Your Voice | Letters

Art and abortion revisited

To the Editor:

In "Risking Women's Rights for Art" (4/23/08), Mara Gordon states that Shvarts' actions were "well within her rights" but that "she owes the millions of women for whom abortion is an important option a little more respect than this."

In what way were her actions really disrespectful to abortion? Was it that she conceived while intending to abort, or that she had repeated abortions, or that she was inseminated with sperm from men she didn't know?

In fact, all of these actions fit within the abortion paradigm.

Shvarts is not trivializing the act of abortion but glorifying it.

She has transformed this choice from a tragedy into a celebration.

If people find this artistic celebration repellent, they should ask precisely what is being misrepresented about the abortion process? What paradigm is being violated?

Let's think about what's actually happening.

There is a uterus whose monthly period has carefully stopped, in order to nourish something that will emerge in nature's promised 9 months. That something can breathe and kick, suckle and fuss - it is definitely not a bit of blood, placenta and dead human flesh. Shvarts' art violates the paradigm of pregnancy, not the paradigm of abortion.

Her art defines the womb as a place of death, not birth.

Shvarts' actions are disrespectful both to all women and the lives they carry within their wombs.

Hannah Sheldon College sophomore Keep gun laws uniform across the state

To the Editor:

I am responding to your staff editorial regarding gun control laws.

There are at least three reasons local governments should not be able to enact them. First, they would place huge burdens on law-abiding gun owners.

For example, I am originally from Erie, Pa. and make several trips between Erie and Philadelphia every year. I am also a concealed-carry permit holder. If some local governments were allowed to ban concealed firearms, there is no telling how many laws I might unknowingly break just by driving across the state to see my family.

Second, just as the City of Philadelphia should not have the right to quash your right to speak your mind or practice your religion, so it should not be allowed to take away your right to protect yourself!

Finally, strict gun control just doesn't work.

The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation linked to reduced rates of violent crime.

All of this means that the City wants to pass laws that would be burdensome, would trample people's rights and wouldn't make a difference anyway. How is that a good idea? Adam Hersperger Doctoral student, School of Medicine

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.