Funds should support rearing, not aborting
I would like to respond to Natasha Burley '00's March 28 column: "Family planning requires taking a hard look at reality."
I believe in choices. I believe that women should be able to choose their best options from a list of alternatives. I also believe that women should be free from coercion. Unfortunately, when it comes to abortion, choice is not the problem; a lack of choices is the problem.
A woman, especially a poor woman, in an unplanned pregnancy does not have the freedom to decide morally from an array of different options. She faces a great financial constraint. Poverty leaves women without a fair ground for choice, and funding for abortions in poverty-stricken areas only exacerbates the already uneven scale for decision making.
Children are expensive, and the cost of carrying a child to term (either keeping the child or giving it up for adoption) is far greater than the cost of an abortion. In place of the arguments for funding overseas abortions, real supporters of choice should rise up and demand that these women receive funding to truly make a choice: Funding to carry their children to term, to raise their children and to make a moral decision apart from coercive tactics. There is a financial incentive in our culture to abort, and by giving money to overseas family planning institutions, we as a nation continue to support and enforce an uneven scale for moral decision making.
When a woman aborts a child she is making a decision that will change her life. Some may argue that this decision will change her life for the better, but there are a number of studies to show otherwise. We as Americans have a duty to inform women of the possible mental risks associated with the abortion procedure and make sure that any woman who chooses such an option is not making a moral decision based upon her financial situation. Continued funding for abortions, overseas or within the United States, proves detrimental to the goal of freedom and ultimately hurts women's choices. Kellie Maul '01
Read More
For the record, video cameras at CPUC meetings must not go
Alex Norbrook“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
We need to keep breaking the glass ceiling of the ivory tower
Maria Luisa Vieira Parada“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
Reactions: Guests respond to Eisgruber and Calhoun’s statements on protesting
Zeke DouglasRosenthal, Edward Yingling, and Wyatt BrowneGuests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
Guests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
