The Brand (Abilene, Tex.), Vol. 83, No. 16, Ed. 1, Thursday, February 8, 1996 Page: 2 of 24
twenty four pages : illus. ; page 15 x 12 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Page&-jFhe Brand -'February 8? S8&rrJi
Letters to the Editor
A Response to a Pro-life article
In the last edition of The Brand I was intrigued to
find a couple of articles dealing with the controversial
subject of abortion. While the topic itself has been
such a "hot button issue" for some time and thus
often seems a bit dull and overbaked in editorials I
felt 77k Brand attempted to present a balanced view of
both sides. Although it was short I appreciated Ms.
Carlisle's interview of an anonymous individual who
cspftascs the minority perspective on campus.
Unfortunately she could not elaborate the interview
because of space constraints. When I read the articles
on abortion I wanted to see a third less conservative
or moderate position presented with the two articles
because personally I hold to a more moderate view.
When I write The Brand next week I will present my
position.
As for now I have a few criticisms that must be
voiced for the sake of good editorial writing. Despite
Ms. Carlisle's presentation of the opposing view I
must say I was terribly disappointed with Ms. Harris'
article on the Fro-life stance. In a thorough reading of
Ms. Harris' article I found a number of glaring prob-
lems which needed to be discussed in a responding
tetter.
Although Ms. Harris' position was written from a
sincerity of heart and concerted response to a situa-
tion in our nation that dearly opposes her values she
demonstrated a lack of caution when thinking
through her arguments and subsequently presenting
them lb be so blunt yet honest. Me. Harris made a
few unsubstantiated claims. When reading her rea-
sons against abortion I expected to see footnotes and
soirees supporting her criticisms. Unfortunately she
did not provide the reader with any.
Allow me to illustrate. Ms. Harris says in the first
sentence of her article that "abortion is a destructive
act that kflk the infant; scars the mother and helps
tear down what is left of the moral fiber of America."
A critical reader wiQ naturauy ask for her researched
evidence Oat proves abortion "scars" the mother.
Who says that abortion psyctotogkalh torments every
woman who has had an abortion? This is not com-
mon knowledge and an observed fact but perhaps a
bad generalization. Furthermore; Ms. Harris docs not
support her daims that a baby's heart functions in
two weeks of conception nor does she dte informa-
tion for the physical horrors women "too often" expe-
rience after an abortion. An uneducated reading of
her artide would teed one to believe that women
leave abortion clinics bleeding from the womfc and
mefceart I do not think this is quite a lair presenta-
tion of the fads and I do not know if all women who
have had abortions will agree with Ms. Harris.
In addition to her undocumented arguments Ms.
Harris makes a number of questionable daims. Her
statement that abortion is destroying the last remain-
ing vestiges of the "moral fiber of America is suspect.
How docs she know that abortion is doing such a
thing? What Harvard sociologist has told her that
abortion is so odious a thing that it is destroying
"America's Jnoralsr To suggest that abortion alone is
reaping such a prodigious effect on our ethics is
exceedingly too simplistic.
Furthermore how does she know that abortion
will lead us info "destroying ourselves?" Would abor-
tion really destroy us? Careful readers will note that
her statement lacks a certain bclievability when recog-
nizing the influence of other sodal ails like AIDS
inner dty decay drug abuse and Juvenile violent
crime that obviously pose more of a physical danger
to the American populace. Abortion has been legal
since the early 1970s and although millions of unborn
individuals have died abortion itself has yet to
"destroy" us.
Another objection that must be raised is the arti-
cle's use of emotional rhetoric and graphic descrip-
tions to ptead the case. The words such as "punc-
tured sliced cut" or "very tiny innocent victims .. ."
are indicative not of a rational persuasion with cogent
and sound arguments but of a nonobjective writing
style filled with the irrational passions of an upset
writer. These graphic descriptions do not help her
case at an but merely serve to add a seeming weight
to her argument. Unfortunatdy this does not con-
vince the critical reader.
Another difficulty that caught my eye in the arti-
cte is the discussion on the media. Ms. Harris' article
refers to a media that of course is conspiratorial in its
attempt to hide what is the supposed "truth" behind
abortion. I must question the reality of her claim that
the mediaisahvays hiding truth. Media bias may be
a fact but I do not think that we are being held cap-
tive by a media that "would keep quiet the stories of
the women who have been... "hurt by abortion. I
have heard many conservatives (and Christians) com-
plain about media bias and the alleged conspiracy to
indoctrinate the minds of the haptess and gullible
American public I may be wrong on this point and I
would like to see some evidence to the contrary; but
to date I have not seen any that would convince me
of the media's alleged conspiracy.
Sadly Ms. Harris' article was not of any benefit to
the presentation of her position. Instead her article
seernedoMesshaiulsuperfteiany thought out. Most
assuredly this is not the impression a writer wants to
evince when espousing a controversial and even
unpopular point of view. Nonetheless the conclusion
that I have reached concerning this article is that it is a
woefully inadequate presentation of the Pro-life posi-
tion. White usiremottorul rhetoric and unfounded
unsubstantiated claims Ms. Harris' article would
never persuade any intelligent reader to accept her
side.
On the brighter side of the situation Ms. Harris
began with good intentions arising from her feelings
on a troubling moral issue She did raise a few legiti-
mate points in her article: the responsibility of moth-
ers (and I must add the responsibility of fathers) and
the consequences of unplanned pregnancies. Despite
what one may think I applaud Ms. Harris for speak-
ing out at a university where people are not prone to
publicly expressing their interests in political and
sodal issues. At least we know that one person is try-
ing to keep abreast of the world around her. I encour-
age Ms. Harris to write more often and I hope she"
wiU accept my criticisms consbructively. (Write me"'
back Ms. Harris and feel free to point out legitimate'
weaknesses in my criticisms; maybe we may both
team from each other.) Perhaps next time other writ-
ers may approach issues with a carefully contempla-
tive style indicative of serious and thorough reflection.
I hope I have set a precedent and not just an example
of inane bickering.
With my criticisms out of the way I want to pre-
sent the moderate's view of abortion to the readers
yet space constraints wiU not allow for it this time.
Next week I win submit my position on abortion to
The Brand.
KrlsRoblson
HSU student
An erroneous fact?
Cluisty Harris managed to insult every biology? '
professor on this campus with her ill-informed infor-
mation concerning fetal development and as editor
you should have caught this statement. (The state-
ment in question is "A baby's heart is hflly functional
in two weeks of conception.")
I would like to make a rebuttal concerning this
artide.
Don Riddle
HSU student
Editor's note: We are a forum for students to express
their views and opinions on any issue Ms. Harris hid the
opportunity to voice her opinion as do each of you.
The fad is you do not have to agree with her but
know that it is your right to disagree with her. Anyor
wishing to present a rebuttal for or against the article Ms.
Harris wrote is more than welcome to do so. We ask that
you have the article m The Brand office by Monday at 5
p.m. Any Udeartides wUl have to wait a week to be pub-
lished. Furtherntore if I as editor-in-chief was required to
check each fad of each article turned into my office I would
still be checking fads and not producing a student newspa-
per. I must rehjm the writers to be amscknee of their work
and dhkal and corredin their search for fods.Thisis e
controversial subjed that will spark emotions and flare tem-
pers. I ask just one thing of each of you that respond -don't
take anylhingpersonalhj.lt is not anatUukonyou person-
ally asmuch as it is an attack on your position of an issue.
TrentmHitburn
dlloMn-cMtf
sports dor
JOftHBOWERMAN
Chris Hatcher
adc&cNttrtbution
FtuerFbmari
managing Mor
Krkthn Hwwws
faatura sdftor
Joy Evans
office manager
Jenny Hutto
advisor
Randy Armstrong
HARDLNSlMMONS
XJ N I "V
X T V
staff writers
Bethany Carugle -Ryan Shelton -Leah Dubber
Kathy Muramoto -Laura Horne -Molly Griffith
The Brand
HSU Box 16175
Abilene Texas 79698
(915)670-1438
Th Brand is a non-profit campus newspaper published
Thuredaysduring ihe long term except fof holidays examination
parte and other pro-announced dates.
1h Brand welcomes letter to the editor and guest
column. Editorial and column should contain the aow
2!!5!?i?fc? and tekPbone number. They shouato
whertypsd or hand written and received one week prior tepub-
Ication. They are subject to editing for Ibel news style. speWng
Qfammar and space limitations. The editorial staff also resMve
LWvSshy "0t mrt8fW erroneously defame4 the
iv J'SU. expreod in 77 Brand those of the edtoriaJ
ZSZ!i!"??r and " ny reflect the vjews of
"SWJ " administration. iH
L V? houd to rthBr moW 77w Brand or
dropped off at Room 3068 in Abilene HaJ. .
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View 17 places within this issue that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
The Brand (Abilene, Tex.), Vol. 83, No. 16, Ed. 1, Thursday, February 8, 1996, newspaper, February 8, 1996; Abilene, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth97629/m1/2/?q=Lamar+University: accessed June 7, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Hardin-Simmons University Library.