Misleading Argument

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The Harvard Crimson is renowned for discussing controversial issues within the Harvard community. It is also famous for only presenting one side's views, namely, that side's views which happen to agree with those of The Crimson's editorial staff. Holly Idelson's book review/editorial. "Extraordinary Politicians," is an excellent example of this type of one-sided presentation. Because Ms. Idelson's review of the Right-to-Life movement contains so many half-truths and illogical arguments, it is hard to know where to begin if one wishes to sot the record straight. But, in the interest of presenting the "opposite side" of a complex issue, try I must:

1. There are a great number of Catholics who are anti-abortion without being members of the Right-to-Life political movement. Certainly, we consider abortion to be a moral outrage, and take that fact into consideration when casting our votes. We are not, however, single-issue voters; I myself abhor the single-interest politics that is exemplified by the pro-lifers and most other special-interest groups. So one must remember that the political pro-life movement that is the subject of Ms. Idelson's review is neither representative nor typical of most anti-abortionists. There are over 40 million Catholics in this country, the majority of whom oppose abortion; the right-to-life movement can count at most a few million adherents.

2. The idea that anti-abortionists have taken single-issue politics to a new extreme is ludicrous. Many other groups have already pushed that extreme to the point where it is inconceivable that it could be pushed farther. Witness the NRA--for years, all it has had to do is wave its mailing lists under Congressmen's noses and support for every gun-control bill has mysteriously dried up. Labor union groups have generated support ton the most idiotic measures--witness the projectionist domestic-content bill, which even The Crimson opposes, and yet is supported by nearly every major Democratic Presidential candidate. And when Ms. Idelson refers to Ellen McCormack, the pro-lifer who ran for President, she should remember the anti-war activists who ran for elected office during the Vietnam War, and the Black candidates, including would-be Presidential candidate Rev. Jesse Jackson, who are beginning to assert their political power. Like most people, I detest all special-interest groups; to single out the anti-abortion movement in an attempt to defame it is capricious, malicious, and an excellent example of the adage "People in glass houses..."

3. What is most objectionable about Ms. Idelson's review is her reference to the pro-lifers' supposed "consistent disregard for the ultimate well-being of the mother or the fetus." Ms. Idelson is completely right in saying that the mother's "right" to an abortion and the fetus's right to life stand in contradiction my compliments to her for such a lucid observation. Simply put, anti-abortionists, for logical reasons, have chosen to favor the fetus's right over the mother's. To say, however, that we therefore "discount the concerns of the living" is an act of journalistic or editorial hyperbole. Of the two parties involved, the mother and the fetus, only the mother has any choice in the matter of whether or not to get an abortion, or the ability to represent herself. Anti-abortionists have constantly supported the mother's right to use birth control or discretion in her sexual affairs. The time for careful debate and responsible decision is before sex, not after it. Anti-abortionists are not disregarding the rights of women; rather, we are merely representing the rights of those who cannot represent themselves in any possible capacity. The rights of both the fetus and the responsible mother can, and should, coexist. The attempt to introduce respect for the rights of all human beings responsibly enhances the value placed on human life instead of cheapening it, as Ms. Idelson would like to claim).

Personally, I believe that the fervor of the pro-life movement will eventually burn out; at the same time. I also believe that our society will evolve to such a point that the concern for human life will make abortion a socially and morally objectionable practice, as well as useless. In the meantime, responsible debate on the issue of abortion should continue; articles like Ms. Idelson's, however, only serve to mislead and confuse, instead of instruct and enlighten. Michael T. Matthews '85