I know what you're thinking: "Cripes, another piece on abortion." To be honest, I can sympathize. I have a junior paper to write, books to read and tests to study for. National and local abortion debates seem like such a lose-lose situation, with tempers flaring, friendships straining and progress lacking.
But hope is not lost. Perhaps there is some common ground, a sliver of overlap in pro-choice and pro-life responses to the question — exciting, right? On Tuesday, Sara Viola '08 and Max Wertzberger '08 wrote that "whatever your personal feelings about abortion, it is an uncomfortable medical procedure." Last year Lindy Baldwin GS cogently noted that she and others "don't support the pro-choice cause because we hate babies or because we want women to suffer." Instead, Pro-Choice Vox members habitually insist on their eagerness to decrease the numbers of abortions. They make it utterly clear they do not really like abortions; they just find them integral to reproductive freedom and thus decry any restrictions at all.
Point taken: I understand that perhaps somewhere along the distant horizon of this logic someone could spot the sparkle of a difference (one hidden, though, from the child dying in the womb). So if we try to create a "Unified Pro-Choice Vox Theory on Abortion" from these comments, perhaps the following suffices: Abortions should be allowed in every case imaginable, yet we should do our best to decrease their number because, for no specific reason, they are "uncomfortable."
Perhaps this representation of the pro-choice opinion is erroneous — if so, I welcome the correction. But if the above theory is correct, it clearly invites the question — why should abortion be avoided? There must be some reason, but if I'm not mistaken, abortion rights advocates has never admitted there being anything at all problematic about abortion — morally or for the health of the mother. Why, then, should they or anyone else care how many abortions there are? Once again, I am a bit confused by their logic, but this is nothing new.
Perhaps pro-choice could admit that there are some indications that abortion can have adverse physical and mental effects — this would surely vindicate their eagerness to decrease the numbers. Certainly, no one wants to increase the instances of a possibly dangerous medical procedure be it for mental or physical health. But has this ever been discussed? No. Has Pro-Choice Vox ever hosted an event discussing the possible adverse physical and mental effects of abortion? Not that I know of. So the question stares us in the face — why not?
Some studies have indicated that after abortions, incidents of suicide tend to increase, as do longterm adverse psychological effects. Research has also shown abortion has a possible connection with breast cancer. How can any group concerned with women's wellbeing not discuss this information? How can self-styled defenders of women never discuss the health risks that some research has shown threatens women? Even if, as pro-choice insists, abortion is morally just another medical procedure, shouldn't we all openly discuss its attendant health risks?
The evidence for abortion's risks is not merely speculative but buttressed by much research: Abortion is often quite damaging mentally and physically to the woman who obtains it. The health of millions of women across the country, and quite possibly a few among us here, is at risk, but Pro-Choice Vox, self-styled champion of women's welfare, has kept silent. Outrageous? Yes. Pro-woman?...
This issue should be openly discussed. Princeton Pro-Life invites Princeton Pro-Choice Vox to cosponsor an event this year bringing various experts (both for and against abortion rights) to consider abortion's possible effects on women. We consider such a discussion not only warranted but also necessary and urgent, due to the immediate and so far disregarded risks to women's health. Tom Haine '08 is the president of Princeton Pro-Life. He is a history major from Alton, Ill., and may be reached at thaine@princeton.edu.
Read More
It’s time to step it up on diversity and inclusion
Christofer RoblesOver the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Over the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Class of 2029: Reject selective views of free speech
Charlie Yale and Siyeon Lee"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
For a more effective USG, train newly elected members on the bureaucracy
Luqmaan BambaFor student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.
For student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.