Abortion issue isn't so simple

Regarding 'Casting our votes in line with science and justice' (Ashley Pavlic, Sept. 24)

While Pavlic focuses a great deal on the biological and genetic distinctiveness of the embryo to establish for it the "basic rights . . . of human beings," she fails to recognize the existence of others' rights that may stand in competition. No rights are absolute, and our legal system challenges us to arrive at a reasonable balance.

Women enjoy the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — rights that may in some circumstances compete with those of a developing fetus. Their decisions about reproduction rightly involve philosophical, religious and legal principles. The basic scientific observations Pavlic makes about embryos are widely understood, and they do not change the nature of the political debate over these competing rights.

I wonder if Pavlic applies her principled opposition to abortion in cases of rape, incest and medical emergency. If so, it must be that a woman's rights to physical and emotional health (or even survival) exist only when she is not pregnant.

If not, objecting solely to "abortion on demand" would point more to a right-wing political interest in shaping the social order than to the sort of concern about children that might be evidenced by support for childcare, education and real antipoverty measures. After all, the conservatives who would most ardently support Pavlic in her campaign against abortion have consistently sought to undermine access to the contraception and sex education that might actually reduce the number performed.

The philosophical and political debate over reproductive choice is an important one for society. It is one in which reasonable people can disagree. But after grossly oversimplifying the issue, Pavlic calls for us to unite against "intrinsically evil acts."

She also explicitly encourages us to vote without thinking about anything else, even if we "prefer the economic, educational, health and foreign policies" of other parties and candidates. While manipulating and dividing the public with wedge issues is as important a conservative strategy this year as ever, it is rare to see such a naked appeal.

The Princeton community and voters everywhere have a duty to think a little harder about who deserves their vote, regardless of what conclusion they reach. Pete Hill '06

Bring back fall break's real meaning

In this most political of years, now is the time to remember the original purpose of fall break: to allow students and faculty to work for political causes.

In 1970, after campus unrest surrounding the invasion of Cambodia, the University instituted a fall break to precede the national election. As President Tilghman described in this spring's Commencement address, "Through their passionate engagement with the events of their times the students of 1970 shouldered their responsibilities as citizens of a free democracy to speak out for what they believed."

Since then, this tradition has fallen into disrepair; fall break is often used for travel, field trips, or recreation. However, the 2004 election is as important as any we will see in our lifetime. No matter what one's political persuasion, this is the right year to revive a great tradition. Sam Wang Assistant professor of molecular biology