Newspaper Page Text
The Collegiate
Page 2 February 10, 1982
A Matter of ^
Responsibility
VIEWPOINTS
Urban Decay
Hits Wilson
By Pete PurerII
In 1973, the U. S. Supreme
Court, ruling on the case Roc vs
Wade, declared that a woman’s
right to decide to terminate a
pregnancy is guaranteed by the
right to privacy protected by the
9th and 14th Amendments. On
Oct. 5. 1981, Senator Orrin
Hatch of Utah, chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
on the Constitution, began a
hearing on his proposed amend
ment to the Constitution allow
ing Congress and/or state legis
latures to “restrict or prohibit
abortions." Senator Hatch de
clared at the hearing, "I believe
that abortion, under virtually all
circumstances, is wrong be
cause it involves the taking of a
human life. This is my own
moral, ethical, and—dare 1 say
it—religious perspective.”
Hatch’s proposed amendment
is part of a new "Two Amend
ment” strategy, proposed by
David O’Steen, an official of the
National Right-to-Life Commit
tee, to ranking anti-abortion
officials, advising them to drop
their old strategy of attempting
to pass a single amendment
granting fetuses personhood at
conception, according to The
Humanist magazine. The new
strategy consists of three steps:
Step One: "Passage and ratifi
cation of a Constitutional
amendment that would autho
rize the U. S. Congress to pro
tect all human life including the
unborn. This amendment
should probably also authorize
concurrent state legislation.
Step Two: "Passage of federal
legislation. . .establishing pro
tection for the unborn consistent
with that desired in the ulti
mate amendment. Similar legis
lation should be passed in the
states. . .at the same time,
federal legislation should be
passed protecting the unborn
from abortifacients and pre
venting the deployment of the
tiew postimplantation aborti
facients that are now being
developed.
Stop Three: “A second consti
tutional amendment establish
ing personhood for the unborn. .
this final amendment could be
agreed upon National Right-to-
Life Committee’s wording.”
The old single amendment
strategy, favored by evango/
politico figures such as Falwell
and Graham, as well as bv
far-righters Helms and Reagan,
and this new back-door strategy
basically strive tor the same
goal—prohibition of abortion
based on the grounds that
human life begins at conception.
Besides the obviously question
able practice of mixing politics
and religion—Hatch’s "reli
gious perspective”—the anti
abortion strategies are weak in
that their main argument—that
personhood begins at concep
tion, is simply not realistically
substantial.
At the instant of conception, a
human egg consists of one cell.
Although an admittedly mira
culous creation, the cell is
simply that—a cell. Chemically
it differs little from the single
celled egg of a frog, or monkey,
or any other mammal’s ferti
lized egg. By no stretch of the
imagination could it be called a
living, thinking human being.
Where it does differ from the
animals is in the contents of
chromosomes. Inside these
wonderful little proteins are
genes that contain the codes for
assimilating thousands of chem
ical compounds, in exactly the
correct order and position, into a
human being—an incredible
chemical and architectural ac
complishment that we haven’t
even begun to understand.
But a fertilized egg doesn’t
have a monopoly on chromo
somes—they are found in every
cell in the human body. Theo
retically it is possible to clone a
human being from almost any
single cell in the body--—they all
contain the genetic "blueprint”
for a complete body. A human
egg is simply a cellular "spe
cialist" at this business of
reproduction. It is equipped to
combine its genetic “blueprint”
with that of a sperm cell to
produce a fertilized egg with
characteristics of both parents—
a very effective means of insur
ing variety in our species. Just
as an abdominal mesentary cell
could serve as a skin cell, but
could not do the job nearly as
efficiently, so an egg cannot be
looked upon with awe because it
can produce a human being.
Any human cell could, but the
egg, being a “specialist” at re
production, can do it best.
If the fetus, then, does not
become a “person” at con
ception, when does it? In the
first trimester? Second? Third?
Or at birth? Perhaps we are
being arrogant, even obnoxious,
in trying to settle this question
before we have finished gather
ing the evidence. Perhaps we
shall never know. What we do
know is that a decision must be
made. Hiding behind Constitu
tional Amendments will no
make the responsibility go
away. In an idealistic, fairy tale
worid proclamations and a-
mendments might solve the
problem, but until we can build
that world we must face the fact
that thousands of unwanted con
ceptions are going to occur
every year and that no law that
would make them children can
make them wanted.
The choice of completion or
termination of the pregnancy
must be left in the hands of the
parents, for only they can even
begin to have an idea of what
the child’s life will be like—and
remember, we are speaking of
the real world, where every
child isn’t assured a happy
home environment and loving
parents to care for him. We are
speaking of children who are
neglected, abused and aban
doned because no one wanted
them. Forcing a woman to com
plete her pregnancy against her
will would certainly serve as
punishment for her "mis
take”—but look at the “pun
ishment,” the “mistake”—a
a human being. A child simply
cannot be used to “teach the
mother a lesson.” The “re
minder” is too valuable an
object.
The goal of our democratic
society has always been to
provide an environment not just
for life, but for a quality of life—
an opportunity for the “pursuit
of happiness.” Can we attempt
to offer our children anything
less? By withholding choice
from a necessarily responsible
adult on the grounds of offering
it to an unknowing fetus, by
enforcing completion of preg
nancy as a punishment for acci
dental fertilization, we will be
forcing upon thousands of un
wanted children a life devoid of
quality, a hell that could have
been prevented.
It would be so easy to hide
behind a law, an amendment, a
proclamation prohibiting abor
tion, placing the responsibilty
in the hands of the government
instead of the individual. But to
attempt to rid ourselves of this
responsibility is something we
simply cannot do; the conse
quences are too great, the
stakes, too high.
Wide Awake Wilson is suf
fering from a terminal disease.
This cancerous disease is not
uncommon to urban America. It
strikes the famous—New York,
Boston, Chicago—and the in
famous—Rocky Mount, Kinston
and Wilson. It is not poverty or
crime, even though both of
those are important. The di
sease is urban decay.
Urban decay in its many
forms has a few characteristics
that are noticeable to almost
anyone. It starts in the down
town area of a city. The oldest, it
seems, are always the first to
go. Tell-tale signs are vacant
store fronts. And if you can walk
along a sidewalk and feel all
alone in the business district,
you can be certain you are
watching urban decay at work.
Wilson, unfortunately, is not
immune to urban decay. A
prime example of urban decay,
Wilsonian style, is on Tarboro
Street between Barnes and
Nash Streets, In an area that
could have a tremendous a-
mount of appeal. 20 percent of
the 30 store fronts are vacant.
Why would anyone pass up an
opportunity to locate in such a
prime area? The reasons are
almost too numerous to list.
Among them are no parking, an
enormous amount of renovation
needed to put the stores in
operation, unless all you want is
a hole in the wall, and last but
not least, no customers.
Wilson, like many cities, has
tried to fight what some believe
is inevitable. The city has hired
Greg Walker as the Executive
Director of the Wilson Down
town Redevelopment Corpor
ation.
Downtown redevelopment
has three schools of thought
One is that redevelopment is
useless and should not be
conducted. A second idea is that
businesses are going to leave
downtown areas and they
should not be coaxed into stay
ing. Instead, banks, insurance
offices, and similar businesses
that do well in downtown areas
should be encouraged to locate
in town and not in shopping
malls. Still another idea on
redevelopment holds that with
some encouragement busines
ses that are already downtown
will stay and others can be
enticed into wanting to be
downtown.
The school of thought that the
Wilson Redevelopment folks
have latched onto appears to be
a hybrid of something—exactly
what, is not clear. The Wilson
Downtown Redevelopment Cor
poration, in conjunction with the
downtown merchants, is trying
to establish a reward to entice
people to turn in vandals who
hang around the bars and throw
paper in the streets. In other
towns criminals of that magni
tude are the responsibility of the
police. After all, it is unlikely
that vandals scrape paint off of
half a store front and leave the
other half, or put cracks in brick
or concrete walls.
Some stores are trying revita
lization ideas. Churchwell’s
Jewelers is one of them. The
city has also done some face
lifting. The courthouse, munici
pal building and police station
are evidence of that. But even
with a noble start, The Wilson
Daily Times and Merrill Lynch
Stock Brokerage, two busines
ses that function well in down
town areas, are leaving.
The CoUegiate \
Editor John Speight
Assistant Editor Lisa Boykin
Sports Editor Stan Meihaus
Copy Editor Marty Williams
Circulation Manager Lynda Owen
Advertising Manager Michael Nixon
Arts Editor Nancy Tissot
Photographers Jeff MacLennan
Harold Williams
Adviser Michael Fukuchi
Staff; Sandy Aldridge, Jennifer Black, Carolyn Campbell,
Tommy Elliott, Shereen Heath, Everett Jackson, Debbie
Jennings, Johnny Johnson, Ernie Lee, Willie Mewbom, Pete
Purcell, Andrea Robinson, Robin Sellers, Bill Sledge, Maurica
Smith, Ruth Thome, Tony Turley and Brad Woodard.
J