Tag Archives: Pro-Life

Women’s rights: For women, by women

Abortion is a decision that should be made by each individual woman and no one else. The idea that women’s rights are being decided by a board room full of men is asinine. Why would a bunch of men, who have no idea what if is or feels like to be a woman, be allowed to decide what women are legally allowed to do with their own bodies?

When it comes to abortion, women should be able to make that decision, to the best of their ability, dependent on what’s best for them. Most people don’t understand the idea that women who become pregnant won’t always be able to take care of the baby, that their social and economic status could potentially be detrimental to a baby’s life.

Many people think that if a woman becomes pregnant it’s her fault, and she should deal with the consequences of it, no matter the potential of not being able to give that baby a life worth living, a safe environment and a constant food supply. Not one person should be able to tell that woman what is best for her or her child.

We don't need no man. Photo from hamptoninstitution.org
We don’t need no man. Photo from hamptoninstitution.org

Pro-life individuals struggle with the idea that women who receive abortions are killing a human being, that getting an abortion is no different than murdering someone. This idea is simply false.

Ninety-two percent of all abortions occur before the end of the first trimester, 13 weeks, and 32 percent of those occur at or before the first six weeks of pregnancy. At this point in time, the “fetus” is truly a conglomeration of cells, not considered to be a baby or to look like a human. How can one compare an abortion, a removal of a group of cells, to the murder of an alive, walking and talking, human being?

An abortion at six weeks is no different than removing something like a tumor, which is a group of cells as well. Scientifically speaking, the thought that abortions are killing human beings is incorrect and should no longer be used in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.

The bottom line here is, no man, no woman, no child, should be telling another woman what to do with her body, how to use her body, or when and if she should want to get an abortion. It’s nobody else’s business. A woman shouldn’t have to give a justified reason as to why she has received an abortion. Women’s rights should be decided by women and only by women.

Pro-life? Pro- choice? And… something different.

“The Genocide Awareness Project”. It truly does sound like a cause fit for the righteous and the noble. I imagine there are few people on campus who are opposed to eradicating genocide.


The main problem with this project is the branding of the project. The problem with the so-called “Genocide Awareness Project” is that it is less about spreading knowledge and enlightenment, and more about spreading fear and hate amongst our campus. Pro-life and anti-life are ideologies; most of the time, those ideologies do not meet in the middle. “The Genocide Awareness Project” takes the pro-life stance to extremes, by equating legal abortion with the inhumane torture and death of Nazi genocide victims and African American lynching victims.


To be certain, no qualms should be raised concerning this group’s right to say what they wish. As is well established by the United States Constitution, the people’s right to free speech and peaceable assembly shall not be abridged. Likewise, as some may be surprised to know, Radford University also allows protests like this to take place under its own free speech protection clause, a portion of which states,


[f]ree inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the vibrancy and vitality of a campus community. At Radford University, we value and honor diverse perspectives and believe it essential that groups and individuals have the opportunity to engage in peaceful and orderly protests and demonstrations (“Free Expression Policy”).


Shocking posters such as this were shown on Radford's campus recently. Graphic from Fletcher's Blog
Shocking posters such as this were shown on Radford’s campus recently. Graphic from Fletcher’s Blog

However, while “The Genocide Awareness Project” is free to express their freedom of speech and freedom of peaceable assembly, this writer will make sure to express his own freedom of speech and freedom of the press.


“The Genocide Awareness Project” is welcome to tout their beliefs, but make no mistake, their argument is biased towards women who desire the ability to plan their own lives and families, biased towards men who support those women (regardless of their eventual choice to abort or not), and perhaps most egregious, is that their entire premise and argument makes very little sense in terms of the actual definition of genocide.


As outlined by the United Nations,” the United States defines genocide as an act which possesses “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial, or religious group as such appearing in Article II means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group” (“Chapter IV”). It should be clear that abortion, as a medical procedure, is not an effort to stamp out growth of any group in the United States. Abortion is a medical procedure which was settled by the Supreme Court in 1973, commonly referred to as Rowe v. Wade. “The Genocide Awareness Project” should familiarize themselves with the statutes of American law. Under an ideological banner, they are free to stage protests with the intent to suppress or deter women from consulting with a doctor about the potentially emotional subject of abortion. However, “The Genocide Awareness Project” should also be warned that the letter of the law is not on their side.


Protest is perfectly acceptable, as laid out by both The United States Constitution and Radford University; but, “The Genocide Awareness Project” must be intimately aware that their crusade against female liberty will not be tolerated by those of us who have moved beyond 1973. Restrictions on abortion are already in place, and for good reason. These restrictions mean something. Great care has been taken in formulating laws against abortion; no one condones the killing of fetuses past the third trimester. For 41 years, women have had the right to choose for themselves what types of medical care is most beneficial to them, their family, their financial state, and their mental well-being. No one will take that right away from them. The court has spoken, and they spoke loudly and clearly 41 years ago.


“The Genocide Awareness Project” should be intimately aware of their messaging strategy. Their entire premise of existence is predicated on the aspect of shock and awe.

If they feel abortion is tantamount to genocide, then we, as citizens, students, and teachers certainly reserve the right to call their project the incoherent ramblings of a demented and misogynistic group of raving lunatics.


Work Cited

“Chapter IV: Human Rights.” United Nations Treaty Collection. United Nations, 12 Jan. 1957. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. <https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=2&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en#Participants>.

“Free Expression Policy.” (6 August 2014). 1-3. Print.

Sometimes it’s better just to let things go

If you’ve read any of my articles, you would know that I’m in no way anti-abortion. I’m all for it, within reason. Last week, there was a viral video that really reaffirmed why I’m so pro-choice. In the video, a couple is about to have their first child. Like any parents-to-be they buy clothes, toys, a crib and numerous other baby accessories as they await the arrival of their newborn baby boy.

As any expectant mother does, the pregnant wife goes to a doctors appointment and gets a routine ultrasound. Unfortunately, the doctor noticed several abnormalities with the fetus. The fetus appeared to have a cleft palette, kidney failure and heart problems. The doctor, understandably, suggested to the mother that she terminate the pregnancy because the child had zero chance of surviving more than a couple days. However, the couple decided to move forward with the pregnancy so that they could get to “meet” their child and make him as comfortable as possible in the few days that he had.

“I couldn’t, in good conscience, force my child into this world just to watch them die in front of my eyes.”

Many praised the parents for being so brave and not terminating the pregnancy. When you watch the video, however,the baby looks miserable after he is born. The baby died several times in the parents arms, only to be brought back to life by chest compressions. Pro-lifers may applaud the parents for what they did, but I can’t help but put myself in that situation.

I’m not one to judge the parents for their decision. If they feel closure because they got to “know” their child for those few days he had, good for them. However, if I were  in that situation, especially after seeing the way the child suffered during his short life, I would’ve chosen to terminate the pregnancy.

Now before you assume I’m this heartless wench who has no sympathy or that I’m this abortion-pushing maniac, think about what it would be like to only remember your child as being ill. Personally, I would rather not see my child suffer while fighting in vain to keep him or her alive. I would rather move forward in my life, and honestly, try again. I couldn’t, in good conscience, force my child into this world just to watch them die in front of my eyes.

I respect the parents choice, if that’s what will give them peace in the long-run. I just don’t think what they did is this amazing thing that’s completely worthy of praise. In my opinion, it’s sort of selfish to make a small baby suffer just so that you can feel brave and noble about not aborting it.

Although I would have to actually be put into the situation to know what I’d do, I feel strongly that I couldn’t go through with the pregnancy the way this mother did. I believe sometimes there’s no shame in giving up and starting over, especially so that the child didn’t have to die so slowly.