Letters

Thursday, November 13, 1997

LETTERSFood was always bad

Hala Ali’s Nov. 11 article, "Hershey Hall food problems ire
residents," is old news. I was a resident of Hershey Hall from 1991
to 1993, and during those two years I was severely traumatized by
the substandard dining conditions there. Not only was the Hershey
cafeteria teeming with graduate students (ugh!), but item-for-item,
the food was just so much worse than the food in the undergraduate
dorms. I don’t recall hair, mold or chicken necks, but I do recall
being hungry again about an hour after every Hershey dinner.
Eventually, my own self-respect forced me to walk up the hill every
night for dinner. The article mentions "lack of attention" as a
possible reason for the "poor living conditions" in Hershey. News
flash: it’s always been that way. How many days till they tear down
that slum?

Chris Putro

1995 alumnus

Fuzzy logic

Andres Chang’s article on abortion in the Nov. 7 Daily Bruin
("Killing fetuses inhumane") is nothing short of a total
embarrassment to me and to any sensible student at UCLA, regardless
of their position on abortion. How this biased, uncritical and
shoddy piece of editorial journalism ever made it into this
newspaper is hard to imagine. Is everyone asleep at The Bruin?
Chang claims to have done research into the issue of abortion, yet
he is clearly guided by his biases, never stepping outside of his
own preconception to try to look at this issue critically.

Chang never mentions that the notion of personhood, or when
exactly a cluster of cells becomes a human, is determined by
culture. In some cultures a child is not even considered a person
until it is no longer nursing (around three years old), and only
then is the child named. Chang writes that the fetus is a "living
breathing human." Actually fetuses do not "breathe." There is no
breathing going on in the womb. The fetus receives oxygen through
something called the umbilical cord, through the mother. The fetus
is entirely dependent on the mother. How is a fetus, which is
completely dependent on the mother, equal to a person? Chang
writes, "Every person is just as important as the next one." The
"person" that Chang refers to is a cluster of cells no larger than
a dime, in the case of most abortions. Chang uses the term "fetus"
repeatedly, which conjures up images of a humanly shaped being,
when he should be using the term zygote and embryo, neither of
which resemble a human that he would be able to recognize. To say
that an unborn and dependent human has the same humanity and rights
as an independent person is far fetched. Is potential for human
life the same thing as human life? Does it deserve the same kind of
rights as those of us who actually are breathing? In order for
Chang to convince me of anything he is going to have to provide
some evidence. The question of when life begins is not something
that humans are capable of knowing. Is abortion really more cruel
than the cruelties suffered at the hands of reluctant parents? What
about overpopulation? Overpopulation is a very real concern which
is constantly ignored. Is a planet which has too many people and
not enough food a humane existence?

Chang actually refers to abortion as "murdering an innocent
child." But there is no child involved in an abortion. A "child"
has a more developed brain and body than the tissue removed in an
abortion. "Murder" is a term we generally use for evil intents.
Women who have abortions generally do not have evil intents.

Chang writes, "Birth is birth and life is life." This
fallacious, fuzzy, black and white thinking is the obstacle to
solving many problems. It is an erroneous type of logic, which is
narrow-minded and limits intelligent thought.

I am also shocked at an article that came out in the last few
weeks (which unfortunately I don’t have in front of me) in which
Chang loosely threw around the word "feminism." Hello! This is not
a word that one can loosely throw around these days. What does
feminism mean ? There is militant feminism, post feminism,
anti-feminist feminism, dworkinian feminism, post-post feminism,
etc. In addition to throwing this word around, Chang wrote
(something to the effect that) when men, his "brothers," fantasize
about having sex with a girl or a woman, he is violating her as
well as his "mother," "sister," etc. Maybe your journalist needs to
take Introduction to Psychology or a human sexuality class (as well
as a biology, anthropology and critical thinking class). These
thoughts are totally normal in both men and women. It is actually
totally healthy.

I do not wish to attack this journalist personally. I am sure
his intentions are good. I do not have a problem with his opinion;
I have a problem with the way it has been haphazardly put forth. I
would expect that the editors at The Bruin would require their
writers to define nebulous terms when their article revolves around
that term (i.e. feminism, fetus, brain-waves). I would also expect
that the editors would require their writers to examine their own
biases before writing an emotional paper on a controversial
subject. Once again I am thoroughly disgusted with both articles. I
sincerely hope that The Bruin can do better in the future so that I
do not have to hide this newspaper from my non-UCLA friends. I
would really like to hear a response from the editors responsible
for the publication of the two articles that I have mentioned in
this letter.

Malia Damon

Third-year

English