• Format
  • Publications (documents)
• Type
  • Text
• Source institution
  • Western Carolina University
• Identifier
  • HL_WesternCarolinian_1992-03-19_Vol57_No21_04

Volume 57 Number 21 Voices The Western Carolinian Page 3 Thursday. March 19, 1992 John Marshall Dennis Editor-in-Chief A matter of choice Dear Editor, The abortion issue is the deepest and most intensive controversy fac ing society today, exploring the many different perspectives on the subject is neither easy nor miraculously enlightening. Researching this topic offered insight to many questions but only gave me a sense of hopelessness when looking for answers to the questions about moral correctness and the point at which life begins. Following, is a summary of research that I hope will prove useful for your approach to abortion; however, due to the limited space only tow main aspects will be explore this week. The moral issue is summed up best in the Sep. 13,1991 (p. 504) issue of Commonwealth. It declares "if you and I differ on our moral views, there is no way either ofus can prove the other wrong; all we can do is tolerate our mutual differences." One cannot legislate morality. If when facing a decision, there is no science or inner light to refer to "how do I find my values and moral code? I choose; I simply choose; there is no alternative... the pro- lifer believes right and wrong are know- able; that some views... are superior to others; and that we are not reduced to sheer choice when searching for direction in life." It seems to me that choice is a fundamental necessity in life. It's what makes us individuals. The moral issue becomes more fully developed. The New Republic, May 8, 1989, (p. 11) reports that "9 out of 10 abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and thus do not involve anything like the procedure described in the pro-life film Silent Scream,... Those who are concerned about the morality of abortions in late pregnancy ought to support policies that facilitate abortion at the earliest possible stage." As for finding an answer to die question that there were just as many experts that said life begins at conception as there were who supported life at birth. Therefore, I turned to the Ninth Edition Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary. The word viable will help clarify the issue. The definition of viable reads, "capable of self-sustaining life; as a 7 months fetus." (the definition for fetus is "the latter stages of the developing young within the uterus or within theegg.") Therefore, life, constitutionally protected life, begins when the fetus becomes viable. Every day many pregnancies are aborted because of complication that arise. This is common pro cedure from conception up to 5 months since there is virtually no possibility for life to continue; through medical technology it is now possible to sustain life with machines at 6 months. According to The New Republic, Aug. 28,1989 (p. 17) "Up to the mid 19th century, the Roman Catholic Church, English Common Law, and American Law did not regard abortion as illegal before quickening (the time [around 4 months] when a mother can feel the fetus move".) Early laws restricting abortion were designed to protect the woman's health. These laws were not based "on belief that a fertilized egg was a human being with strong moral claims... the moral value attached top the fetus became a central issue in American culture and law only recently, when earlier justification... had become irrelevant or ineffective." (The New Republic, May 8,1989; p. 11) Indeed, there are other options to abortion that are supported by the pro-life movement and these will be addressed in detail next week. Sincerely, Lianna Saleeby Abortion: A question of morality To the Editor: Despite the misprint of Mr. Moreau's article, it appears at least some people were able to read it, but still not comprehend it. Yes Mr. Hunsucker, government meddles around too much; it should never have agreed to hear Roe vs. Wade in the first place. Things have gotten worse since the decision; it therefore needs to be done away with completely. The fact of the matter is, adoptions in the U.S. reached an all-time high in 1970, three years before the adoption of this heinous "right." You say you want government to get out of your affairs, and then sug gest that government funded vasectomies and hysterectomies are the answer!?! I'm certain that will go a long ways towards reducing the national debt! Instead, lets try this scenario; STOP FORNICATING!!! While it was said tongue-in-cheek by Dan Ackroyd in the movie Dragnet, it is very true that two of the things that most distinguish us as humans from the lower primates is one, our ability to use cutlery, and two, our ability to control our sexual urges. It is a simple fact that no one has ever died from a lack of sex, unlike such "great" cultural icons as Freddie Mercury or Earv in "Magic" Johnson, who is dying due to his "uncontrollable" sexual urges. If you wish not to be treated or spoken to, or of, as an animal, the solution is simple; stop behaving like one! I shall address Miss Matthews "letter," simply by stating, if you've nothing to say of substance, please refrain from wasting valuable space until such time as you've done your homework, and then you'U be permitted to speak with the adults. Mr. Hunsucker could no doubt whip out endless piles of statistics of biased polls conducted with slanted questions, like, "Would you prefer to die trying to abort your own baby with a clothes hanger, or keep abortions legal?," that show a simple majority of people agreeing with worse case scenarios. Abortion is no "right," no matter how convoluted your logic may be, to the baby who dies from it. If you can sleep well at night in this disposable society, where the most innocent people of all are the first to be killed because they are an inconvenience to your sex life, then you need more help than this reply can provide. Abortion may be your "right" (and hopefully not much longer, as more recent, less biased polls show that most people in fact, do not favor abortion in the U.S.), but you have no moral ground on which to stand, whatsoever. Sincerely, Bob McCanless Just where do you think you come from? Dear Editor, How did your weekend go? Great! Gotstoned...gotlaid. What'snew, you always do... who this time? Suzanne! Naah...How did you pull that off, she doesn't do the wild thing! She does now!! Sound familiar, you bet! It is almost commonplace. Whyshoulditbe? We are taught from the time we arrive on campus that we are the products of organic evolution — glorified chimpanzees. As a result, if we believe we are "animals" the that's how we will conduct our lives. If evolution were true, this type of lifestyle would definitely be the way to go. If it feels good, do it — get it 'till you drop. However, what if evolution is not true? Death will be one "HELL" of an experience, won't it! As many of you well know, if a student even remotely suggests that evolution is unscientific, it brings scorn from those who consider themselves to be "educated." But that is exactly the question I want to pose. Is the theory of evolution founded and established on a secure scientific foundation? We have been led to believe that life on earth has evolved from the simple to the complex. The general chain of progression is as follows: single cell organism - metazoan - invertebrates - vertebrate fishes - amphibians - reptiles - birds - mammals - man. If evolution did occur, the fossil record must document this transition from one species to another. It has to or organic evolution has no validity whatsoever. The first transition that will be examined is the evolution of single cell organisms into metazoans. The evolution of metazoans from a single celled organism and the intermediates that would have hadtobeinvolvedis one of the many, great unsolved mysteries of evolution. No transitional forms have ever been found to bridge this enormous gap. I wonder if any of our professors that promote the theory of evolution would like to try? Good luck! The evolution of invertebrate to vertebrate fishes supposedly took 100 million years. This transition is said to have passed through a simple chordate state. The unrefutable fact is that not one transitional form has been found to bridge this gap. lOOmillion yearsof evolution, and no transitional forms, and this can be documented further if need be. Once again, I challenge any professor to submit one realistic transitional form to bridge this enormous gap. Evolution — scientific? The evolution of vertebrate fishes into amphibians supposedly took 70 million years. This large segment of time should ensure a wealth of transitional forms that would easily be recognizable in the fossil record. The reason being is that in all fishes, living or fossil, the pelvic bone is large and firmly attached to the vertebrate column. This transition of the pelvic bone is an ideal test case for the evolutionary model. However, not one transitional form has been found that shows this gradual transition. 70 million years in the making and no transitional forms. Where are they? Could it be that they never existed?? (Evolution — Scientific?) The evolution of a reptile into a bird is another transitional boundary that /! The Western Carolinian Western Carolina University The Old Student Union P.O. Box 66 Cullowhee, NC 28723 John Marshall Dennis Editor-in-Chief Assistant Editor Laura Adams Assistant to the Editor Juliana Budahl Associate Editors Jennifer Mann - News Ellen Furey - Copy Robert M. Robertson - Sports Writers Misha Baker !\ V Photographer Hunter Pape Typesetters Angela Gray Laura Whitmire Layout & Design The Regulars Office Manager Mike Greene Distribution Chris Henley Advisor John Moore Mike Burke Dawn Cook JeffDeMoe Suzanne Kendall Jon Mayhew Dave McCaskill Barrett Nichols Melissa Richardson Kim Shively Derek Smolik Jeff Sykes DanWarlick Jimmy White Julie Wingrub* Ad Salesperson Christa Humphrey would be easily recognizable in the fossil record. This transition, which supposedly took millions of years would leave an innumerable number of part reptile, part bird-like creatures. Where are they? Evolutionists can only produce one — just one! Of course this is the famous archae- opteryx. How about archaeoptery? Is this really a transitional link? Let me relay to you a few proven facts. Archaeopteryx appears abruptly in the fossil record, a powerful flyer with wings of the basic pattern and proportions of modem avian wings. The feathers are identical to those of modern birds. This bird does not possess a single structure in the transitional state. I have never heard this portrait of archaeopteryx presented in any of the Biology and Zoology classes. If anyone objects to these findings, direct your objections to A.S. Romer and W.E. Swinton. These names should ring a bell with most college educators. These men are world renowned experts in evolutionary thought. They have gone on record as saying that there is no fossil evidence to support the proposed evolution of a reptile into a bird. The bottom line is this: not one transitional form shows the evolution of a reptile into a bird! Furthermore, the origin of flight would have to occur four separate times — insects, birds, mammals, and reptiles. Yet not in a single case can anything even approaching a transitional form be produced. If necessary, this fact can be documented in greater detail. So where are all the transitional forms that we hear about in our classroom lectures? there aren't any! The rationale of evolution is very deceptive. What am I implying by this statement? All Taxonomy is and does is group classes of animals that are most similar in skeletal features together and then claims are made that these animals evolved from one another— this is a false assumption. This is very clever and has deceived many, but a detailed investigation of the fossil record exposes this for what it is — a lie. The fossil record does not reveal one single species evolving into another species and this is conclusive. One may disagree vigorously with these statements but I challenge anyone to disprove it in light of the fossil record. When asked to supply the evolution of a species, what do evolutionists fall back on, without doubt the famous horse series (the evolution of the horse). This is a deceitful ploy. Anyone who has thoroughly studied this horse series can easily detect the many fallacies that are present. George Gay lord Simpson has stated that this transformation, so dear to textbook writers, never happened in nature. I trust that all of the biology professors here at WCU know who this individual is. His knowledge is encyclopedic. I feel sorry for anyone who would try to rebut him concerning this topic of horse evolution. Does an old age of the earth imply evolution? Absolutely not! If there are no transitional forms present in the fossil record, it is insignificant whether the earth is 6 billion or 6 thousand years old. Maybe the fossil record is incomplete? This statement is nothing but a cop-out to explain the lack of transitional forms. What is the process of that fuels evolution? Natural selection coupled with mutations. Is this evenremotely realistic in the light of present scientific knowledge? Absolutely not! Mutations are genetic mistakes. They are random, not directional and only occur in about every 9 million duplications of the DNA molecule. Mutations do not follow any order, design, or plan. They decrease the viability of the mutant organism, instead of increasing its viability. Mutations produce organisms that are weaker and less fit to compete for survival. This totally contradicts the survival of the fittest rationale. Is there a vast variety within a species? Without question! Does this imply evolution? No! There are many kinds of dogs, cats, bears, etc. However, each species has genetic limits that cannot be crossed, nevertheless, this has been attempted with the fruit fly. After the "dust" had settled, it was still a fruit fly. I would also like to know how any "follower" of evolution can reconcile evolution and the DNA molecule. Life as we know it is directly dependents on the DNA molecule. If organic evolution occured, it would have to involve the accidental synthesis of the DNA molecule in the"SeaofPrimordialSoup". Thissynthe- sis of ordered information is positively and absolutely impossible. The DNA molecule can only be reproduced by the controlling DNA molecule. Both must be present for the replication to occur. The greatest scientific minds can't even postulate a viable theory to explain this synthesis of ordered information. (The Miller-Urey experiment did not achieve its goal by any means.) This can be clearly documented. Evolution-Scientific? Will evolution continue to enjoy such a "cult-like" following? Sure it will. This is the message that people want to hear. People want to believe they can live their life and way they see fit and escape judgement. Evolution tells you there is no creator, if it feels good — do it. When death comes knocking at your door, no need to worry, you will die like the rest of the animals do. What a lie! Unfortunately in this day and age of rampant homosexuality, abortion on demand, and lack of moral restraint — this is the message that people want to hear. Many people scoff at Christianity and say it is for simpleminded people who lack a well-rounded educational basis. The Gospel of Christ makes a lot more sense than the Gospel of Evolution —could it be that the Evolutionists are the ones that lack a well-rounded education? Stephen Wilson J The Western Carolinian welcomes editorial input from students, faculty, and staff on matters of public interest. Please address correspondence to: Voices P.O. Box 66 Cullowhee, NC 28723 AH submissions will be considered, but The Western Carolinian reserves the right to refuse publication of offensive or otherwise unsuitable material. The Carolinian is not responsible for opinions expressed on the Editorial Page. Student On The Street Which candidate is the best choice for President in 1992 ? Name: Marc V. Finamore Major: English Class: Sophomore Hometown: Charlotte It's a joke, office! Put Frank Zappa in Name: Rick Lewis Major: Undecided Class: Freshman Hometown: Kings Mountain Buchanan is too conservative and Bush is a Putz. Beetle Bailey would be a better candidate than either one. .j$ftXtX*> Name: Melanie Keener Major: Elementary Ed. Class: Senior Hometown: Highlands They're pretty good but I'll vote for Bush anyway. Name: Annie Jones Major: Anthropology Class: Sophomore Hometown: Albemarle I don't think we have a very good selection but Tsongas is probably the best candidate. I think he is honest and not stars and roses like the other candidates. Name: MarkBulot Major: Psychology Class: Sophomore Hometown: Lenoir I think there is too much "badmouthing" between the candidates. I think Bush will come out ahead. Name: Emily Gonzalez Major: Psychology Class: Sophomore Hometown: Ft. Lauderdale I think they are all full of hot air. I think the Republicans will come out ahead. Name: Jeff Bailey Major: Psychology Class: Junior Hometown: Lexington I think the Democrats will get office because Bush hasn't done a good enough job as President. Name: Joey English Major: Marketing Class: Junior Hometown: Charlotte I don't think anybody has a chance. I think the Democrats are just setting themselves up for next election when Bush is through. Carolinian photos by Hunter Paps

The Western Carolinian is Western Carolina University's student-run newspaper. The paper was published as the Cullowhee Yodel from 1924 to 1931 before changing its name to The Western Carolinian in 1933.

• Creator
  • Western Carolina University
• Format
  • Publications (documents)
• Type
  • Text
• Date
  • Date original: 1992-03-19
  • Date digitized: 2019-10-07
• Extent
  • Dimension: 22.75" x 14.25"
  • Pages: 10 pages
• Subject - Topic
  • College student newspapers and periodicals
  • Cullowhee (N.C.) -- Newspapers
  • Universities and colleges -- North Carolina -- Cullowhee -- Newspapers
• Location
  • Jackson County (N.C.)
  • Cullowhee (N.C.)
• Source institution
  • Western Carolina University
• Source Collection
  • WCU Students Newspapers Collection
• Identifier
  • HL_WesternCarolinian_1992-03-19_Vol57_No21
• Repository
  • Western Carolina University Hunter Library