Paul Seberger does an excellent job in his letter on Monday of proving Jocelyn Marcus’ point on abortion.Seberger tires to point out the “contradiction” in Marcus’s article but never bothers to read it past the first column. Seberger claims that Marcus “condemns people that call abortion murder yet recognizes support for abortion in instances of rape, incest and mother endangerment.” Perhaps Mr. Seberger can hurry and get into an English 105 class this semester to learn the basic points of reading and forming an argument.The first problem is that recognizing something does not equate to supporting it. I recognize lots of bad things happen in the world, like murder, killing and racism. However, I do not support these things.Second, Ms. Marcus is pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of people who claim abortion is murder and then say, “but it’s OK in these instances.”If all life is sacred and all unborn children are alive and deserve life, how can you say that it is OK in the case of rape, incest and mother endangerment? Are those babies not alive? Do they not deserve a chance at life as well? No, you say? Well, then apparently all life isn’t sacred if there are exceptions and abortion is OK.Seberger’s next and only rational point is to take one’s self out of their shoes. So I imagine myself out of my own position, but imagine my shock at what I did see. I saw a group of people who were against Social Security, welfare, Medicare, food stamps, Headstart, school lunch and a googol of other social programs designed to help people who don’t have the money to support their child. I see a group of people who only care about a child until it’s born and after that they don’t want to see it, take care of it or help it. I see a group of people who aren’t pro-life; I see a group of people who are anti-woman.Blaine Moyle

Junior

English