The Spectrum Logo

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

We are writing in response to The Spectrum’s editorial “In Prison for Parenting: Inaccessibility of legal abortion options leads to unnecessary risks and repercussions” published on Sept. 29. This letter will address the reality of the events leading up to the case. It will not address legalities, nor will it perpetuate the deceiving rhetoric employed by publications like The Spectrum and The New York Times.

We must first address euphemisms: to “end an unwanted pregnancy” and to “induce a miscarriage” both mean “abortion.” The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “abortion” as “a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus.” In this instance, we are talking about the death of a human embryo or fetus, a member of the human species. In other words, we are talking about killing a living human being.

Now that we’ve established the truth of what’s happening, we can critique the euphemisms. Euphemisms may help us feel better about what we say, but they do so by obscuring the truth. Do you support abortion rights? Then don’t hide behind these euphemisms. If you think abortion is permissible, then you shouldn’t be afraid of calling it what it is.

In short, own your position.

Onto another crucial question: how did the human killed by Jennifer Whalen’s abortion pill begin? Every science textbook tells us mammal life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg. At this moment, a new and unique member of a species comes into existence, exhibiting all traits of life. Jennifer Whalen’s daughter provided the egg, but who provided the sperm? Because he is unmentioned, he is implicitly unimportant in deciding the future of his offspring.

Was he not equally important or responsible in the creation process of his now deceased child? Why is his existence ignored? Did he not deserve the right to have a say in his child’s fate? Fathers of children killed in the womb are too often not even told of their children’s existence. This may have been the case here; even if it wasn’t, why is he not part of the story printed?


Let’s also address this statement: “thanks to her mother’s efforts, she is free to pursue whatever future she desires.”

This implies that Jennifer Whalen’s daughter would not have been free to pursue “whatever future she desires” had her child not been killed. Pregnancy, the natural and necessary condition that furthers our species, is here deemed an obstacle to true happiness and achievement. What does this say to women? What does this say about their bodies, their role as mothers, and their own embryonic origins? This statement assumes pregnancy is a handicap.

Again, sexism.

No matter what futures Jennifer Whalen or her daughter pursue, their actions have stripped their granddaughter and daughter of all choices and all futures. They are now the grandmother and mother of a dead child.

Finally, we must call the very structure of the New York Times’ and The Spectrum’s arguments into question. Anyone who has taken a course in critical thinking knows that arguments that appeal to emotion without correct rationale are fallacies. This fallacy is committed by both publications because they harshly capitalize on fear.

The Spectrum dangles Whalen’s desperate actions in front of readers, saying that unless we have nearby access to instant, cheap abortions, this kind of pain is bound to continue and even increase. It faults protective laws like the twenty-four hour waiting period for Whalen’s actions, rather than faulting Whalen herself.

The Wahlen family’s situation is not a sound argument for the proliferation of abortion facilities or the abolition of the mandatory 24-hour waiting period. Dangling their misfortune with the intent to frighten readers into the arms of pro-abortion ideologies is utilitarian, unethical and despicable.

The Spectrum’s fear mongering may remind some readers of N.A.R.A.L.’s Roe v. Wade testimony, which stated that unless abortion was federalized, 10,000 back-alley abortions would continue to occur per year. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and N.A.R.A.L. founder, later confessed that he had fabricated these numbers in an effort to frighten the Supreme Court.

We encourage readers to independently research questions raised by this editorial. Information on the origins and development of human life may be found at; information on the nature of abortion may be found

Thank you,

UB Students for Life Board

Anne Mulrooney, President

Christine Schaefer, Vice President

Matt Ramsey, Treasurer

Jessica Mershimer, Secretary

Cristina Lauria, Marketing Director

P.S. To the reader, a note on the term pro-abortion: Earlier we asked you to own your position. Pro-choice is a euphemism. As pro-lifers, we are happy to own our position: We are anti-abortion and seek to abolish it.

Own yours.

Comments powered by Disqus

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Spectrum.