Response to "Government Rape" : Genuine motivation

Nico Doreste's comparison between a medical procedure and rape in his submission, "Government rape: Ultrasounds," to The Collegian last week was beyond ridiculous. It may be news to Nico, but women willingly have instruments stuck into their vaginas by doctors all the time. Making that kind of procedure mandatory, given the desire to have an abortion, is hardly rape.

His article was deliberately inflammatory and insensitive, and I couldn't help but find it ironic that a man should submit an article about the danger of women being raped by the Commonwealth of Virginia in a clear attempt to get his own political views across.

In my view, Nico is merely perpetuating a subtler version of the abuse that he wants to defend women from. In the end, he is using the image of a vagina to get a reaction.

I completely disagree with Nico's argument, but rather than respond to it directly, I want to point out that the language he uses is a large part of the reason why our country remains so divided and the reason we continue to have the same conversations over and over.

That kind of rhetoric and language can do little but incite senseless passion on both sides of the argument and create more division.

Has anyone considered the idea that people are not fundamentally good or bad, but simply see the world differently? Or that pro-life and pro-choice advocates both value human life and that neither Democrats nor Republicans are consciously waging a war against women?

From a pro-choice perspective, women deserve the right to do what they want with their own bodies. But from a pro-life perspective, mass murder is being committed daily in this country. So it is understandable that those who see abortion as murder would do everything they could to stop it.

It might be helpful to recognize -- if nothing else -- the genuine motivation behind a person's convictions.

Regardless of your perspective, it is safe to say that the majority of people in this country and on both sides of the issue could not and do not consciously condone murder of innocent life.

Both sides are fighting for life, so the real question is not whether to value life, but rather how to define it.

We are never going to get anywhere as a people, as a school or as a nation if we continue to vilify people who are different or who believe different things from us.

Instead of using "vagina" and "hell" and other loaded and inflammatory words or ideas to bring attention to a cause, why not attempt to start a conversation that could actually bring about some kind of real change or progress? By intentionally riling people up, the door to real discussion and real opportunities to learn is closed.

True diversity and open-mindedness is not about getting everybody to see the world exactly as you do; it is about learning to respect all persons on an equally human level.