Disgust for Smith's dishonesty

In response to UAF Students for Life founder Michael Smith's letter to the editor, published on Jan. 24, 2006, I intend make known my disgust with the intellectual dishonesty that Smith used to make his point.

I find it ironic that his letter attacks the Women's Center for the perceived fault of being unbiased, when by citing his position as founder of Students for Life, he is himself biased. I do not mind bias; what bothers me is the double standard represented. To Smith, it seems that bias is only acceptable if that bias is toward his viewpoints.

Second, Smith twice misrepresented a quote that he cited earlier in the letter, to the effect of making the quotes easier to attack. Attacking an argument the opposing side did not make in the hopes of earning credibility is a disgraceful tactic and is an insult to one's credibility. For example, Smith states that NOW implied that access to contraceptives results in a reduction in abortions. He proceeds to say that since abortions occur at all after contraceptives became available, that NOW's implication is false. Whereas, according to his own quote, NOW implied reduction, he attacks the implication that abortions would cease entirely. This is not the case, as contraceptives occasionally fail and rape can lead to undesired pregnancies that contraceptives cannot address. Smith proceeds to state that abortions cannot follow from careful consideration, as some women have had multiple abortions. According to Smith, NOW implied that "women who choose abortion do so after much careful consideration." This assertion and the existence of women who have had multiple abortions aren't in contention; one refers to the consideration after the sexual act, whereas the other refers to consideration beforehand. Furthermore, the statement probably wasn't global. There are doubtless women who show the same level of responsibility in sexuality as Smith does in debating.

Third, Smith uses the tactic of making an unjustified statement as if it was accepted. For instance, he equates "abortion" with "legal murder of an unborn child," without stating that it's his interpretation. Since murder is defined as an illegal killing, the term is inconsistent, and is obviously an emotional appeal. Elsewhere, Smith states that Roe v. Wade was an example of the court legalizing an immoral act. Being intelligent enough to exercise such deception, Smith should also be intelligent enough to realize that his morals aren't universal.

Finally, Smith makes an unjustified association between participation in conception with participation in pregnancy. I, being a man, realize that I have no means of understanding being pregnant, and don't claim otherwise. Contrary to Smith's implications, I don't feel that contributing a chromosome and then playing no part in the next nine months grants any right to dictate how those months proceed. I would hope that were I a potential father, the mother would choose to respect my viewpoint, but I am not so conceded as to state that I have any right to dictate anything.

In closing, I must sympathize with those on the "pro-life" side for having their viewpoints tarnished by Smith's deceitful and disgraceful choice to attack the honorable intentions of the Women's Center. I must also sympathize with the Center, for I imagine that dealing with such vile dishonesty must be a hard task to do for any length of time. I encourage those on both sides of this divide to show respect for the other's intelligence, and to trust that if your arguments are sound, there is no need for deception.

Christopher E. Granade

Open Letter to Alaska Legislatures

We (The People) must be very careful not to continue to create laws that will over burden our court system. There are so many criminals that are breaking and offending the rights of other individuals. No matter how hard they try, the law enforcement agencies can't keep up with their investigations of sexual offenders, murders, robberies, assaults, and other crimes created by individuals against other individual citizens of our great state of Alaska. Sometimes we forget the police are responsible for and protecting the rights of United States of America's citizens, young and old.

A 1975 Alaska Supreme Court ruling that allows the possession of up to four ounces of marijuana for home recreational use must not be overturned. We must seek to decriminalize the use of marijuana for home recreational use. We are using up our judicial resources to police law abiding citizens for use of marijuana. I encourage all members of the Alaska State Legislature to read Norm Stamper's Book "Breaking Rank." We must wage war on crime, not drugs. Although I do not agree with everything that Mr. Stamper writes about in his book, I do agree that as an American citizen, we must take a good look at what we are doing to our individual rights when we pass laws that infringe on the rights of other individual citizens. If someone is breaking the laws while under the influence of a mind-altering substance, they should be prosecuted for the offense to the fullest extent of the law! And, we already have laws in place at this time to accomplish this.

However, to all the proponents of measure HR 149, I say your regard for public safety is truly appreciated. But you were elected to protect and ensure the rights of individual citizens, not to overture or take away individuals freedoms. Please vote no to the proposed measure HR 149. It does not matter if I am a Democrat or a Republican, what matters is that I am an American, with rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America and granted by the Great State of Alaska Constitution.

Your Constituent,

Alfred Sellers

12060 Rushwood Circle

Anchorage, Alaska 99516

907-644-6224