A debate waged in The Chronicle's editorial pages over abortion rights in general would be a heady one indeed. Unfortunately, the letter written by the members of Duke Students for Life made no attempt to address this controversial issue. Instead, these 39 individuals attacked what they have errantly marked as the victimizer of pregnant individuals and unborn fetuses-abortion pill RU-486.
The greatest fault in this scapegoating is the fallacy it is based upon. As reported in the Oct. 5 issue of The New York Times, RU-486 has in no way diminished the emotional impact of abortion. In fact, employees in French clinics, where the pill has been used for more than 10 years, report the drug has a greater psychological impact because the patient is cognizant of the expulsion of fetal tissue. Duke Students for Life members themselves claimed that this chemical abortion is "the equivalent of delivering a seven-week-old baby." Their own declaration casts doubt on the previously asserted claim that a pill like RU-486 makes it possible to abort a fetus with little "inconvenience."
In the decade that the abortion pill has been in use in France, the number of abortions performed annually has remained the same. The only political dimension that this drug has changed is the method women use to terminate their pregnancy. Whether RU-486 or a surgeon's scalpel, the issue is clearly between preserving life and a woman's right to choose. Perhaps in their next letter, Duke Students for Life will challenge a constitutionally debated principle rather than the well-researched decision of the Food and Drug Administration.
Alison Haddock
Trinity '02
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.