FRIENDS JOURNAL FORUM    February, 2008

Is this ad appropriate?

          I'm writing as a long-time FRIENDS JOURNAL subscriber, and I enjoy and appreciate it very much. I was, however, stunned by the advertisement which you ran on page 55 of the November 2007 issue. The viewpoint promoted feels like propaganda, very political, and certainly doesn't represent what I understand to be the views of the majority of Friends.
          I hope you will reconsider placing such advertisements in your fine magazine in future issues. I'm not opposed to discussion and am open to other viewpoints, but the space given to this extreme point of view, via a paid ad, doesn't seem appropriate.

Diane Proctor
Baltimore, Md.


An objection to an ad

          I am writing this letter out of concern for the publishing of the paid, full-page ad, from a non-Quaker, pro-life group, Consistent Life. This ad appeared in different forms in October, November, and December. Facts and descriptions related to abortion can be presented back and forth by groups on each side of this issue. I am old enough to remember when abortions were illegal, and the gross descriptions given in the November issue are similar to what was taking place with most abortions in the times before abortions were legal. Abortions took place in unsanitary conditions, back rooms, etc. At least since the passage of Roe v. Wade, women do have a choice, and can be seen in hospitals and by certified physicians.
          I have no objection to the JOURNAL accepting articles, letters, Forum discussions on the topic of abortion. I do object to the JOURNAL accepting paid ads, from Consistent Life, whose membership, listed at their site, are all pro-life groups, most of which are non-Quaker.
          I have spoken with FRIENDS JOURNAL's publisher and executive editor and the senior editor. I know that they looked very carefully at this ad and affiliated groups. I would hope that in the future they will not accept paid ads from non-Quaker organizations who use biased statements and grotesque descriptions to forward their agenda.

Nancy Gideon Clark
Baltimore, Md.

We need compassion

          I was appalled to see the full-page ad by the groups opposed to abortion (FJ Nov. 2007, p. 55). We need open and loving listening to each other, not entirely one-sided positions. Worse, some of the background material that is referenced in the ad is junk science as any good researcher will notice. For example, in the piece by Thomas Strahan on the feminization of poverty, trends in poverty rates for female-headed households and in repeat abortion rates are presented. But we cannot infer causation from correlation. And there is a major selection effect of women who have repeat abortions. To minimize both the first and repeat abortion rates. we need much more available contraception (e.g., in school clinics) and emergency contraception. We need compassion with each other on the matter of abortion, not propaganda from one side or the other. Friends Committee on Unity with Nature (now Quaker EarthCare Witness) spent three years laboring to produce a pamphlet on abortion, and I recommend it to Friends ("Toward taking away the occasion of abortion"; available at  <www.quakerearthcare.org>).
 
Stan Becker
Baltimore, Md. 

Friends Journal
1216 Arch Street, 2A
Philadephia, PA 19107-2835

Email: info@friendsjournal.org

 

Rachel MacNair comments on the substantive remarks, concerning the article by Thomas Strahan (http://www.fnsa.org/v1n3/strahan.html): 

          If Tom Strahan said the evidence linking abortion practice to the feminization of poverty were conclusive, then of course that would be junk science. Strahan says otherwise; knowing that correlation is not causation, he only provides evidence and points out evidence to the contrary is lacking. Considering repeat abortions is valid for society-wide impact since they are currently almost half of abortions done. My Ph.D. is in psychology and I make my living with statistics consulting for dissertation students, so I would be very sensitive to it if he had not made that clear in his article.

Other comments are welcome; please send to admin@prolifequakers.org