Mailbox

[March 7th, 2007] Some Of Us Didn't Have A "Choice"

I am COMPLETELY OFFENDED by the article you published, "Truck You" [WW, Feb. 28, 2007]. I cannot believe you would be so idiotic to make it the cover story. You published those pictures without a disclaimer of how graphic and disgusting they were.

For someone like me, I don't need to see those images as I am trying to have breakfast at a restaurant. I support freedom of speech, but there should be limitations. You just gave that asshole more power than he deserves—some idiot guy who has never been through the trauma myself and other women have been through. How can you disregard the fact that so many women lose pregnancies not by "choice"? Do you not realize how painful those images can be?

I lost my son when I was 6 months pregnant. He died and I had to give birth to his lifeless body. I held my dead son as I grieved his death and the death of my dreams for him and us. I already have that mental image plastered in my mind FOREVER and then you and your publication have to remind me of that! Shame on you!!! I hope you do not know a woman who has lost like I have. If you do, I don't know how you will look her in the eyes without shame and guilt. I had trouble sleeping thinking about those images and remembering my loss. I don't need setbacks like that. I am suffering enough. The loss of my son is something I have to deal with EVERY DAY.

Publishing those pictures was hurtful to me and many other women who have suffered this type of loss. One we had no control over. I again believe in freedom of speech, but it has to be done responsibly and respectfully. You are just giving a jerk like that more power to think what he is doing is OK. I want you to think about how devastating it is for a woman to lose a child and then imagine having to see those pictures. We women are suffering from our losses. We struggle enough to get back some normal life and don't need painful, cruel reminders of our tragedies.

Rachael Weyers

North Bayard Avenue

Compassion Begets Compassion

It's not difficult to muster compassion for an aborted fetus ["Truck You," WW, Feb. 28, 2007]. The problem with Mr. Hardwick's technique is not that he dares show the pathos accompanying abortion. Rather, he fails to illustrate that he himself is compassionate; thereby nullifying the moral superiority he claims.

Were he compassionate, he might consider the women. His circus of the monstrous is meant, he claims, to make people (read: women) feel guilty. Obviously, he doesn't know that women feel guilty and pained enough without experiencing his drive-by shooting of blame. Yeah, abortion ain't pretty. But has Mr. Hardwick researched all the angles? Has he thought through why abortion exists and why women choose the procedure? Has he even considered the history of abortion in order to understand that pregnancy and its discontinuation used to be under the auspices of midwives, women alone, before men decided the uterus was somehow their business?

The mercantilist philosophy prevalent in early modern Western Europe proclaimed that a large population was the power of a nation. This encouraged population growth and came auspiciously around the same time that England decided to make abortion a State offense (1803: before U.S.A). It was an economic decision much more than a moral one. The history of abortion and the reasons women turn to the procedure are varied and nuanced. There is guilt, and there is pain. The true monstrosity is not the thing itself, but rather people like Mr. Hardwick, who hypocritically demands compassion while unable to exhibit it himself.

Ashlee Hill

Northwest Hoyt Street

Penetrable Logic

I might be ignorant of the facts and too sleepy to Google it right now, but the screaming irony of the assdrip wearing the bulletproof vest didn't get by me ["Truck You," WW, Feb. 28, 2007]. Isn't the anti-abortion gang responsible for the shootings and bombings? I don't think any pro-choice people have actually shot or bombed anyone (?)

Danny Jiles

Astoria

The Means Misstate The Message

Mr. Cassidy's article has given the Center [for Bio-Ethical Reform] and Mr. Hardwick what they want: attention ["Truck You," WW, Feb. 28, 2007]. The best thing we can do in response to the presence of this truck, if we object to it, is ignore it.

My position on abortion rights is not relevant here. I object to the truck, and Mr. Hardwick's activities for the same reasons I would object to the same truck displaying enlarged color images of dismembered bodies lying in the streets of Baghdad or the mountains of Afghanistan. I do not wish for my children to see them, and I do not wish to see them as I am driving across town or walking out for lunch. In addition, the truck represents somewhat of a public safety hazard in that it may cause driver inattention and may also cause an altercation or two. Obviously, it also wastes fuel and contributes to traffic without any benefit by way of delivering goods or services. There are far better ways to convey the message. And just like displaying images of war dead, there is no message conveyed about the underlying debate when these images are displayed. Certainly, we can all agree, death is bad, and the need for and fact of an abortion is unfortunate.

Obviously, the display of these images is protected (within reason), and so there is little that can be done to stop these displays. However, in this instance, if we ignore it, it probably will go away.

Also, Mr. Cassidy should know that the reference "full metal jacket" is properly used as a reference to a metal-jacketed projectile, and not to a Kevlar vest.

Simon Harding

Southeast Elliott Avenue

WW, You Know Better

Wow, lobbyists think that banning "pass-through" dollars from a candidate's committee to a colleague's campaign or to some other political committee is real campaign finance reform ["Shakedown Dues," WW, Feb. 28, 2007]? What a laugh. Real reform includes strict contribution limits, improved reporting, as well as restrictions on "bait and switch" transfers between PACs. But as a stand-alone item, "pass-through" limits are a mere drop in the reform bucket.

How could Willamette Week, who had the guts to endorse last November's ballot measures 46 and 47, get duped by lobbyists into thinking that big money players wanting to avoid shake-downs is genuine campaign finance reform?

Anne L. Potter

Southwest Salmon Street