Letter to Editor Rebuttal

By Kim Tenure

I wish to respond to the recent Letter to the Editor submitted by Mandi Magruder. It is in some ways useless to argue the first and main point that she makes in her letter that I, “missed of misconstrued several key points of Michelman’s lecture.” I attended the lecture with an open-mind and reacted appropriately and accurately to her language, key points, and delivery.

Let me also address that sarcasm is a perfectly legitimate tool that writers often utilize. I think this point is well illustrated, judging by the popularity and wide appeal of writers like Jon Stewart and Michael Moore, who make their careers off of sarcastic commentary. As someone who is quick to point out the sarcasm in my opinion piece, you might want to also examine your own letter which is dripping with it. I was particularly interested when Ms. Magruder wrote that, “one attends a lecture in order to hear another’s point of view, not to hear two different sides presented, although Michelman certainly did encourage discussion.” I was under the impression that one attends lectures in order to better understand the larger issue; regardless of viewpoints. I know that is why I was in the audience. I was under the same impression as Nicole—I expected a lecture focused on the issues, not an attack. As for interviewing more students with opposing viewpoints, the room cleared out really fast, but I did talk to Luke, Leanne, and Michelman herself.

Regarding my labeling her three examples as extreme, these types of situations represent a small percentage of why abortions are performed, so I felt her introducing them as the norm was unfounded. I find the argument hypocritical when Ms. Magruder commends Michelman for discussing abortion in a personal aspect as opposed to a political one, and then criticizes the audience for asking personal question, which she felt were unnecessary.

Addressing Michelman’s criticisms of both parties, telling one party that they need to embrace the pro-choice issue and another party that they need to get a life is vastly different in my opinion. She did point to extremist on the right wing controlling the Republican Party as well, and made it appear that the whole party is anti-choice. She did mention others issues in passing, but really they were only effective in making snide comments about the Republican politics.

Michelman did not explicitly answer Ryan Stauffer’s question because he asked her when she felt life began, a valid question regarding abortion. She circumnavigated the question by discussing other opinions and beliefs, not her own. Michelman personalized the lecture, so I don’t understand why she wouldn’t respond. Furthermore, the claim that Michelman came to speak about NARAL and the politics of the issue further contradicts the statement that, “Nothing is more personal than the decision to have an abortion, and that Michelman did not spend all her lecture focusing on the politics of abortion shows her to be a woman not completely immersed in the politics of a situation at the expense of the people around her to be a women not completely immersed in the politics of a situation at the expense of the people around whom the issue necessarily revolves.” She personalized the lecture, so a personal question is not crossing the line; she not only should have entertained it, but also should have provided response, which I think would have added to the lecture. Even though we might have had different viewpoints I would have respected her for saying, ‘well I think that life begins after the first trimester.’

Finally, about the statement that “criticized the groups that are against abortion as the same people who preach abstinence instead of prevention,” this was a criticism that Michelman made during her lecture, and here is where she included more attacks against the Republican standpoint; she finds it contradictory that a party that doesn’t support abortions also doesn’t support welfare, birth control or sex ed, according to Michelman’s characterization. This is a complete misconception about conservatives. Some may be pro-choice, and many support sex education in school. I agree that sex ed. should teach abstinence as well as protection and is important in schools. These are not “liberal” programs. This was a broad assumption made that was not correct.

Once again, I must point out the sarcasm with which you address this point. Michelman addressed other issues of sex ed., contraception, and welfare in a polarizing viewpoint and she commented on how the same group that though didn’t support abortion and supports “state enforced parenthood, and then ignore the cause of welfare. Again I find this a gross exaggeration.

The L&J Society should, in my opinion, have brought in two speakers to speak about the issues, one from each side of the political spectrum. They could have both discussed legal ramifications and really enriched the lecture. Also two speakers would have brought more views to the issue.