“With great power comes great responsibility.” Stan Lee wrote this in Spiderman’s debut comic in Amazing Fantasy #15, three decades ago.

Today, it applies still, and to more than hokey cartoon characters or ’60s spider-people.

We learn this every day. Every rung we climb up the success ladder brings not only greater powers and freedoms, but greater limitations and responsibilities.

I learn this every day. While I wouldn’t call my job exactly “powerful,” it does entail certain privileges and responsibilities.

The responsibility of the opinion page editor is to help form the newspaper’s official positions on social issues in the form of editorials found in the “In Our Opinion…” section, hire columnists to present issues from particular and hopefully unique viewpoints and provide a forum for readers to express their views in the form of the “According to you…”and “In My View…” sections.

It is the privileged power of the people who create this page to offer its readers their viewpoints, lifestyle choices, theories and beliefs. It is their attempt to not only have their own voice heard, but to try to persuade or spark others to action.

With that power comes a responsibility. The views on this page must be expressed accurately, or we will hear about it. Opponents of certain views or experts will often write in response to other views, presenting counter-arguments. Pretty fair and democratic, I would say.

It is this public exchange of ideals that I truly feel makes the backbone of a free, democratic society. People are allowed to voice their opinions freely, without any fear other than someone will write in and blow your argument to hell (a constant fear of mine).

This brings me to a recent debate held at one of our editorial board meetings. The editorial board consists of five people who together form the views in the “In Our Opinion…”section.

Recently we tackled the House of Representatives vote to outlaw a type of abortion procedure known as the “partial-birth” procedure. The House voted 288-139 to ban this type of abortion, which is used in the second and third trimester of pregnancy.

I offered that the editorial board should write an edit in support of this ban.

My rationale was that this ban outlawed an abortion procedure in the later terms of pregnancy when most agree that the fetus has a much firmer grip on a right to life than in earlier stages of pregnancy. Also, the ban created a loophole in that the procedure could be performed if the life or health of the mother was seriously threatened, the only exception Iconsider valid to an abortion ban.

So, basically, this procedure that is used only in the latest stages of pregnancy (when most agree the baby’s life should be protected) was outlawed except when to save the life of the mother. It would seem this would be satisfactory to all parties.

After all, almost every participant in this debate (including four of the five members of our board) agrees that the only time this late-term procedure should be performed at all is to save the life of the mother. It also does not outlaw other types of abortion procedures, and does not outlaw abortion procedures during the first trimester, which most abortion rights supporters agree is an acceptable option for a woman. No harm done, then, right? Wrong.

Opponents of the ban pointed out that this measure is the first step in an effort to repeal Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that protected the abortion rights of women. And, according to Republicans like Bob Dole, that fear is a reality.

So, while many abortion rights supporters supported the House measure as a singular entity because it did not infringe on a woman’s right to have an abortion under safe and reasonable conditions acceptable to both “pro-choicers” and “pro-lifers,” they couldn’t support the bill because of future bills that do not yet exist. Slippery-slope logic.

I found that appalling. And members of our board agreed with the ban opponents. Although the majority of the board felt the measure was appropriate, they could not support it because of possible future consequences that did not necessarily apply to this specific circumstance.

Also, this newspaper has traditionally been in support of abortion rights, and I felt as though by supporting this ban, board members were reluctant to support a measure that would appear to make us appear as “pro-lifers,” when in reality the majority of the board supports the Roe v. Wade decision.

This was interesting, especially considering that only a week earlier we had written an edit supporting a “buffer zone” protecting abortion doctor’s homes from anti-abortion demonstrators. I and another board member, who both oppose Roe v. Wade, supported this edit without considering that by supporting the rights of abortion doctors that we would appear “pro-choice.”

Regardless, because we were so divided and could come to no general consensus on this issue, there was no editorial at all on what, no matter what your position on abortion is, was a very significant event.

“With great power comes great responsibility.” As possibly the strongest student voice on campus this side of GSB, we had a responsibility to use our powers to comment on this issue. We couldn’t because of issues tied to this ban and perceived perceptions. Spiderman would be disappointed.

---

Tim Davis is a junior from Carlisle. He is the editor of the Opinion Page.