Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Pro-life and sick of it

Letter to the Editor

Published: Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Updated: Wednesday, March 2, 2011 21:03

I am anti-abortion. I know the cold hard truth that while this procedure is an important part of women's health here in the U.S., it is used in China and India to actively discriminate against women. As a result we have seen female infanticide take on a whole new level. I don't say this because I think we need to outlaw abortion, quite the contrary. Instead of spending all of our time and energy protesting in front of Planned Parenthood, we should be actually addressing the issue behind abortion.

The fact that we don't do that is why you will never see me at a pro-life rally. In fact, I find the entire pro-life movement, especially here on campus, to be a turnoff. Every fall and spring we get the crosses in front of Crosby. Thank you, pro-life crowd, for glorifying the act. Those crosses don't do anything except get people angry. They don't stop a rapist from violating another young woman. They don't stop a father violating his daughter. It doesn't even stop a young couple that is about to engage in unsafe sex. It does nothing except fuel hysteria and further animosity between two sides that do have some common ground. Make no mistake, fellow pro-lifers, pro-choice people do not go around trying to find ways to abort more babies. In fact, many of them will tell you that when abortion rates go down they are happy. Abortion is not a happy affair, don't try to paint people who provide an important medical service as such.

So what then should we spend our energies on? Education, awareness, and tougher incest and rape control. For the past eight years we have been preaching abstinence and abstinence-only. Yes, abstinence is very important, especially with younger kids who probably have no business having sex. However, by just saying "abstinence-only" you are ignoring reality; the reality is that people are going to have sex, period. That is why sex education and access to birth control are incredibly important. Once again I have to be blunt: Birth control is not the same as abortion. Our health center should be handing out condoms next to the candy bowl. Our dorms should have more than just the freshman orientation seminar about sexual violence. We should probably also have some kinds of family living on campus for those who do decide to have a family. These steps are pretty simple and our university could easily implement them. But I also realize that this a major paradigm shift in how we handle sex, especially for many of us who are Catholic. In November of last year, Pope Benedict XVI came out and said condom use was, in very specific circumstances, acceptable. I would contend that using condoms to decrease abortions is a pretty worthy cause. It's a lot more reasonable than protesting and harassing people going into Planned Parenthood. Or even worse, what was proposed in South Dakota. There is a bill currently in the state House that will allow killing someone as a "justified excuse" if it was to protect the life of the unborn. So in other words, if you kill the doctor down the street because he provides abortion services, it's totally fine. I may be the crazy one here but isn't it a bit of a stretch to fight murder with murder? There has got to be a better solution.

I think that my solution is a perfect compromise. By focusing on what causes abortions to occur: poverty, rape, incest, naïve young people with hormones, you will have fewer abortions in this country. At the same time we recognize the hard-won fight to this medical procedure and leave it alone. I think it's a lot more reasonable than shouting at each other or killing each other. There are enough things that we fight and die about in this country and this world. I personally think attacking the sources of abortion instead of abortions themselves would go a long way for us to stop fighting about this.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

7 comments

Anichka5
Fri Feb 24 2012 11:05
Drew,

I am not a student at Gonzaga; I happened upon this editorial almost a year later, and I wanted to tell you how well-written and well-said I found it. I am pro-choice, but found myself nodding in agreement as I read. Every day on my way to work I pass Planned Parenthood and the anti-abortion types with their signs and blown-up photographs, volunteers patrolling outside to protect the people going in and out. Abortion is less than 3% of the services that Planned Parenthood provides to the millions of women who use them because they have no medical insurance. When I was in college I was very poor, and couldn't afford to go to a regular doctor. Planned Parenthood gave me my exams and the birth control pills that I needed to use in order to regulate my female systems.

Anti-choice or anti-abortion is my word choice for those that call themselves pro-life. I fail to see why the life of the pregnant woman is any less important than the life of the child. And who is going to take care of all those children? It is rare that anti-choice types are going to run right out and adopt a little black/hispanic crack baby. So it becomes a matter of our tax dollars at work. And these people are the same people who want to reduce spending to help these children that they would force upon mothers completely un-equipped to raise them. Grandparents throughout this country are having to raise another generation of children rather than be able to rest from their own labours.

Thank you; I thought your editorial was great, and I will share with others should you give me permission to do so. As a librarian, I know that everything that is on the Internet isn't free or copyright-free. :)

Jeff
Thu Feb 23 2012 03:56
What do you call a man and a woman who have sex while using a condom?

parents

Anonymous
Tue Mar 8 2011 21:01
Drew, you missed the point. The "choice" crowd focus's on the cause and ignores the reality of the conceived child. Nothing is ever said about that, but the (and your) argument is always prevention, at the expense of the conceived child. Why don't you rail about that, and make it harder to get or eliminate abortion AFTER conception. That is the point you miss, and that is what the Pro-life position is all about, not the red-herring arguments about "prevention" or hardship, or other economic arguments.
Drew Pollom
Mon Mar 7 2011 12:28
James, you've also completely missed my point. We need to focus on the societal causes of abortions if we want to eliminate them from the world. I'm sorry you feel that is a shallow assesment and reflects poorly on me, but I think that condoms do reflect a attempt to protect someone's health as the Pope said. Plus, the South Dakota law is not that specific, sorry. I could also point out that a recent Georgia Lawmaker has placed a law to investigate miscarriages, and perhaps criminalize it. That is insane. BTW, I never read Huffpo but thanks for assuming that just because I don't tow the pro-life line that has feed us that I am somehow misinformed.
James
Sun Mar 6 2011 20:47
Drew this article is pretty shallow reading of things, and only makes you look bad. First of all the Pope never said condoms were allowed under any circumstances. What he said in an interview was that a male prostitute using a condom had a basic sense of morality because it showed that such a person did not want to harm others. The Pope was making the point that someone who has that basic sense of morality (caring for others health) was a person who was open to the truth as opposed to someone who cared nothing for others. Second the law in South Dakota does not allow people to kill abortion doctors. It allows a pregnant woman who was being attacked to kill the attacker to prevent harm to her baby or if there was such a threat. In other words it allows a threat to her baby from any attacker to be defended with mortal force, as a mother or father could if someone was attempting to kill or harm their newborn. Seriously do you only read Huffpo and Mother Jones?
Drew Pollom
Fri Mar 4 2011 14:54
I would love to have a conversation with you to clarify what I was saying. Lets meet in Crosby. I want tot talk to you face to face because you clearly ignored 99+ of what I was trying to say. I will buy the coffee (or some other drink if the coffee isn't your thing).
Anonymous
Thu Mar 3 2011 22:41
Your conclusion is a non-sequitur that ignores thy 99%+ of abortion which has nothing to do with rape and incest. The unborn child is the victim. And until the so-called "pro-choice" crowd recognizes this, and stop highlighting the minority of case cause, maybe you would have more credibility. Would you agree to ban all abortion except in the case of rape and incest? I didn't think so. Rape and incest is tragic, and are the tough calls, but in no case is it the unborn child's fault. Stop marginalizing these victims and use them as an excuse to keep all abortion legal. All you do is highlight the exceptions and the lunatics who attack abortion providers, but you say nothing about protecting the unborn - those conceived. You also complete mis-quote the Pope. He was talking about moral relativism and moving toward moral behavior, using condoms as an example. In no way was he condoning condom use. If you are going to cite, cite correctly.






log out