Art exhibit provokes emotions
Abortion rights advocates, opponents need to begin discussion

A recent anti-abortion exhibit on display at University of North Texas caused controversy, because it contained pictures of aborted fetuses that were considered too graphic by some viewers of the exhibit.

bortion rights advocates objected to the images being presented, referring to them as “scare tactics.”

The promoters of the display justified it by stating the need to demonstrate the results of the “right to choose.”

According to a Star-Telegram article that appeared Thursday, David Lee (executive director of Justice for All, the creator of the exhibit) stated the point of the display was to inform students.

“Our objective is to put a face on the choice, to put a face on abortion,” Lee said in the Star-Telegram article. “They can decide for themselves.”

He also said the reaction is what he expected.

“We prefer that to someone being indifferent,” Lee said. “If someone can look at those and be indifferent about the inhumanity being displayed, that’s bad.”

As both a journalist and an abortion rights opponent, I feel the exhibit wasn’t out of line, because it wasn’t displaying anything that wasn’t true. An analogy would be the use of pictures of the Holocaust. Those pictures are also graphic and hard to look at, but they speak volumes, as they cut through the Nazi propaganda that tried to deny the existence or extent of the horror that was taking place within their borders.

If abortion rights advocates really believe in their views, then they have nothing to fear from the UNT exhibit.
If the exhibit is based on falsehoods, then it will be exposed. But if the statements of the exhibit speak truth, then we need to hear what they say, because otherwise we stand to lose our sense of humanity and respect for life; and history will judge us as harshly as it does Nazi Germany’s citizens.

KRLD radio talk show personality Charlie Jones discussed the exhibit during his morning show Thursday. Jones believes the exhibit goes too far, and is actually counterproductive to the goals of abortion rights opponents. He feels these images inhibit honest dialogue between abortion rights opponents and abortion rights advocates.

Jones believes both abortion rights opponents and abortion rights advocates have the same goal of reducing the number of problem pregnancies, and that both groups should try to meet with that goal in mind. He further states what is needed is education and birth control, both of which abortion rights opponents often resist if they conflict with their religious beliefs.

Jones raises some valid points, but one correction must be made here.

He referred to the abortion issue as a religious one for abortion rights opponents. However, there is such a thing as atheist, agnostic, leftist, feminist and libertarian abortion rights opponents (in fact, they even have Web sites), none of whom are likely to base their pro-life views on religious faith.

I agree with Jones that genuine discussion and dialogue is needed, but we need to start out with equal footing in the airing of the views from both sides, as abortion rights opponents have often been treated as criminals rather than people with an honest disagreement on the issue of abortion. Until the attitudes toward abortion rights opponents change, genuine discussion on this issue will be almost impossible.

By the way ... if you wish to see for yourself the images that were presented at this exhibit and exercise your right to choose whether they present the truth or not, then go to (www.jfaweb.org). Be warned, however, that the images are indeed very graphic, so brace yourself before you view them.

John P. Araujo is a Master of Liberal Arts major from Fort Worth.
He can be reached at (j.araujo@tcu.edu).

“God, it’s hard.”

  Such were the weary words of mediator Bill Clinton during the stagnated Camp David peace talks between Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

And such difficulty will meet the newly elected president of the United States when he buckles down to his new job. Foreign policy hasn’t been featured prominently in the campaigns of George W. Bush and Al Gore, but one of the two men will have to forge America’s path in an interdependent world that more frequently shows its anti-American sentiment, be it the bombing of the USS Cole or a French sheep farmer attacking a McDonald’s outlet.

In a post-Cold War world where the threat of nuclear war has virtually vanished, foreign policy seems to matter little. After all, the economy is booming, Americans are enjoying unparalleled prosperity and peace prevails.

But the next president will have to show more gumption and redefine Clinton’s reactive, nebulous policy of crisis-management and global democracy-building. Clinton relied on his considerable diplomatic charm and maneuvering to manage his foreign policy instead of having a consistent doctrine for American involvement.

He prodded the collapse of Word Trade Organization talks in Seattle in 1999 by siding with protesters and saying labor and environmental provisions should be written into trade agreements. His administration didn’t prevent genocide in Rwanda in 1994, and equivocated about American involvement in Kosovo and East Timor. America’s relationship with China remains foggy because Clinton’s administration bobbed between branding the country as a human rights violator and a vital partner.

Foreign policy needs to be clearly defined by the next president, and a common rationale established for intervening militarily in global conflicts. A return to pragmatic balance of power and relation-building politics is also called for. But which of the two candidates would make the better foreign policy president?

Gore wants to expand on some of Clinton’s policies by granting greater debt relief for developing countries, intervening to preserve the environment and prevent disease and crime. But he also wants to expand NATO, increase the defense budget and cultivate traditional great power relations with Europe. He would renegotiate the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia before building a defense system. He supports fair trade, where labor concerns are written into agreements. Gore would take a tough stance with China, to the point of aiding its reformers.

Gore is undoubtedly more experienced in foreign affairs, having supported U.S. intervention in the Gulf War as a senator and negotiated with former Russian prime minister Viktor Chernomyrdin.

Bush would favor U.S. intervention in the world only where American interests are at stake, avoiding “nation-building” and humanitarian missions. He would increase the defense budget. Unlike Gore, he opposes ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Kyoto protocol, but would make cuts in America’s nuclear stockpile. He would also renege on the ABM treaty if necessary to build a defense shield. Bush would favor more of a hands-off approach to China, and pay less attention to its domestic policy.

Bush’s foreign affairs gaffes have haunted him throughout his campaign. He may not have inherited the acumen and adroit diplomatic skills of his father, but he has inherited Bush senior’s foreign policy team.

Gore shows initiative in wanting to build on old relations with Europe and other countries like Japan. But his policy shows a curious dichotomy by combining left-wing measures with realpolitik. It still leaves the question of where in the world America should become involved, because humanitarian missions would necessarily multiply and call for a huge commitment of resources. While ideal, this may render it impractical.
Further, Gore’s pandering to trade union and environmental interests through “fair trade” threatens the expansion of free trade. The danger of his policy is that it’s inconsistent.

Bush, on the other hand, has the right idea in trying to more narrowly define America’s role in the world. But to limit intervention to protecting American interests, he must define what those interests are. His call to pull American troops out of the Balkans left a bitter taste in the mouths of European NATO members. Merely pursuing American interests also risks alienating the rest of the world, where anti-American sentiment festers daily.

Whichever man is elected, he will have to contend with a Congress, American people and press that accords less urgency to foreign affairs. This makes reorienting America’s role in a non-polar world and navigating subtle and complex international relations all the more arduous.

It’s hard indeed.

Campus Editor Priya Abraham is a junior international communications major from Lusaka, Zambia.
She can be reached at (p.m.abraham@student.tcu.edu).

Stiff and starchy or inexperienced and bumbling — those seem to be the two realistic choices for the next American president.

But what about populist and Green?

Polls show Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader’s liberal supporters would likely vote for Vice President Al Gore in Nader’s absence, a move that may be strong enough to slide more than six toss-up states to Republican George W. Bush.

Because support for Nader is much higher in states where the race between Bush and Gore is close, Gore supporters are appealing to Nader to slow down his campaigning in those states so he won’t throw the election to Bush.

But in a state like Texas, where Bush reigns as the likely choice for the next president, a vote for Nader won’t affect Gore’s chances of winning.

Nor would they be wasted votes.

While Nader may not be a realistic contender for the Oval Office, he is trying to gain 5 percent of the popular vote nationwide in order to earn millions in federal election subsidies for the Green Party in the 2004 campaign.

This would ensure more than two viable options for the next presidential election.

Currently, Nader averages about 4 percent in national polls.

“The Democratic Party tells labor and minorities ‘you have nowhere else to go,’” Nader said Sunday at a rally in Washington D.C. “What a choice — between the bad and the worse. This country deserves the best.”

As the leading democratic nation in the world, this country deserves more than two realistic options for president.

Voting for Nader won’t get him into the White House, but it will send a message: two is a very small number.