On Wednesday, Feb. 20, I passed the courtyard outside of Popejoy Hall after finishing an early morning class. To my horror, I was met with the most disturbing and grizzly images I have ever witnessed. I left in tears, with a brochure in hand, hoping that I could simply forget what I saw.
Last week, the death penalty came up often during debates at the Justice For All display.
Allow me to briefly respond to Sari Krosinsky's accusation in Monday's Daily Lobo that I believe a man ought to have the right to force a woman to get an abortion as an enforcement of the man's right to control his own reproduction.
Michael Moore has a new a book out, which means - among other things - that there will be ample opportunities to see the highest paid slob in America on television in the near future. Without trying I have already seen Mr. Moore on shows ranging from The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News to The Daily Show on Comedy Central, as he promotes the "on-dead-tree" manifestation of his particular brand of politics.
UNM has set a dangerous precedence by allowing the recent display of billboard-sized graphic art in the public domain.
We live in a world full of ideas. Some we agree with, some we don't. The abortion exhibit recently displayed by Justice for All certainly brought a number of ideas to the surface; ideas of choice, freedom, responsibility, autonomy, control, life and death.
I have a friend and former roommate who has a penchant for reading Cosmo. Every now and then, I must confess, I felt compelled to borrow her copy. Call it a morbid sense of humor.
Craig Butler's Feb. 20 column, "Ectogenesis solution to abortion," is off the mark.
Despite working in a trade that, at times, has been about as well-respected as ambulance-chasing lawyers, thousands of people throughout the world mourned the death of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl last week.
I opened the Lobo this morning to find it full of letters from angry and disturbed students protesting the Justice for All exhibit. Words like "distasteful," "negative," "nauseating" and "hypocritical" were used liberally to describe the exhibit.
This small note is in regards to the letters written by an individual who claims to be a Republican and Catholic.
The saying, "What we don't know can't hurt us," must have been said by a man who had a lot to hide. There is a new version of this saying, embodied in how our society produces mountains of wasted paper as forests disappear and people get sick. What we don't know, or care to know, does not seem to matter until we lose our jobs to people who relish in greed.
Here we are again at another crossroad in the debate of free speech. I support the right of pro-life organizations to present their side, but I am disgusted that they use scare-tactics and present false information to convey their point. Furthermore, I have a problem with the tolerance the University has given this exhibit, and I would like to point out several reasons why.
One of the predominant missions of the United States since it became an imperialist power at the turn of the 20th century has been to proliferate democracy. Understandably, this mission is flexible, as the exigencies of global politics sometimes put democracy on the backburner.
The "display" on UNM is another example of radical extremism demonstrating total ignorance. The graphic depictions of aborted fetuses are nauseating and repulsive, just like many radical ideologies that fail miserably to address true justice and fairness.
Pro-choice, pro-life. Everyone seems to think the issue solely concerns a woman's right to control her own body and a fetus' - let's call it what it is people - right to life.
Solutions by The State News
