Apparently the editors of the Collegian hold the lives of violent murderers in higher regard than the lives of the innocent. In a Monday, Jan. 23 column titled "Roe v. Wade: Women's right" the editorial board claims that it is illogical to want to protect the lives of the unborn "while supporting deadly wars and the death penalty."
It is ironic that the editors would make such a criticism in an article that is plagued with illogical arguments. They call abortion an issue of privacy, one that "has implications beyond a woman's right to do what she chooses with her body."
To think that abortion is an issue of privacy is irrational. Privacy does not involve imposing your will on another human being.
Furthermore, the writers fail to see the lack of logic in claiming that a woman's offspring is part of her body. The editors could not possibly believe this to be true unless, like most pro-abortionists, they have no knowledge of or regard for biological facts.
Because a fetus has its own heart (which begins beating about 22 days after conception), its own brain and its own set of genetic information, it cannot possibly be part of the woman's body.
The development of a human begins at fertilization and continues until adulthood. Birth does not mark the beginning of life; it is simply the transition from one environment to the next. Therefore it is much more rational to think that human life begins at fertilization, when the process of human development begins.
The editorial board continues its string of illogical opinions by arguing that because abortion cannot be eliminated, it should not be illegalized. It is true that nothing will fully eliminate the practice of abortion. Illegalizing it will only greatly decrease its incidence. A service that is illegal is more difficult to obtain, and so fewer people will obtain it. So illegalizing abortion would not save all the more than 1 million lives claimed each year by abortion; it might only save hundreds of thousands of them.