Dear Mr. Allott,
It is verily rare that I should read something that enrages me to the point that I have to google its author so that I may insult him. And I have always believed that brevity is at the heart of all insulting force, so I will write simply: you are a moron of the basest order.
Such an insult must come across as childish, I'm sure, but it seems that were I a thousand times your minor, I could not produce a piece as childish, naïve, poorly-researched, and poorly-argued as "The Audacity of Death."
Let's take a quick look at this piece (because a quick look is all that is necessary to know when a piece of writing is mindless, propagandist dribble). It begins with a cute, emotional anecdote about a girl who is happy not to have died (is she really happy, suffering forever, however alive she may be, with cerebral palsy?--she only says that she doesn't "die easy [sic]"...). This poor attempt at pathos (poor because not well-enough detailed) serves to draw the reader into the argument to be made (provided, of course, that that reader already agrees with everything in advance).
You then engage in a rather frivolous analysis of Barack Obama's writings and ["hypocritical"] actions. Mr. Obama, as an intelligent, well-educated human being surely understands that although abortion is a difficult issue and "never a good thing," it is a markedly moral problem. Our question therefore becomes, "Should a politician in a country such as ours make laws that satisfy [his own] religious morality?" Your conclusion here seems to be, resoundingly, "Yes, indeed;" however, it is not so, as we live not in a theocracy, but in a representational democracy. Your pathetic (in all senses of the word) "analysis" doesn't take into account that those who are purely morally opposed to something have no right to impose their moral standards upon others (conservatism, in its uncorrupted, more libertarian sense, would agree). It also doesn't take into account the stories of human lives ruined or lost due to abortion's unavailability or due to failed, self-attempted procedures.
Imagine, therefore, that you had begun your piece this way: "Ginny, a 16-year-old girl, died today of internal bleeding after a self-attempted abortion. She used a coat hanger. Her parents mourn her loss deeply, and wish that she had had access to an abortion clinic." How do you think that people would have reacted, had you inserted such a passage into your article? What if you had mentioned a young girl raped and forced (indirectly, by law) to bear the child? Do these things never happen? What indeed is more tragic: the loss of a 16-year-old girl (or the tragedy of a young girl raped, impregnated, and made to bear the child), or the death of a mentally-damaged fetus (not a self-conscious being no matter how you twist it) half-aborted? If your own daughter or loved one attempted the aforementioned "coat-hanger" abortion and died, how would you feel?
Your seeming inability to acknowledge the fact that no moral decision is so one-sided as you make it in "The Audacity of Death" is your greatest failure. I would go further to say that it is the failure of humanity, of the billions of people who lack enough imagination to see (or want to see) beyond their own political, religious, and social imperatives.
I assume that you might attempt to argue that your article was intended simply to show how Mr. Obama's writing and his legislating do not match up. To this I respond that you overlook the relationship between one's personal life and thoughts and one's duty to one's country. Whether or not Mr. Obama has resolved the issue of abortion for himself is irrelevant. Whether or not he ultimately respects the so-called "sanctity of life" is equally irrelevant. We live in a country where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness reign supreme, and to deny any of those to any citizen is a travesty. To push anti-abortion legislature (notice Mr. Obama's choice of words; why say "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life"? I wonder. Please think about that.) is an affront to Americans who do not possess certain morals, and no affront to Americans who do possess them (i.e. why should a woman's personal decision to have an abortion be your concern?).
Barack Obama's pro-choice voting record is nothing short of a resistance to the "universal good" that is the big brother of totalitarianism. Only by giving people the right to act as autonomous human beings who must make their own moral decisions can we escape the theocratic néant in which we presently find ourselves submerged.
In any case, I have said too much (and yet, far too little). Keep in mind, Mr. Allott, that I have written this to quell my anger against the intellectual apathy that your writing exudes, and not so much to try to wake you from your proverbial slumber. People like you who are so lacking in imagination are static beings and lost causes. Far be it from me to tear an ignoramus from bliss.
Should you feel compelled to critique my writing here (if you even read it (which, somehow, I doubt you did)), I'd like to make a preemptive strike (we all love Bush here, right?) by noting that I cannot be held accountable for not having edited an email as long as certain published writers aren't held accountable for not thinking. I certainly hope that you won't reply--unless, of course, in complete concession--for to read another word of unintelligent pontification may literally kill me. And you do respect the sanctity of life, don't you, Mr. Allott?
Please accept the expression of my ever-fading hope, and allow me to laud you for having preached to the choir (the very choir, incidentally, that needs anything but more preaching!).
Adham B. Azab
