LETTERS CON’T FROM PC. 4 see, the letter was not raising issues of morals, or ethics, or behaviour. Nor was it advocating less education in sex or - birth control. ,Rather, if you read between the lines, that first ’
letter fifiwe ‘_
" thought such ments make UPEI look like
' a school with class, or like a second rate institution.
Of course the quality
« of this‘sch’ool is not
dependent upon the‘ -
r_ advertisments the SIN publishes. But how this
" school is judged and seen '
by people off the campus is most certainly influenced by what you say
I and do. You say it is
‘ none of their business. You are probably right. The SUN is a journal for students. But it is not a private document. It is and will continue to be read beyond campus limits.
You say the opinion of people off the campus does not matter? How
..strange! I never found I had so many friends that I could afford to offend them without good cause. Do you think this university is so free
’ from problems that we can do without friends?
You say, "What about our freedom? Doesn‘t education imply freedom to express ourselves?"
Certainly it does. But is it necessary for those who are liberated to wave their freedom about like a flag in a forty knot gale, just to see it flap?
If the issue of teaching sex by the gospel of Julius Schmidt is, indeed, so important - Fair enough. Then stick by your guns and may the devil take public opinion.
But, if offending
BEJTER 1 MN
7‘6 3‘ K en t a c r 635 s
8'9'2‘-.8 1 41
Charlottetown
many people who want to
\- be your friends is, also
important, maybe you should think about that too.
Every generation has its own hang-ups. God knows, mine has enought for all of us. But don't let the 'hangé-up of yours be the falaacy that you invented sex.
Yours sincerely,
Ivan KilpatriCK
Business Administration
Dear Editor, " ‘ On behalf of tlne Irish Heritage Society and the
many visitors to our third
annual exhibition (Robertson
Library, March 17-19), I thank you for the fine coverage your newspaper gave to our activities. We are grateful for your intrest and your accurate reporting of our societies objectives and projects. Yours Truly,
Brendan O'Grady Dept. of Eng
Dear Editor,
_ 'Ihe S.U. elections have come and gone, and the pro— mises which were solemly made seem less likely to be fulfilled with each passing day. In spefic we are re— ferring to the comptroller, who not only did not come thru with the promises he made in 76-77, but it looks as if the same is going-to happen this coming term.
Oar major complaint is
‘the lackof tables inthe It is espically ency-
barn. ing when one looks back to
last Oct. when the force was
told that the tables would be in within two weeks. Some five months later. . . and nothing has been cone
and it doesn't look like it
will be.
BY fflp’lcs. _ c H-r:*A-::Nt~r£
:: PLANNED. PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION
Infiomaxxon Ire:
Bthh COWK,V.D. , Pnegnancy Commie/bung, Pnegnancy Taung
Street
the Hotel
‘Ihe UPEI SUN, Thursday, April 6, 1978, Daqe 5
'Jhe rest of our grips vary from not having an emergency phone installed to not repairing costly da—
.mages in the barn.
Members of the CP force
Dear Editor,
We as authors of the article "Forget the Seals ...Save the Babies', are writing in response to the letter by Robert Gifford (in last week's issue).
First, we shall direct' our comments to the intro- ductory ones made by Gif- ford. He stated that some of the materials went "be- yond the bounds of. .. good editorial judgment." May we infer from this that Dr. Gifford is an advocate of editorial cen- sorship? If so, would not that sane censorship be applicable to any adver— tiserents which readers find "beyond the bounds of propriety and good editor— ial judgment"? (I think everyone knows what we are talking about.)
Second: The letter ; ' stated that the "Diary of an Unborn Chil " and the "Ballad of the Unborn" both "sink below any acceptable standards of argument on the issue." 'Ihese pieces were not intended as arguments; rather, they are works of art-poetry to be precise. I wonder if Professor Gif— ford has ever read "Flanders' Fiel ". Dead men do not write poetry either, but their imagined thoughts are certainly poetic. Poetry does not usually have persuasion as its purpose. The indignant writer apparently does not realize that a poem needs only"'to be".
True, "unborn child— ren" v-end we must confess our happiness at Professor Gifford's terminol -— do not write ballads. But, (as our article stated),
they <_i_O_ think...and breatlne
and move and feel pain. Why shouldn't one get "emotional" about people killing them?
Third, it was inferred from our article that we regard moss against the seal hunt as hypocrites. Here he missed the point entirely. Our article simply called for a long hard look at our priorities as intelligent, moral citizens. We made no comment whatsoever on tlne good or evil of the seal hunt; the suffering that man inflicts on other animals is a trivial matter when one is con— fronted with the suf— fering - that man
inflicts onrhis fellow man (particularly his helpless, 'ir'moceit, fellow man) .
Now, to the irrelevant Statements made in the Letter: "'Ihe "argument" proceeded to criticize 'those who denounce both contraception and abortion. Incredibly, he states, "One's choices are then limited to Ifurther over-population. . . and repressing the adult human being's desire for sex." This implies that the adult human should not
have to restrain any of
his "normal" "sexual de.—- sires. Surelythe profes— sor did not intend to make such a broad state— .ment.
And as far as over— population goes. . . Even _i_f_ the world is over-pop- ulated, is that a good enough excuse for abortion/ infanticide? Euthanasia? How about extermrna' ting tlnose deemed "useless to society"?
Next, we allude brief— ly to the "argument" that many children "conceived in lust" have not been aborted. So what?
It seems that Profes— sor Gifford has missed
LETTERS CON'T ON PG 7
HE LEPAGE SHOE +6 . Co.
*In...,5.§-T;6//zcc- /9?2
eakfioN STREET 8944-74-8
I 72¢ fiO/flé a fool séoe
1
.-.r.... ., _.,