Doesn't everyone deserve a choice I want to address the March 23 letter, "Everyone Deserves a Birthday." As a feminist, I was very offended by the writer's remarks. As a student and activist, I have been fortunate to hear the personal stories of many strong women who have made the difficult decision to have an abortion. The majority of the women I have talked to were raped. Others found that while they were pregnant, the baby or they themselves had a medical complication that put their own health at risk. Many women who decide to have an abortion want to bring a child into a financially stable and emotionally healthy life -- one they did not feel they could give a child at that time. I want to make it clear that feminists like myself are NOT "anti-life." We are pro-choice. We believe we should celebrate Roe because it is the celebration of women's rights over their own bodies and making their own choices for themselves. After all, everyone deserves a choice.
Stephanie Whiteside - Junior and FMLA community outreach chair, communications coordinator
Editorial overlooked thousands Your staff editorial in the March 24 Indiana Daily Student raised some interesting and valid points. All of us should become adept at cutting through the increasingly heavy spin that inflicts this society and learn to gauge the validity of the information we receive. But your editorial falls into one serious trap that I would like to correct. You mention that "people were led by the media into thinking thousands of people have died in Iraq. In actuality, approximately 580 Americans have been killed while 10,000 have been wounded." At no point do you mention the Iraqis -- soldiers and civilians -- who were killed in this war. Thousands of people have died in Iraq as a result of this war. The Americans do not make up the entire population of "people" whose lives have been lost in this conflict, and to assume the only people impacted were Americans is to overlook the horrific devastation the United States has inflicted on the people of Iraq. Whether you believe this war is just or not, we must all recognize that President Bush's desire to topple Saddam Hussein has indeed cost thousands of people their lives.Michael Evans - IU faculty
Support troops with sincerity As a member of the United States Army, I am very offended when the support of our nation's soldiers is co-opted for political gain. I am currently wearing a yellow ribbon handed to me on the walkway outside of Ballantine. These ribbons were being handed out by a group with obviously partisan political leanings, as evidenced by their uniform political message shirts. The support of American soldiers, abroad or at home, should not be used to advance political interests, nor should it be presented in such a manner as to cast doubt upon the patriotism of those who seriously disagree with tasks soldiers are given. Politicizing service in our military and politicizing support of those serving in our military is a disgusting affair. It is only being fueled by the outrageously divisive politics and policies our government is currently taking part in. If you do truly support our troops, do so in a manner that is not geared towards promoting your own political agenda -- it's an insult.Cameron Moser - Senior
No fee for IU sports Dear IU Trustees and Terry Clapacs, Raise the athletic fee $30 just to cut the budget deficit you made by way of your bad decisions? Yeah, right. It's not our fault our athletics department can't figure out how to budget money more carefully and negotiate contracts with competent individuals that won't end up screwing us over in the end. I enjoy IU athletics just as much as everyone else on this campus, but if you impose this $30 athletic fee on us, I can guarantee a mass boycott of the IU football program by students will only be the beginning of your worries. There are other ways to get rid of this debt, and imposing a $30 fee is not one of them. How about if you hand the case over to a class in the business school to tackle? They've probably got brighter ideas than the total wattage of the lights at Memorial Stadium. I urge you to consider carefully what you'd be doing to the students. We don't want to see IU sports suffer, but don't make us the bearer of the burden because you can't pay your bills.Jonathan Deck - Junior
Protect IU network users This week, the RIAA filed suits against hundreds of persons nationwide for alleged trading of copyrighted music, including five as of yet unnamed persons who access the Internet through the University's network. It is my hope that IU will follow the successful example of two other large providers of Internet access who have received such subpoenas, Verizon and SBC, and refuse to turn over the names of the persons charged by the RIAA without a court order based on a showing of evidence. Doing otherwise violates the privacy of those who use IU's network and makes a mockery of due process. According to the RIAA v. Verizon case archive maintained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found that such subpoenas are not authorized by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and allowed the company to protect the identity of its customers. SBC recently won a change of venue to have a similar case heard before the D.C. District Court and a similar finding is expected there. As a major provider of internet access, IU owes its students, faculty and staff the same level of privacy afforded to the customers of SBC and Verizon. For more information on the RIAA v. Verizon case, see www.eff.org/Cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/. Thank you,Pete Welsch - Graduate student
Marriage does not mandate children I am writing in response to Eric Wilson's homophobic and presumptuous statements on same-sex marriage. Theories of homosexuality and single parenting as unnatural, shameful, historically absent or inherently damaging, along with the ridiculous alignment of homosexuality with pedophilia, incest and polygamy, have been so thoroughly discredited that I will not dignify them with a response. The crux of Mr. Wilson's argument is apparently that the primary reason for marriage is to produce offspring and since gay sexuality does not "naturally" do so, same-sex couples ought to be denied marriage rights. What about straight couples who are incapable of conceiving "naturally" or who, God forbid, do not wish to be parents? Should marriage be denied to the infertile or to those unwilling to meet a reproductive quota? Mr. Wilson claims the gay community wants "marriage benefits applied to a situation that has never been considered marriage." On the contrary, many clergy perform same-sex unions with the blessings of their congregations and superiors, and gay couples have not suddenly begun living their lives together in the last 50 years. There are cities, states and nations that have taken steps to acknowledge a committed partnership between two adults of any gender should be seen equal in the eyes of the state. Marriage does not and should not mean the right to bear children. It means the right to visit one's spouse in the hospital and make decisions about his or her welfare. It means that one may insure care and benefits for one's spouse, during and after one's life. It means visibility and further legitimacy for an honorable and common practice that is not going to go away just because people like Mr. Wilson are afraid of it. It is clear that the continuing fights for same-sex marriage and parenting will be crucial to one another; however, it must be acknowledged that the decision to have children (or not) is one separate from the decision to marry. While all couples should be free to make these decisions, the acquisitions of these rights must be tackled one at a time.Elizabeth Ladd - Junior
Equalities, not extremes Recently, the IDS published a letter from a grad student on gay marriage and a story regarding a public debate on the same issue. Both the student and the former Reagan appointee-panelist use the same argument against gay marriage, which is one I simply don't get -- the extreme. Why is it that everyone against gay marriage uses the extreme examples of allowing incestuous couples, polygamists and pedophiles to marry -- oh, and I forgot about marrying a dog. Is this their best argument? The student also says that we are trying to push our values on him. Actually, we gay people are not. We simply want equality, not special rights. Supporting gay marriage does not open the gates to the extremes like marrying trees or dogs or siblings. Why couldn't the definition of marriage be "between two consensual people?" As the former President of the IU College Republicans and a White House intern under Bush (41), I am saddened and angered to hear President Bush (43) supports an amendment that would actually take rights away from people. I have since switched parties even though there are Democrats who support the amendment. I simply want the same rights for my partner and me that other couples have. Marriage is a legal contract that can also be a religious bond. That is up to the individuals. My marrying my partner in no way hurts anyone else in any tangible way -- just as no interracial marriage has ever tangibly hurt any other person. >p align="right">Christian Carroll '91 - Bloomington
