Abortion satire “fell short”
I just wanted to write to express my disappointment at the section on Pro-Life fliers in the Leisure section (“Coat hangers & pacifiers,” p. 11, April 10). I appreciate the attempt at humor and satire, but I think it fell a bit short. Admittedly, I may not have found it funny because of my political views, but that hasn’t usually stopped me in the past. Beyond its simply not being funny, it was childish and useless with respect to whatever pro-life/pro-choice (or anti-choice/pro-abortion) debate was being attempted this last week. I think it’s too bad that your otherwise insightful and interesting publication included a page of trite, unamusing crap.
Steve Okey (CAS ‘03)
“An offensive show of poor judgement”
There is a difference between reasoned debate and close-minded mockery, and it is a line that Peter Hamby and Scott Matthews certainly crossed in “Coat hangers & pacifiers.” This is an important human rights issue, and whichever side of the abortion debate you’re on, it’s not one to be taken lightly.
While I understand that the authors were attempting to use a comedic tone in their attack, the deaths of millions of children aren’t funny by a long shot. Callous and flippant remarks such as “if these babies are so smart, why do they keep getting aborted?” and “Only 3,598? You’re slacking off America, I know we can do better than 3,598,” reflect poorly not only on your publication for its lack of professionalism but also on the pro-choice movement. GU Right to Life deserves the right to share its views and raise questions about society without being openly mocked or belittled. Using cheap laughs in the place of logic to dispute its beliefs was an offensive show of poor judgement and a thorough exercise in bad taste.
Becca Danis (SFS ‘06)
“Abuse of journalistic privilege”
I was extremely disappointed at the apparent total loss of judgment on the part of the editors of the Voice in allowing the piece “Coat hangers & pacifiers” to go to print. This article demonstrated an immaturity and an inflammatory nature that have no place in a paper that surely believes itself to endorse responsible journalism.
The opinions of Peter Hamby and Scott Matthews are their own, and they have a right to express them; however, there was no call for the lack of tact or even basic civility which they demonstrated. At a school like Georgetown, I would have expected more intelligent articulations of personal opinions than those printed in “Coat hangers.” I believe that Hamby, Matthews and the Voice owe the University community at large an apology for their abuse of the journalistic privilege. The precious right to freedom of speech should not be wasted in such an offensive and ill-considered manner.
Margaret Zellers (CAS ‘05)
Anonymous reader confesses his desire
Why do I want to sleep with the Voice? (“Sleep with the Voice,” p. 11, April 10) Because, like underappreciated weekly college newspaper staffers, boil-covered hunchback accountants need love, too.
Eric W. (MSB ‘99)
