By Angelica Leicht
By Jeff Balke
By Sean Pendergast
By Sean Pendergast
By Jeff Balke
By Ben DuBose
By Ben DuBose
By Sean Pendergast
Anti-abortion wackos: I don't think you will have to worry about anyone accusing you of being "fair and balanced" ["Go, Baby, Go," by Michael Serazio, October 2]. This article was nothing more than an ad for yet another sick group of people. They fall into the category of "we are going to make you see just how important life is -- even if we have to kill you to make our point."
Like all of these wacko groups, they denounce violence with one hand while applauding it with the other. Abortion should be of concern to the individual involved. This is yet another sick religious group trying to force its views on others. Shame on the Pressfor giving it a forum.
Dr. Leroy Osmon
Applauding activism: I remember a generation ago when I was deciding where to go to college, and a recruiter from MIT told me that I could count on being confronted by ideas that I disagreed with, and the experience of many students there was to change their beliefs as a result.
Indeed, that is part of the reason to go to a university: to learn new things. If in so learning, young people decide to change their minds about an issue, so be it.
The University of Houston has a long history of activism on campus. I have heard it opined that the Iranian revolution of the '70s actually began among the 7,000 or 8,000 Iranian students at UH at the time. During the time I was there in the mid-'80s for grad school, I think the biggest debate on campus was either "Less filling vs. tastes great" or "Where should I park?"
More power to the kids who are renewing the spirit of campus activism. The images they are displaying will certainly make people shout, but they will also make many of them think. It was the images of Vietnam bloodshed that hastened the end of American involvement in the war. I believe that the images of the current bloodshed will lead to the end of the tragedy of abortion in America.
Confused crusaders: I picked up the Houston Press and thought, "I can't believe they put that on the cover."
I'm all for young people having a cause, conviction or calling, as it were, but I think perhaps they need to examine their fight more closely.
I worked with two women who were sisters -- one quite promiscuous and the other a hard-core Bible thumper. The former had at least six abortions, and the latter conducted "prayer groups" in the cafeteria. How they came from the same household, I have absolutely no idea. On one day in particular, the first was "out sick" (getting an abortion) and the religious one felt the need to discuss her sister's questionable morals.
It reminds me of the young Irish girl who was not allowed a legal, safe abortion and instead attempted suicide. Legal or not, women will seek abortions as long as people are having sex without birth control. So the flippant statements made by Saenz and Tullos could not be more off-base.
To the girls' credit, I was pleased to read that they do not agree with clinic bombings or the murders of abortion doctors. But they are educated college students and already knew that. Besides, that would make them bad Christians.
Time for the other side:I am pro-choice, but I do respect the ideals of those who want to be pro-life. However, what I do not respect is the way they try to convince the world that abortion is killing and it's so wrong. I have kids whom I love with all my heart, but if things had happened under other circumstances and my kids were not wanted, I would have gone and had an abortion done.
I can actually say that I am more pro-choice now. I know how hard it is to raise kids even when you want them. Why should anybody be forced to have a child if it is not wanted? Things are bad enough in society; why should we bring more kids into the world to suffer, to be hated and unwanted? Why not take the chance to give a better life to those who are really wanted?
And also, why do you have to portray those pictures in such an unnatural way? We don't know if they are all true, as was stated in the article.
Given that you have portrayed the pro-life forces, why not portray the pro-choice side, which is suffering so much with the new laws that the conservatives are proposing and approving?
Back to the quacks: Once again you have a group of women and men who never have been put in the place of an unwanted pregnancy. As a day-care owner of 15 years, I couldn't tell you the number of abuse and neglect cases that I've seen -- that if given the choice, the child would have been better off had their "mother" made another choice.
These girls did not grow up in the '70s with the back-alley abortion quacks and watch young "good" women from affluent families be butchered by these quacks because there was no choice before Roe v. Wade. There are still plenty of us out here who will fight these pro-life people to the end. Let them carry and raise all of the unwanted children in America that would have been better off as an abortion.
Religion and rights: As a longtime activist in the debates over reproductive rights, I have often observed that anti-choice protesters are Christian. In a city as diverse as Houston, and certainly on a campus as diverse as UH, I am interested in hearing the opinions of anti-choice non-Christians and, more specifically, how their opinion is or is not based on their religious views.
Removed from reality:I thank you for the article. You have rendered with poignant accuracy the fact that not only are the anti-choice people (three in the article) completely detached from the issue, they are also quite fanatic in their stance.
The two women do not date because it is "practice for divorce," one of them was "called by God," and the third anti-choice member is a man (who, I'm sorry, cannot truly understand the concept of having another being grow inside you). The two women cannot in any way relate to a woman being pregnant since, in their safe world of Bibles and abstinence, the possibility would appear only through immaculate conception.
The fact is that anti-choice closes the doors to dialogue, and it judges events, people, circumstances and feelings completely separate from them. To say it plainly, they ain't got a clue!
Furthermore, the comment regarding women and hangers was disgusting, considering the number of horrific deaths caused by botched abortions and back-alley operations. Pro-life? Whose life?!
Maria Vittoria Garbino
Best of the Worst
No tagger tributes: I am a regular reader of the Houston Press, which effectively removes me from any right-wing mantle, and I usually enjoy the Best of Houston issue [September 25]. However, I was surprised to see the Best Graffiti Artist category, complete with a glowing tribute to some jerk who is responsible for blatant vandalism that damages the city's image and costs taxpayers thousands of dollars to repair.
I doubt that any responsible members of the community admire seeing that crap, and I expect the Press to be slightly more civic-minded than this. But if not, why do something only halfway? Why not laud other environmental criminals by adding such categories as Best Litterer and Best Toxic Waste Dumper?
And you could go a step further and honor more serious criminals with Best Child Molester or Best Serial Rapist. Criminals, however petty, get enough notoriety from the media without help from you guys. How about using a little better judgment?
Name withheld by request