Amid Boston Overdose Crisis, a Pair of Harvard Students Are Bringing Narcan to the Red Line
At First Cambridge City Council Election Forum, Candidates Clash Over Building Emissions
Harvard’s Updated Sustainability Plan Garners Optimistic Responses from Student Climate Activists
‘Sunroof’ Singer Nicky Youre Lights Up Harvard Yard at Crimson Jam
‘The Architect of the Whole Plan’: Harvard Law Graduate Ken Chesebro’s Path to Jan. 6
On Jan. 28, a Flyby Blog headline read, “Harvard Debates Life on Other Planets.” Unfortunately, in her Jan. 31 op-ed arguing for abortion rights, “Rethinking the Right to Choose,” Katie Zavadski ’13 refuses to debate it on this one.
“It’s time to talk about abortion as a medical procedure and not get caught up in the rhetoric,” Zavadski declares. Having decided that abortion is merely a medical procedure, she notes that “it would be utterly unacceptable” to oppose blood transfusions and wonders why there is such a different attitude when it comes to terminating pregnancies. Since “we can agree that everyone should have access to quality medical care,” Zavadski reasons, we should all embrace government support for abortion.
Her utter confusion about the opposition to her beliefs is pretty easy to straighten out. Ultimately, only the debate over the beginning of human life matters. Nowhere does Zavadski argue that her opponents are wrong to think that the unborn are human beings, yet she is baffled by their support for banning abortion and accuses them of “misrepresenting the truth” about it.
What is Ms. Zavadski referring to as “the truth”? Evidently, her own rhetoric and unsupported assertions.
Matthew P. Cavedon ‘11
Jan. 31, 2011
Matthew P. Cavedon ’11 is a Comparative Study of Religion concentrator in Quincy House.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.