With a major election approaching, we must reflect upon two critical issues: abortion and embryo-destructive research. Regardless of what anyone might say about "personal beliefs" as to when life begins, it is a fact of science – as evidenced by all of the major embryology textbooks – that the life of a human being begins at fertilization.
Prior to fertilization there are only gametes — sperm and ovum — which are both genetically and functionally parts of larger entities, the father and the mother. But when a sperm and ovum fuse, a new, unique, genetically complete and distinct human being begins.
This entity is not a "potential" human being. Rather, it is a human being with potential. Its potential is to develop from the embryonic stage into and through the fetal, infant, child and adolescent stages into adulthood.
These words merely describe stages in the development of the same entity: the human being. While I was never a sperm or an egg, I was once an embryo — or more properly, an embryonic human being. Regardless of how many people claim that an embryo is merely a "clump of cells," the facts of science prove that it is a human being. To have destroyed the entity that I was in the embryonic stage would have been to have destroyed me; it would not have been merely to prevent a possible human being from coming into existence.
Justice demands that we extend to the embryo the same basic rights and protections that human beings in all other stages possess. It requires that we not discriminate on the basis of race, gender or ethnicity. Likewise, we must not discriminate on the basis of age, size, stage of development or condition of dependency.
Human rights are not something that the government bestows upon citizens, nor are they dependent upon a human's ability or usefulness to others. Rather, humans have rights because of what they are.
This explains why we defend the life of the mentally handicapped child just as much as the life of the Nobel Prizewinning scientist. Just as it would be evil to kill the mentally handicapped child to harvest his organs for transplant, so too would it be evil to kill the embryonic human being to harvest his stem cells. Just as it was wrong to exterminate Jews to create an ideal race, so too is it wrong to execute fetuses for maternal convenience. These considerations do not stem from religious dogma; they are simply the objective demands of natural justice.
These considerations require that our nation's laws extend the same basic rights and protections to all human beings. A vote for a pro-abortion/embryo-destruction candidate is a vote for the direct and intentional killing of innocent human beings.
It is time to put away tired clichés. You cannot be "personally" opposed to abortion while thinking others should have the choice. You may as well be personally opposed to slavery, but in support of others having the choice to own slaves. In this case, however, that "choice" is a choice for murder.
We realize that many pro-life candidates fail on other issues. We yearn for the day when all candidates will be pro-life, so that we may choose our representatives on the criteria of other issues.
Unfortunately, that day is not here. While we may prefer the economic, educational, health and foreign policies of pro-abortion/embryo-destruction candidates, we recognize that the issues surrounding abortion and embryo-destructive research are of paramount importance, and we are forced to distinguish between socially desirable policies and the perpetuation of intrinsically evil acts.
More than 1.3 million children currently die every year from abortions, and even more will die if unbridled embryo-destructive research is permitted. No candidate's tax, educational, or foreign policy can be so good — and certain of its promises — that it justifies extending certain death to millions of innocent human beings.
Pro-life citizens disagree over the justification of the current war. But we see that no candidate is running on a platform of waging unjust war intentionally targeting innocent humans, particularly not one that will result in the direct, intentional death of 1.3 million people a year. Though we know every war is a serious concern, we must unite in identifying the war against the unborn as the graver evil.
Contrary to the claims of our opponents, none of our appeals have been personal, private or religious. Our simple demand is for the equal protection of all.
This November, we ask that you do not support politicians who deny basic human rights to an entire class of human beings. Ashley Pavlic '07 is the president of Princeton ProLife. She can be reached at prolife@princeton.edu.
Read More
Seniors deserve better than Jay Shetty
Izabela Konopka and Joshua YangWe are writing to express our strong disapproval of the selection of Jay Shetty as the 2025 Class Day speaker. We deserve better than a self-help guru and repeated plagiarist who runs a “school” that an expert claims exhibits “similar patterns” to a multi-level marketing scheme.
We are writing to express our strong disapproval of the selection of Jay Shetty as the 2025 Class Day speaker. We deserve better than a self-help guru and repeated plagiarist who runs a “school” that an expert claims exhibits “similar patterns” to a multi-level marketing scheme.
The CPUC must not gut its Judicial Committee
Bill HewittEnding the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over initial complaints would embolden abuses of power, allowing the administration to evade accountability for University rule violations without the pressure of student and faculty authority.
Ending the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over initial complaints would embolden abuses of power, allowing the administration to evade accountability for University rule violations without the pressure of student and faculty authority.
Princeton, let’s adopt a digital prox
Jorge ReyesTo prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
To prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.