Student Life Archives

Goldstein’s ‘bizarre’ abortion piece

Dear Editor:

I am writing in regard to Roman Goldstein’s bizarre op-ed piece “A More Humane Alternative to Abortion” in the Jan. 26, 2004 Student Life. Mr. Goldstein’s argument rests on his belief that a fetus is a human being, and he points out that pro-choice advocates generally do not view fetuses in the same manner. In this assertion, he is more or less correct. What Mr. Goldstein does not recognize, however, is that abortion can be perfectly justified regardless of which view one holds regarding the status of a fetus. A human being cannot and should not be required to sustain another human being, particularly within one’s own body, if he/she does not consent to do so. Needless to say that the argument that becoming pregnant automatically means consent is obviously incorrect, as the women who wish to have abortions clearly will attest-it appears to be consent only for the people who do not have to make that choice. If Mr. Goldstein’s doctors told him that the only way he could survive (for the next 9 months) is through being hooked up to MY body (and mine only) day and night, Mr. Goldstein as a living human being (no argument there) has no right to use my body in such a way without my consent. A fetus has no such right either, regardless of how one may wish to classify it. A cannot make B’s rights disappear without B’s consent simply by proclaiming that A’s survival depends on B.

Furthermore, Mr. Goldstein’s infanticide idea is plain brilliant-except for at least one minor problem: since the baby is already born and no longer requires anything from the woman who gave it birth, having the mother kill it is actually murder. Perhaps the idea was tongue-in-cheek, but I’m glad that it actually served a very valuable purpose: it explicitly exhibited the difference between murder and abortion.

Julia Kreyskop
Class of 2003

Corrections:

1) Chi Omega was incorrectly reported to be the oldest sorority in the nation on Monday. It is actually the largest.

2) In Monday’s article entitled, “Prof arrested, released on abuse charges,” the headline should have indicated that the subject was an instructor, not a professor. Also, the description in the story of the subject’s job at the University should have been in the present tense.

Erasmus, a monk writing on war in the sixteenth century, ironically asked, “Whoever heard of a hundred thousand animals rushing together to butcher each other, as men do everywhere?” As I read over this question, I began to ponder the pretentious thinking of humans. We are quick to demean others by a degrading comparison to the lower animals (e.g. you are dumb as an ox, dirty like a pig, or better yet we can all remember our parents yelling at us to stop acting like a monkey or baboon). Yet only in science fiction books or movies do these animals ever have the ability to engage in the type of mass murder carried out regularly by humans during war.

These “less intelligent” animals do not have the capacity to destroy the earth many times over with nuclear weapons (as if once were not enough) or systematically engage in other forms of mass annihilation. We are quick to put our intellect, our wisdom, and more generally ourselves on a higher level than these animals, but I am beginning to question the validity of this assertion. Of course our science and technology put us on a higher level than these “dumb” animals, but the uses to which we have put this vast knowledge make me reconsider this apparently obvious conclusion. When we use our intelligence and ingenuity in modern warfare to destroy other human beings almost indiscriminately, I do not think we should feel easy about placing ourselves on this higher ground. The destruction of humankind appears on the horizon with weapons of mass destruction, yet we continue to have an unshakable belief in our unparalleled development of the modern world.

There is no denying humans have great potential, but I am saddened at our inability to deal with conflict in a constructive and meaningful way. How, with all of our advancement and ingenuity, are we trapped with violence, murder, and war as the only means to solve our differences? It appears mutual cooperation and understanding should increase just as our science and technology continue to improve.

When we are 5 years old, the only way we can begin to conceptualize dealing with a crisis is to use violence. Your brother stole your favorite He-man figurine, and in retaliation you punch him. While I do not condone violence between children, I find it more understandable than in adults, as children do not have the mental capacity to talk through their situation. However, as we evolve and mature, it appears that little changes in the way we deal with conflict. Einstein, seeming to understand this beautifully, asserted, “With the splitting of the atom everything has changed except our way of thinking.”

It is time to awake from the illusion of “reality” we have created. As I see it, there are two options. The first option involves embracing our higher wisdom and thus using our intellect for moral purposes to avoid the maiming, slaughter, and brutal killing involved in any war. We, as humans, have been given the potential capacity to deal with conflict in a constructive way and I believe it is our duty to employ this tool. However, if we choose to continue with violence and warfare, we should reconsider placing ourselves on a higher pedestal than other animals; in fact, I suspect there might even be a current opening available below them. If this is the course we choose, we should not be allowed to praise our superior intellect and wisdom because of the way we are endangering the entire human race and, just as importantly, the “lower” animals of this earth.

I watched Mr. Bush’s State of the Union Address last week. At the end I was left in a state of shock and awe.

I was awestruck by Bush’s characterization of the continuing war in Iraq. People continue to criticize his administration’s unilateral strategy and suggest that the U.S. internationalize the post-war government of Iraq. But Bush says, “This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq.” But the U.S. and Britain make up 90 percent of the coalition forces in Iraq. Countries like Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Slovakia, New Zealand, Lithuania, Estonia and Albania have committed fewer than 100 troops each. On the topic of international support for the Iraq War, Bush said “there is a difference . . . between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few.” Among the “many” nations who supported the war effort: countries like Uzbekistan and Colombia-not exactly human rights enthusiasts. Among the “few” who opposed the war: our old allies France and Germany. Nelson Mandela and the Pope also opposed the war. But they and the millions upon millions in the worldwide anti-war movement only amounted to a “few” in George W. Bush’s address.

I was stunned that Bush mentioned taking down countries that cultivate nuclear-I’m sorry-nucular weapons. Will we be invading North Korea anytime soon? If the War in Iraq taught our enemies anything, it was this: if you don’t want to be invaded by the U.S. then you had better acquire nuclear capabilities. Regarding the “War on Terrorism,” Bush vowed “one by one, we will bring the terrorists to justice”. Is Saudi Arabia on our “Invade List” now? And why don’t we ever hear about the terrorist we were all supposed to be concerned about-Osama bin Laden.

In the segment on domestic issues, I was taken aback that Bush mentioned the No Child Left Behind Act-a program that he underfunded in his own budget proposal. That’s right, the “Education President” underfunded the program by $8 billion and left the schools to make up the difference and simultaneously attempt to meet NCLB’s high standards. Yet he touted these unrealistic standards in the State of the Union address.

I was amazed to hear Bush outline his plan to exclude same-sex couples from the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy. He criticized “activist judges” who “have begun redefining marriage by court order.” I had no idea he felt such contempt for activist judges. What about the activist judges who put him in the White House against the will of the people? He didn’t mention that kind of judicial activism in the State of the Union Address.

Anyone who studies the history of the Supreme Court can find positive examples of activist judges contradict the will of the people, but simultaneously rule in favor of minority rights. Does Mr. Bush not realize that this is how our system of government works? He said, “If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage”. The sanctity of marriage cannot be defended by the government: it comes from the people. And as long as heterosexual people like Britney can get married and annulled in a matter of hours, a constitutional amendment based on bigotry should be Bush’s last concern.

Finally, I was shocked that he recommended funding school drug testing. He proposed “an additional 23 million dollars for schools that want to use drug testing as a tool to save children’s lives”. That’s just what I want: millions of dollars spent in order to pinpoint and ostracize drug users. I wish overzealous drug testers had nipped George W. Bush’s career in the bud. Then America wouldn’t have to listen to him lie for an hour every January.

Vote Democratic in 2004. I can’t stomach another State of the Union Address from Dubya.

Both President Bush and the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), Paul Bremer, have come under pressure this week from Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to institute direct elections for a Transitional National Assembly, opposing the U.S. plan for a caucus system to select the assembly. In a compromise, the UN has been invited to assess whether direct elections are possible. Bremer and Bush assert that Iraq will be democratic but have cautioned that because Iraq has lived under “three decades of tyranny,” instilling “deeply ingrained habits of distrust and fear” and “psychological damage” in the Iraq people, Iraq is not ready for full-fledged democracy yet.

Since the war began, I’ve heard this claim that “Iraq isn’t ready” numerous times and always wondered what people meant by it. When they say Iraq isn’t ready, I assume they mean the Iraqi people themselves; essentially, that there aren’t enough people in Iraq ready for democracy.

When Saddam Hussein was in power, 21 percent of the population was employed by the government, a government highly involved in the daily lives of its citizens, whether it be arresting them or distributing ration cards. The CPA has used many former members of Iraqi government agencies for administrative help, and with the quality and type of education in Iraq under Hussein comparable to that needed to run a bureaucracy, it can’t be said that there aren’t enough people in Iraq with the education necessary to fill the bureaucratic positions required of a democratic government.

Despite their education, democracy in Iraq would still depend on the ability of these trained bureaucrats to respect freedom. Bush has announced to the world that “Iraq is free” and that Iraqis are freedom-loving people who were oppressed for years by a ruthless dictator, so it seems that there are enough people in Iraq that are willing to uphold freedom, assuming of course they can get over those nasty, “ingrained habits.”

Another assumption of this not-ready-yet attitude is that the word “democracy” is an unambiguous term, with a clear definition of the relationship between state and citizen (and occupier). A quick look at the differences in this relationship among democracies of the world, however, dashes any hopes for a concrete definition. So, when U.S. officials claim Iraq isn’t yet ready for democracy, they can really only mean that Iraq isn’t ready for a specific type of democracy, in this case, the type envisioned by Paul Bremer and the United States.

What is this vision? Naomi Klein of The Guardian sums up it for us: “Bremer wants his Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to appoint the members of 18 regional organizing committees. These will then choose delegates to form 18 selection caucuses. These will then select representatives to a transitional authority assembly. The assembly will have an internal vote to select an executive and ministers, who will form the new government…Iraqi sovereignty will be established by appointees appointing appointees to select appointees to select appointees.”

Sound a little on the top-down side? I thought so too, but to be sure I visited CPA’s website (www.cpa-iraq.org) to see how much say Bremer, that first appointer, has. Essentially, he’s the ultimate authority, with power to repeal and issue Regulations and Orders. These Regulations and Orders, including appointing members of the CPA, are only passable under his signature, and “take precedence over all other laws.”

Despite Bush’s talent for lumping the individuals of Iraq into “the Iraqi people” or even better, personifying the name of the nation itself as the prime actor now behind changes in Iraq, one can hardly believe that this transitional assembly under the caucus system will truly represent Iraqis. Instead of the assembly being run by Iraqis as a whole, (keep in mind this assembly’s responsibility is the write the constitution, a pretty important document), it would in fact be more representational of Iraqi’s who are at the mercy of one man, a non-Iraqi named Paul Bremer.

Some may wonder how we got here. How can Bush’s vision of the foundation of a nation be so contradictory to the United States’ own, bottom-up, national narrative? (Imagine if George Washington was appointed by and the constitution was written by a group of men appointed by an ambassador of Sultan Mustafa III, head of the Ottoman Empire.) Obviously, this would be a complicated explanation, (possibly involving uranium from Africa?), but for starters, maybe we could demand explanations from Bush explaining why Iraqis can’t have direct elections for this assembly that don’t refer to psychological qualities of abstract entities.

Last Monday, Student Life reported that the cost of attending Washington University as an undergraduate has risen to $40,838. Extrapolating to four years, and (wrongly) accounting for no future increases, the cost of a Washington University degree, then, has risen to $163,335. For those of us whose tuition is not being paid for by members of the Chancellor’s Parents’ Council, our potential debt load also has risen dramatically. This situation is not merely hypothetical-as a senior graduating with substantial debt, I am forced to consider myself lucky when compared to a friend who already owes well over $100,000.

I went to the (ironically) free Loan Repayment Calculator at the public service website FinAid.org and punched the numbers. Beginning with a total debt load of $163,335, adding a very generous interest rate of 4 percent, spreading the terms of the loan over the standard ten years, and allowing for the $50 minimum monthly payment demanded on Stafford Loans, the results generated are enough to make any sane person seriously wonder if the full ride she turned down at the state college might have been a more humane option.

It doesn’t take FinAid long to calculate misery: With a monthly loan payment of $1,653.69, “It is estimated that you will need an annual salary of at least $198,442.80 to be able to afford to repay this loan. This estimate assumes that 10 percent of your gross monthly income will be devoted to repaying your student loans. If you use 15 percent of your gross monthly income to repay the loan, you will need an annual salary of only $132,295.20, but you may experience some financial difficulty.” A student with a total debt load of $80,000-about average among my friends-can rest much easier. At 22-years-old with only a bachelor’s degree, an annual salary of $97,195.20 should do the trick.

Meeting the minimum requirements of merely $100-200K per year casts a serious shadow on the job listings sent out by the Career Center in today’s email. Unless our nation’s priorities have shifted drastically overnight, it seems rather doubtful that “National Multiple Sclerosis Society – Program Department Intern” or “City of Long Beach – Management Assistant Program” will fit the bill.

Graduate studies only further exacerbate the problem. At a school like Washington University where so many of us consider the A.B. to be only the first initials to eventually complete our signatures, we can anticipate as many as two, three, four, or six years of graduate debt to add to the total owed. The virtues of higher education cannot be understated. But neither can the reality of student debt.

Rather, the exorbitant debt load encouraged by the University and private lenders-“Invest in your future!”-exists to serve alternate ends. Facing monthly payments of over $1000, the student is effectively left with only two options: abandoning dreams and embarking instead on the career path of the corporate whore, or refinancing and consolidating loans (have you checked your mail recently?) to spread payments into the indefinite future. No cause for alarm-our $163,335 debt load spread over forty years will only require an annual salary of $81,916.80.

Looks like our two options converge into one.

The extraordinary generosity of our friends at Sallie Mae, Citibank, and Student Financial Services comes as a direct result of a federal government that chooses to decimate education funding in favor of weapons systems. And this fulfils a larger goal, too: when the poorest among the best and the brightest face such an insane debt load, they are forced to turn away from the arts, humanities, and public service and instead consider only the virtues of business and the sciences.

And that, in turn, helps our friends at Olin, Monsanto, and Boeing with their own extraordinary generosity.