.
My main quibble is that perhaps taking Obama's words at face value is a little bit of a stretch for many people, as most of his "unity" rhetoric has been, well, mostly rhetoric, in the same way that Democrats probably were leery of Bush's address to "those whose vote I did not earn" in 2004. Most presidents are partisans (in no small part due to their base of support) and this one is no exception, whether or not he tries to talk his way out of it.
We should be suspicious of bipartisanship rhetoric outside of national emergencies, whether it comes from our man or the other side's.
I would also have to agree with your first paragraph. Abortion is such a polarizing issue to those who feel strongly about it that it's hard for either side to concede the middle and say: "Well, abortion should be legal sometimes, but not always."
Safe, legal, and rare is not quite the same thing, though that's probably a position most people could agree with in principle.
Abortions might become statistically insignificant if there were comprehensive support mechanisms for both mother and child. We still have trouble even conceiving of, much less implementing, pregnancy leave, comprehensive, universal health care, comprehensive child care for Pre-K kids in addition to K-12.
The point at which the religious conservative stance against a women's right to choose ends is often the point of departure for those advocating social supports that religious conservatives depict as "wasteful" or "welfare dependency", or otherwise contradicts their view of individual responsibility and (lack of) communal responsibility.
Ultimately it seems as though the pro-life stance is concerned with maintaining women as a vehicle for conception. Were they concerned with the nitty gritty of living and working and all that is required of raising children, they might get more traction.
Sean, I'd also add that sex education and access to birth control are important, too. But these are also things that those supporting a pro-life agenda tend to decry. I wish this connection were more obvious to people.
That too, for sure. There is some difference between the Catholic view that birth control is itself an anathema - whereas conservative Protestant and evangelical Christian viewpoints on birth control vary. The latter at least provide room in their moral universe for contraception.
Certainly both view "sex-education" as a specifically heterosexual pedagogy that should manifest in children.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
3 Comments
Great job Katie! I feel this article is very balanced and fair. Let us hope that President Obama has a change of heart. :)
Thank you for showing us all an example of a well thought out pro-life argument, that doesn't resort to overdone appeal to emotion arguments or demonizing of the opposition.
I applaud your ability to clearly point out the pro-life stance in this issue Katie, and civility in stating your opinion. However, there is one section that I would point out that is just plain incorrect.
"Looking at it from a completely scientific standpoint, there is not one scientific source that does not agree that life begins at conception."
In fact, the scientific community is in much disagreement on this matter. Sure, there are some that will defend the notion that life begins when sperm and ovum meet. But many things can be classified as "life." A plant "lives," does it not? How about the bacteria that covers almost every surface of our planet... that "lives" as well.
Okay... maybe that's taking it too far then. Maybe what we really prize is the "human" aspect of life, something we obviously value more than anything else that lives, as it seems.
So when does this zygote, or embryo, or whatever stage this "life" is in, actually have the qualities and characteristics of a human? That is a very grey area indeed.
Some scientists would say that it is at the point where the primitive streak begins to develop, the precursor to the nervous system. Other scientists argue that the primitive streak is irrelevant because it doesn't mark the beginning of consciousness. Still others believe the point where pain can be felt is the true test to life.
Whatever the verdict, saying that something "lives" is an understatement to the fact that what everyone is arguing over is when there is human life. That is just as polarized a debate in the scientific community as the political one.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
#1 Sean K.
(Seattle, WA)
on May 18, 2009 at 11:21 p.m.