Letters

Insert correctly depicts abortion As a
physician, I tip my hat to the “LoveMatters.com” insert
in the Daily Bruin on Nov. 29 for publicly stating what
pharmaceutical and medical science has known for some time, i.e.
that combination contraceptives can, in fact, cause abortions. Any
Physician Desk Reference over the past few years gives evidence of
this. Take Lo/Ovral, for example. The PDR states: “Although
the primary mechanism is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations
include changes in … the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood
of implantation).” If one accepts that conception begins at
fertilization and that abortion is termination of a product of
conception, then these contraceptives do indeed result in
abortions, and are estimated to do so millions of times each year,
at least as many as by surgical abortion by conservative estimates.
The Hippocratic oath, written circa 400 BC, is an oath physicians
have taken for nearly two and a half millennia. It states: “I
will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any
such counsel; furthermore I will not give to a woman an instrument
to produce abortion. With purity and holiness I will pass my life
and practice my art.” It was indeed this original Hippocratic
oath that I and the rest of my class took upon graduating from the
UCLA School of Medicine in 1984. Hippocrates’ purpose in
writing the oath was to establish a higher level of physician
conduct which would separate his school from the prevailing, but
relativistic, medical standards of the day. It would behoove
physicians in our new millennium of medical care to remember what a
solemn oath really says, and what it means when we say it.

Fritz Baumgartner,MD Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery
Harbor-UCLA Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery, UCLA School of
Medicine

Insert offensive and biased I am a day reader
of the your publication, the Daily Bruin, and while I understand
that you have a need for advertising revenue, I feel the insert
placed in your paper on Wednesday, Nov. 29, was completely
ridiculous. “LoveMatters.com” was full of silly
right-wing propaganda and statistics that had clearly been tampered
with. I once believed that yours was an objective publication, but
this belief quickly diminished as I read about the
“sins” and “dangers” associated with birth
control, and how Hispanic women are more likely to experience
condom failure. The insert, obviously published by a group of
conservative Christians, portrayed college students as being
blindly lustful and completely ignorant. It was, I believe, a
complete waste of time and money for everyone who designed, wrote,
or read it. My opinion is supported by your election poll
(“UCLA students
favor Al Gore,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Nov. 8), which
showed that about 75 percent of student voters at UCLA marked their
ballots in favor of a liberal president. I hope you received an
enormous sum of money from the publishers of this self-righteous
waste of trees. Perhaps those dollars will compensate for the
colossal amount of respect you have lost from me and the many other
outraged students I spoke with last Wednesday. The purpose of my
letter is not to request a completely liberal newspaper, but
instead to encourage you to handle your publishing in an unbiased
and intelligent manner.

Seth Laursen Fourth-year Theatre

Rivalry simply fun part of college experience
Why has “fun” become a negatively connoted word? As
students at UCLA who work hard daily to get good grades,
don’t we deserve some time to play hard too? One of the ways
that students are able to have fun and get crazy is to get involved
in the Beat ‘SC Week rivalry. During Beat ‘SC Week,
faculty and students alike are united with one common mind-set
““ that UCLA is the superior school with the superior football
team. It serves to eliminate Big School Syndrome for about a week,
as there is an air of togetherness at UCLA that is not present at
any other time. That being said, why is it necessary to downplay
the purposes of Beat ‘SC Week? Nicole Seymour contends in her
column, ““˜Beat
‘SC’ hostilities foster ignorance, violence,”
(News, Dec. 4), that “the inherent chauvinism of (a college
rivalry) can lead to the glorification of violence, an atmosphere
of hostility and plain old stupidity.” First, I’m not
making the connection between chauvinism and rivalry. Is that to
suggest that rivalries are inherently masculine? If so,
doesn’t that demean females, in that you are suggesting that
we are not competitive and aggressive enough to have rivalries and
competitions? In reading about Seymour’s opinion of the car
smash, I was disappointed that she didn’t go to the Student
Alumni Association’s president or the president of the Campus
Spirit committee who organize the activities, in order to clear up
any confusion about the event. As a member of last year’s
Campus Spirit Committee, I can tell you a few things about the car
smash last year. The car used is one that we get from a scrap yard,
either donated completely for free, or one we have to pay a small
fee for. We try to get the car in red because, as we all know,
‘SC’s colors are red and gold. The car has some parts
already removed, reducing the danger. When the event is over, the
junk yard takes the car back and uses it however they see fit. The
yards are businesses. If they had parts inside the car that they
wanted to sell for scrap, they have all the right to remove those
parts before the smash. Also, there is no definitive proof that the
parts that they will sell are damaged in the car smash. The fact
that the car was a Saab had nothing to do with some kind of
reverse-classist symbolism. Sometimes a Saab is just a Saab.
Seymour makes a point of saying that we’re all students at
“privileged, prestigious universities.” Why then say
that one would feel the inclination to burglarize or vandalize
simply by being inundated with the slogan “Revenge is
Bruin?” Of the cases of vandalism and burglary that Seymour
points out, she mentions only those committed by USC students. It
in no way supports her claim of the propaganda leading to
mischievous and criminal behavior by those who are surrounded by
the Beat ‘SC Week slogans. College is the last time in which
we can be carefree and enjoy ourselves fully before we enter
“the real world.” To become immersed in a harmless
rivalry for one week is not the end of the world. I’m sure
there are many UCLA students who do volunteer work and donate money
to worthwhile organizations. That doesn’t mean their
volunteer organizations should run their entire lives. Fun and work
don’t always have to be intermingled. Showing mindless and
heartfelt devotion to UCLA football (and athletics in general) for
a week won’t mean the collapse of CALPIRG or WYSE.

Trisha Ranney Second-year Sociology and women’s
studies

Politicians fight to win regardless of party
While I agree that Election “Day” has gone on a bit too
long and has made a circus out of our country’s election
system, I disagree with what I viewed as Simon Perng’s
attempt in his submission “Gore’s
behavior, tactics unacceptable,” (Viewpoint, Dec. 4) to
use this as a reason to herald the Republican party, which may just
happen to be the ultimate victor in this whole mess. Until Perng
(or any other Republican) can prove to me that, had the tables been
turned, George W. Bush and his associates would not have reacted in
a similar fashion to the confused election results, it is
ridiculous to use this election as a way to laud the merits of
Republicans. The players in this election are acting like
politicians: they refuse to give in, and they will fight in any way
possible. Blaming this election catastrophe on the alleged
obstinance and underhandedness of Democrats is the same as saying
that Watergate occurred because a Republican was in office at the
time. Unfortunately, it appears that Gore may have to give in some
time soon, but not as a “sore-loser” Democrat. Rather,
he will be surrendering as a politician who put up a fight because
the next President of the United States is being chosen based on a
handful of votes in Florida. Such a situation is difficult for
anyone (Republican or Democrat) to be “magnanimous”
about.

Jessica Langenhan Fourth-year Physiological
Science