LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers respond on abortion

To the Editor: He mentions that we can't know when the fetus acquires consciousness, but what if I say that I know that the fetus does not have consciousness until the sixth month. Since consciousness, like faith, is something that cannot possibly be derived or explained by reasoning, you have to allow for the fact that there is no right answer. As such, you also have to allow for the idea that people will have completely different views on the issue. I do not believe that abortion is the answer, but I will allow for the possibility that people with other beliefs may think it's the right thing to do. Andreas Olofsson Engineering Graduate Student n To the Editor: Kristopher Couch's column ("A man's issue, too," DP, 9/13/96) once again illustrates why men's voices are often ignored or marginalized in the abortion debate. His paternalistic tone and attitude -- women, for example, are still girls in Couch's mind whereas he, no doubt, is a man -- is only the beginning of the problem in his all too superficial piece. Couch presents his point as a debate between a man and a woman, with the implication that each of the characters is representative of their gender. The clever man ends up teaching the short-sighted woman a lesson she was, at least from his vantage point, too slow to see. She needed to be enlightened by the more objective, we might even say cold, scientific (to highlight the masculine approach of Couch's piece) and therefore more truthful view of the male observer, who, by implication, is not clouded by misguided notions of the rights of a woman over her own body. The real problem with his essay, however, is that Couch fails to discern the true lesson of his little allegory of the hunter. Instead of validating his anti-abortion agenda (which he has tried to veil with a discussion of men's place in this debate), his story further reinforces the central argument of the pro-choice perspective. The true point of the story is that, in the absence of an objective determinant for the beginning of life (a point which Couch concedes), each woman must decide for herself. Just because his hunter has made a rash and irresponsible decision does not mean that women are incapable of making a conscientious decision to have an abortion. Of course Couch's female could not reach this interpretation by herself. Perhaps the issue isn't that men should stay out of the abortion discussion, but rather that men like Couch should. Edward Larkin Research Fellow Phila. Center for Early American Studies n To the Editor: Congratulations to columnists Kristopher Couch and Margie Fishman. Both took different positions on the hot topic of abortion ("A man's issue, too" and "The choice is mine alone," DP, 9/13/96) and yet neither fell into the trap of demonizing the other side. Can it be that we have a new breed of DP journalists who are more interested in presenting the complexities of an issue, rather than showing the apparent crass idiocy of the opposing viewpoint? Though clear about her convictions as to the private, individual matter of a woman's control over her own body, Fishman displays as much compassion as conviction when she shatters the stereotypes about who unfortunately shows up at Planned Parenthood. By using her own observations coupled with a sense of justice on behalf of all women she invites dialogue on this issue. For her compassion and justice must be the hallmark of conversations about abortion. I wholeheartedly agree. That, I believe, is the very basis of major faith traditions and should be inherent in our governmental policies. Couch, on the other hand, using a tongue-in-cheek conversation, focused on the intertwining of emotions and rationality on this topic. While only implying where he stands on the issue, he is more interested in the fact that all of us are less rational and more emotional on this topic than perhaps we would like to be. He invites us to acknowledge this when we enter into dialogues with one another on abortion. And, by presenting "thought experiment" he expresses his willingness to take part in these discussions. If we are to ever develop an abortion policy that addresses both the emotional pain as well as the reality, he has a moral responsibility to participate even though some would exclude him because he is male. Rev. Beverly Dale Executive Director Christian Association Is appearance everything? To the Editor: I could not agree more with Mike Liskey's column "Low maintenance in '96!" (DP, 9/12/96) that low maintenance is the most comfortable, sexy and reasonable way for a woman to present herself to her world. I, too, am a big fan of sneaks and scrunchies. I take issue, however, with the condescending tone created by Liskey's use of over-simplified questions (i.e., "Who are these women trying to impress?" and "Why do women wear make-up at all?"). Liskey implies that higher-maintenance females are "foofy" not only on top of, but also within, their heads. Perhaps he will study the psychology of women at the Graduate School of Education and come to realize that a plethora of social pressures, generously heaped upon women from birth by an ever-eager media, create a standard that many feel compelled to emulate. It is useless to urge women to "Just Say No" to Clinique and Nine West. What is important is to examine why women are pushed in this direction, and why more adults don't talk to growing girls about these unspoken, detrimental messages. Jennifer Kwass Research Specialist Geriatric Psychiatry Department Kudos for artists To the Editor: Your drawings on the Opinion Page are particularly good this year. The pieces by Joshua Thaler and Louis Nosce (DP, 9/18/96) were excellent. Congrats to them. Don Smith Development Director Centers and Institutes Univ. of Pennsylvania Medical Center