After raising more than $2,000 last semester, the St. Thomas Knights of Columbus installed a monument just north of the Murray-Herrick Campus Center.
The pro-life monument features an image of the Virgin Mary and infant Jesus and a quote from a Vatican homily from Pope Benedict XVI: “Each of us is a result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed. Each of us is loved. Each of us is necessary.”
St. Thomas Grand Knight Paul Shovelain said, “The quote from Pope Benedict is actually a very pro-life quote. It’s not just for little children, but for adults, as well … not only the unborn. Not only the students on campus here, but also the elderly.”
The Knights started looking into monument possibilities last year, after the grand knight two years ago brought up the idea.
Last semester, the Knights raised the money with a jellybean-guessing contest in the middle of April. Each guess cost $2 and the winner won a TV, purchased with money from the Undergraduate Student Government.
With 1,000 guesses for the contest and donations from local Knights of Columbus chapters, the St. Thomas Knights raised enough money. They talked to the Rev. John Malone, vice president for mission, to approve the image and quote. The Knights also talked to Jerry Anderley, associate vice-president for facilities, to find a location.
“With its proximity to the chapel, we figured this would be a good location,” Shovelain said. “We also wanted it to be visible … This location is visible to the Upper Quad and it has great visibility to campus … I think that’s a good choice.”
The monument cost $4,000, but the company gave the Knights a discount.
“The company saw the importance of the pro-life movement and the values of life are high on their priorities,” Shovelain said. “He realized the need to promote the values of the Catholic faith and this was a great way to promote the faith on campus and give an awareness to the students.”
The monument will be blessed and dedicated on Oct. 22 with a Mass and a visit from Bishop Piché.
Mary Kenkel can be reached at mlkenkel@stthomas.edu
How very beautiful and fitting for the University of St. Thomas, a Catholic university, to have a monument on campus that speaks to the dignity of human life, from conception until natural death. I love the portrait of Our Lady, but my favorite part is the quote, which was taken from Pope Benedict’s inaugural homily as Pope, on April 24, 2005. That quote is my favorite quote, and even more beautiful than the quote itself, is the passage in the homily from whence it was taken, which I have pasted below:
“We are living in alienation, in the salt waters of suffering and death; in a sea of darkness without light. The net of the Gospel pulls us out of the waters of death and brings us into the splendour of God’s light, into true life. It is really true: as we follow Christ in this mission to be fishers of men, we must bring men and women out of the sea that is salted with so many forms of alienation and onto the land of life, into the light of God. It is really so: the purpose of our lives is to reveal God to men. And only where God is seen does life truly begin. Only when we meet the living God in Christ do we know what life is. We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary. There is nothing more beautiful than to be surprised by the Gospel, by the encounter with Christ. There is nothing more beautiful than to know Him and to speak to others of our friendship with Him. The task of the shepherd, the task of the fisher of men, can often seem wearisome. But it is beautiful and wonderful, because it is truly a service to joy, to God’s joy which longs to break into the world.”
You can find Pope Benedict XVI’s inaugural homily in its entirety here, which is where I found the passage from it quoted above: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050424_inizio-pontificato_en.html
An excellent reminder that St. Thomas is a university formed by the Catholic faith. It is no mistake that the chapel and the monument are near the heart of campus. Whatever our religious affiliation, may God and the dignity of life guide our hearts as well.
Thank you, Knights, for this beautiful monument and reminder of the sanctity of human life!
Makes me proud to be a Knight and a Tommie!
Would someone tell me where the Knights of Columbus, an all-male organization, got the authority to publicly declare their views on an issue that affects only WOMEN’S bodies (unless I’m unaware of some revolutionary technology that allows men to be “with child” and birth through their penis)? In that case, by all means, St. Thomas Knights, tell all your pregnant man friends that pro-life is the way to be, and then introduce them to me to satisfy my curiosity.
In case I’m not being clear, I will spell it out for all you Tommies: The Knights of Columbus has absolutely no right to erect a pro-life statue. Yes, I understand St. Thomas is a Catholic University. Yes, I understand the Catholic Church is pro-life. Yes, I understand your argument. Here’s what I don’t understand: Why the student body had no say in this irreversible and monumental (no pun intended) decision; why there was not more media covering the issue, seeing as it was a work in progress for over a year; why MY student government paid for the TV to support the fundraising.
St. Thomas does not require its students to be Catholic, yet it is not willing to accurately represent those who are not. More specifically, issues such as abortion that are not directly affiliated with Catholicism and not concretely discussed in the Bible should not be used to falsely represent the St. Thomas community. I will not allow the Knights of Columbus to tell me what I can or cannot, should or should not, do with my body. As cliche as that sounds, I wholeheartedly believe and stand by it.
I am disgusted and ashamed of this statue and its misrepresentation of the St. Thomas community. I can respect your opinions and belief systems, Knights of Columbus, but I will not share them with you, as I do not expect you to share mine. Let me know, though, one of you becomes pregnant. I’ll be sure to attend the baby shower.
Well, I think men are just as able to be pro-life, as women are… luckily we have Obama as president though, so you don’t really have to listen to the Knights anyway. Although i kind of agree with your position , Sarah, I think we also need to just remember we’re at a catholic university, and these are just sort of things we have to deal with because of it… but seriously, don’t EVER let others tell you what to think.
Sarah, as Catholics we believe in God and he has given us some laws to follow. St. Thomas Aquinas discusses four types of law, Eternal, Natural, Divine and Human. The natural law has a precept that human life is to be pursued and protected. Thus, we should not kill human beings? I want to know what you think of killing human beings? Can a mother kill her own child? I know, how culture has clouded our view about when life begins, but human life does indeed begin at conception. A baby’s heart starts beating in the first 24 days. By the fourth week the brain is being formed. By the fifth week, the figures are formed, By the six week brain waves can be detected and recorded. So, you want to argue the baby is not rational, well you are not rational when you sleep does that mean your mother can kill you? Absolutley not. All human beings are to be respected and loved.
As for the memorial to the unborn, the quote from Pope Benedict, states “Each of us is willed. Each of us is loved. Each of us is necessary.” This is an exclusive statement. I don;t know how anyone can disagree with that. We are all loved by God! Thank you God for loveing us! Also, if you favor abortion, it seems to me that you would want to say only some of us are willed, some of us are loved, and some of us are necessary. That does not sound very loving to me. However, I care about you and the others reading this post. I want all of us to get to heaven and we must avoid sin as best we can. I want to encourage you to change your view and promote a culture of life in our day, God bless You!
Paul, with all due respect, I don’t think this is an argument over whether abortion is “right.” Everyone has already made their choices on that issue.
oh, and by the way John, nice photos!
Sarah,
Did you read the quote that was on the monument before you posted your comment?
The quote that was chosen for the monument, taken from Pope Benedict XVI’s first homily as pope, states that “Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary”. This monument is a monument that celebrates the God-given gift of life. It’s a monument that recognizes that life is a gift from God, and that regardless of who you are and the choices you’ve made, your life is valuable because God created you with a unique purpose in mind. This is a fact that is true of every human being, from conception until natural death, including you, Sarah. You are special because God created you in His own image, to do something beautiful in this world.
Ms. Ritterspach, while I think you might have had a solid point initially, it was lost amongst the unnecessary sarcasm and puzzling contradictions of your post. I am not trying to support or condemn the Knights of Columbus, but it seems apparent that they had USG’s approval for the funding as well as the Administration’s approval for constructing the monument. That being true, I do not see grounds to argue that they did not have the right to do this.
People will take from the monument many different things. For instance, when I walked passed it I did not immediately think “Pro-life”, instead that it was a call to enjoy life fully. As Paul Shovelain said the quote applies to humans at all stages of life, from children to the elderly. As for you being offended that the Knights of Columbus are sharing their beliefs, it is rather ironic given your four-paragraph lambasting of them on this public website. I can safely say there are those who are not strictly in agreement with the Knights’ position, and are offended by your portrayal of the St. Thomas community. It is difficult to imagine respecting others opinions and belief systems when no one is expected to share them.
The more I have to read your post the most upsetting it is. In particular, the view that only a woman’s opinion matters on abortion. While I will concede that a woman’s body is directly affected, translate that manner of thought to other social issues and see how narrow-minded it is. Should gay rights only be discussed by gay people? How about black rights? How about issues regarding illegal immigrants? While it seems is accurate to say that abortion physically only affects a woman’s body, it affects many more people than that on the whole. People talking today that might have otherwise been aborted have insight that you or I might not. Furthermore, the husbands, brothers, boyfriends, etc obviously have an opinion that I feel deserves to be heard. You will not hear me say that any person should be forced to do something, however, I would ask that all opinions be listened to and an attempt made to respect them, rather than devaluing them on the basis of gender.
Lastly, Mr. Bombardo is right. This is not about whether abortion or pro-life is right, it is about one group expressing their beliefs within the appropriate confines of the University’s policy. Both Ms. Ritterspach and Mr. Bombardo’s first posts were completely uncalled for given this situation. I could go on about the uselessness of Mr. Bomardo’s first post but that too would not amount to much.
Sarah,
I would be happy to tell you on whose authority the Knights of Columbus publicly declares its views. These views are in line with both CATHOLIC social and moral thought. Granted, the Knights of Columbus is a Catholic fraternal organization, we do not act with an all male agenda in any regard. We render financial aid to members and their families. Mutual aid and assistance are offered to sick, disabled and needy members and their families. Social and intellectual fellowship is promoted among members and their families through educational, charitable, religious, social welfare, war relief and public relief works. With that being said, we care for the community.
In addition, pro-life issues are not solely women’s issues. I cannot deny that women are able to give birth and carry a child from conception to birth, while men cannot. Please do not deny the human dignity of either men or women by reducing either human person to a “utility” that we are what we do.
I appreciate your cunning, even if I do not agree with your stance regarding the monument, what a Catholic university should be, or even with how clubs and organizations are funded.
If it is a matter simply of dollars and cents and that you disagree with a portion of your tuition fees going to fund the memorial, let me reassure you that prizes were funded with funds from USG and not directly providing to the memorials fabrication, shipping, completion, or installation. I will go further to offer you a refund for your fees. I will gladly send you your portion for the USG funds that went to providing the funding for Knights of Columbus’ fundraising. There are according to the UST website statistics, 6,146 undergraduate students and we sought $1,700 to fundraise. As I see it, I owe you a check for $ .28. Would you like this via intercampus mail or should I send it to you personally?
St. Thomas as a Catholic institution requires its clubs and organizations to according to the Handbook from the Office of Campus Life to be, “Inspired by Catholic intellectual tradition, the University of St. Thomas educates students to be morally responsible leaders who think critically, act wisely, and work skillfully to advance the common good.” In addition, “as a community we are committed to: Pursuit of truth, Academic excellence, Faith and reason, Dignity, Diversity, Personal Attention, and Gratitude.” From what I have seen, these definitions are sometimes laxly fit, in particular with funding to Allies in supporting gay and lesbian lifestyles and National Coming Out Day. I do not agree with the funding being provided for Coming Out Day t-shirts; however, I am in support of people who identify as having same sex attraction with respect to them being called them to live the same chastity that all people are called to. With that being said, Allies should not be supported if it stands against the ideals of the university. Part of this being a private university is that it is privately funded because there are enough of us here who wish to reflect values and an identity in a safe haven that is not capable of being provided with federal aid.
As far as abortion goes, you are correct in stating that the word abortion does not come about in the textual reading of the Bible; however, contextually there is quite the case for supporting a stance that is pro-life against abortion and in favor of the natural dignity of the fetus: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you in Jeremiah 1:5, Thy hands fashioned and made me; and now thou dost turn about and destroy me. Remember that thou hast made me of clay; and wilt thou turn me to dust again? Didst thou not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese? Thou didst clothe me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. Thou has granted me life and steadfast love; and thy care has preserved my spirit. Job 10:8-12, Upon thee was I cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me thou hast been my God. Be not far from me, for trouble is near and there is none to help. Psalm 22:10-11, My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. Psalm 139:15. Furthermore, the Catholic Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion both direct and indirect since the first century: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish, from the Didache. This belief is reflected in many early writings of the early church fathers as well.
Restating, what I wrote earlier, the Knights of Columbus and the Catholic Church at large strongly uphold the human nature and dignity of all people. We take Christ as our example par excellence as the model for all humanity as he was 1. Fully Divine 2. Fully Human. One may disagree with what is proper in regards to respect for his or her human person, but that does not support the behavior as being moral or even desirable. The Church supports both posits of the natural law: the negative moral law which states that one ought never deliberately destroy a facet of one’s human nature and also the positive that you should reasonably be all that you possibly can. Human activities supply the norm for activity and not an individual human nature. You in being endowed with free will are fully capable of disregarding what is held as truth.
The St. Thomas community is in no way misrepresented by a pro-life memorial. I affirm you in your femininity in understanding your own complementarity and dignity; however, I cannot agree with you when you state that you respect either Catholic opinions or the Catholic stance of the Knights of Columbus. I mean you no harm and wish you the best life possible, which includes embracing a whole life stance, that you are entitled to a full life from conception to natural death with all the dignity proper to your being.
I appreciate your comment, Tony, as well as everyone else’s. It’s good to see some actual controversy.
While I understand Brett’s, Michael’s, and Paul’s rebuttals, and actually agree with some of the content, I do not back down from my position. First and foremost, pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion. There is no such thing as pro-abortion. I support pro-choice because I do not agree with laws telling me how I should treat my body, especially if they are preached by those who have no experience in regard to the issue. That is definitely not to say that males should not have a say in this debate. Of course I think their opinions are important, too. The fact of the matter, however, is that men will never know what it is like to be a woman. It is obviously not the fault of the male species, but that is just how it is. Period. So to have an all-male organization directly speak out on an issue that that will never affect them like it does women is wrong. To have men take such a prominent stance on abortion without any input from the women whom it will truly affect is wrong. Do you not understand that pro-life statutes directly infringe upon my rights? I stand by my statement that the Knights of Columbus had absolutely no right to erect this statue.
And yes, Michael, I read the statement on the monument before I posted my post. Do not patronize me. Just because it does not say “Pro-Life” on it does not mean that’s not what it represents. St. Thomas, the Knights of Columbus, and even the article states CLEARLY that the monument is intended to represent pro-life. At face value I think it is a beautiful quote, but there’s no denying that it is insinuating pro-life.
And Paul, journalism does not have to be dry and boring. My sarcasm stays and I’m proud of it.
Finally, your Biblical references and quotes do nothing to weaken my argument. I am not Catholic. I am not even Christian. Therefore, I do not live by the teachings of the Bible or Pope Benedict. So to try and tell me that the pro-life stance is right because of the way you interpret passages of the Bible is irrelevant to me. If St. Thomas is not going to require its students to be Catholic, then they must fairly acknowledge the rest of the student population!! Yes, have a Chapel. Yes, have Campus Crusade for Christ. I will simply not be a part, just as I don’t expect you to be a part of Allies. (But if you are that’s great.) This statue is not something from which pro-choice students and non-Catholic students can directly disassociate themselves like a student club or attending mass. It is erected on my campus, intended to reflect the belief of St. Thomas students across the board. But it does not. It is a biased misrepresentation.
Hi Sarah,
I just have a few questions and would appreciate some answers.
Quote: “I support pro-choice because I do not agree with laws telling me how I should treat my body”
Your premise here is that laws which tell you how to treat your body are wrong. I have a very hard time agreeing with this premise because I agree with laws that regulate drug use, which are also laws which tell me how to treat my body. Do you feel the same way about illegal drugs? If so, how do you reconcile these facts?
Furthermore, given this statement, it does not logically follow that abortion is right or wrong. For example, I could consistently support that women should have freedom of choice concerning their bodies and claim that abortion is wrong IF I establish that the fetus is not apart of the mothers body. Do you believe the fetus is apart of the woman’s body? If so, what arguments do you have to support this conclusion?
Quote: “Do you not understand that pro-life statutes directly infringe upon my rights?”
What particular right have the Knight of Columbus violated? I simply do not see your point of view and I am trying to understand.
Sarah,
I believe you are making the mistake that you are somehow a part owner of the University of Saint Thomas, and therefore have a right to decide what happens here. Unfortunately for you, this is a private institution, so much like if a private citizen erected this statue on his or her own property, you would have no right to say it should be removed.
Also, when you say that you don’t like laws telling you what you can and cannot do with your body, you should think about that statement. Are you saying that we should remove laws that prohibit the use of meth, cocaine, and heroin? Meth affects the user the most, but it also affects the family of the user as well. Does that mean it is acceptable, simply because the greatest impact is on the person who made the choice? Please tell that to the victims of domestic abuse and other crimes that happened to people because someone was doing meth.
Abortion doesn’t only affect the woman. The fetus is significantly more impacted, and others are also psychologically affected as well. You need to face the fact that in the majority of the cases of abortion, the woman had chose to have sex. There are consequences (good or bad) for every choice. If you do not want to be pregnant, you should refrain from sex.
In closing, I would just like ask if you were specifically contacted for your opinion on other privately funded buildings such as the new parking ramp or the new athletic facility? If you were not asked to give your approval for these, then why should you be asked your approval to put up a new monument?
Ken,
Your response was very well written and seems to be very well researched. I thank you for that.
I would, in fact, like my $.28 refund. If you could send it directly to my house that would be great. Will you give me your e-mail address so I can send you my home address? Check is find, as is the actual coinage. I am doing a fundraiser for cancer research and my goal is $5,000. It is a lofty goal and every penny counts. I would much rather my $.28 go toward that. Thank you.
Are you willing to reimburse other St. Thomas students who disapprove of the memorial? I think it is only fair that you give them the same refund proposal that you did me.
I do not want to get into a debate over the “rightness” or “wrongness” of Allies. I support it, you don’t. Fine. I would, however, like you to tell me exactly how Allies does not fit with the definitions in the Student Handbook. I do not understand that part of your argument. Do the students in Allies not “think critically, act wisely, and work skillfully to advance the common good”? As far as I am concerned, Allies is teaching tolerance and acceptance in a very critical, wise, and skillful way. Furthermore, if you would rather gay students keep quiet about their sexual preference, that seems to go directly against the “Pursuit of truth,” not to mention “Dignity, Diversity,” and “Personal Attention” as mentioned in the Handbook.
As I said before, I do not want to get into a debate about Allies or the gay and lesbian community. Also note that what I have just said is not intended to be said on behalf of Allies. This is the opinion of Sarah Ritterspach and nothing or no one else.
Thanks for your response, Ken. I look forward to receiving my refund.
I will answer the questions that are posted now and consider this the resignation of my commenting. I simply do not want to take the time to constantly be defending my beliefs on this site. I truly appreciate all the feedback, as it has made me stronger in defending my belief system. There are some very good points and I they are all well received. My intention is only to inform the student body that there is opposition out there and we deserve a chance to be heard as well.
Paula,
I appreciate you trying to understand my point of view. I will admit that my statement in reference to laws telling people what to do with their bodies is much too broad to be a viable argument. Instead, I will say that I am against laws that would specifically tell a WOMAN what to do with her body. I understand that men cannot carry a child and the laws would be irrelevant to them in that regard. Why, then, should we allow men to make the decision about a woman’s right to have an abortion when it is not their bodies they are debating? Drug prohibition laws are the same no matter if you are a man or a woman. I believe that women already have a hard enough time receiving equal treatment and I do not support laws that would specifically hinder their rights and their rights only.
And no, the Knights of Columbus have not specifically violated any rights of mine. I am saying that the statue erected represents pro-life, and therefore any pro-life laws that could be enacted by the government. I would not agree with these laws, and therefore do not agree with the statue.
Mark,
I am not trying to form a campaign to take the statue down. It is done and it will stay. I accept that. I simply wanted the University and its students to understand a different point of view, one that does not often get equally represented on campus. Again, please do not patronize me, as I understand full well I am not part owner of this school.
Again, I am not saying that abortion only affects the woman. You cannot deny, however, that it is only the woman’s PHYSICAL BODY that is being affected. Therefore I do not think men have the right to say what can and cannot be done to a WOMAN’S body.
No, I was not specifically contacted for my opinion. But as far as I’m concerned this is a public comment board which any St. Thomas student can use. I am a St. Thomas student and I wanted to voice my opinion. Must I be contacted by someone to do that? I can’t agree with you that erecting the new Anderson Parking Lot is the same as putting up this statue. The Parking Lot carries no political connotation and expresses no opinion that has two sides. It is a parking lot. If something that expresses the belief systems and opinions of the students is to be put in place by the University, I believe that the students should have a say. Granted, I understand that the statue would have been erected anyway since I am in the vast minority here, but I would still have appreciated the University to hear what I had to say before it was put in place.
Again, I thank all of you for commenting on my post. I am officially resigning from the comment board, as I think I have exhausted my point and do not back down from my beliefs. You have yours, I’ll have mine, and the statue will stay where it is, whether I like it or not.
Sarah,
I was not intending to patronize you, I was just curious as to whether or not you had read the quote on the memorial prior to making your first post. From prior experience, some people, when they see something they object to, just post a reply without even reading the article or looking at the subject of the article. It’s good to know that you are not that sort of person.
I was one of the people on the Knights of Columbus committee that planned the monument to the unborn, and I was the one who suggested the quote that was chosen to be placed on the monument. One of the reasons that I suggested that quote was because it spoke to the sacredness of all stages of life, from conception until natural death. The lives of of the unborn child, the elderly, the convicted felon on death row: every life is sacred. Authority over life and death is the domain of God.
When man usurps this authority over human life, he is committing a grave sin, because he’s “playing God”, and not only does he take a human life, by committing that sin, he places himself in danger of losing eternal life.
And yes, abortion affects far more than just the woman. The life of the unborn child is lost forever, and the lives of many others are directly impacted as well. Imagine, for example, that your youngest sister is stillborn at 22 weeks gestation. Many children are aborted at that stage, yet your youngest sister’s body is perfectly formed. The only difference is that she was wanted, and these other children were not wanted. Should we decide who lives and dies based on convenience? If I were to become a father, and didn’t want my four year old son, should I have the right to kill him? I don’t think that would be morally responsible to insist on such a right.
As for Allies, you’re requesting a $.28 refund from us. Would the Allies be willing to refund those of us on campus for our share of the money they obtain from USG for their programming? There’s a significant percentage of students on campus that believe that, while a homosexual orientation itself is not sinful, homosexual acts are mortal sins and place the perpetrator’s eternal life in jeopardy.
While we believe these people should be treated with respect and dignity, we do not support homosexually-oriented people acting out on their sexual orientation, and we do not support organizations, such as the Allies, that support the homosexual lifestyle, in clear opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church, we teaches that such persons are called to live chaste lives.
Organizations who promote ideologies in stark opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church should not be allowed to organize on the St. Thomas campus. It is the responsibility of a Catholic university to promote and defend the teachings of the Catholic Church, whether the students on campus are Catholic or not, and whether or not they agree with the teachings of the Church. When students enroll at St. Thomas, they do so with full knowledge that this university is a Catholic university. If they don’t like that fact, they have the freedom to attend another institution that suits them better. If I, as a Catholic, chose to attend a Muslim college, or an Anglican college, and did not agree with what those religions taught, I would transfer someplace else. Sarah, you freely chose to attend St. Thomas with full knowledge that this is a Catholic university. Why, then would you object to the promotion of Catholic teachings on campus? Does it make sense that a Catholic university would promote the sanctity of human life, since that is what the Catholic Church teaches? According to paragraph 49 Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution “Ex Corde Ecclesiae”, which is binding on every Catholic university, including St. Thomas.
“By its very nature, each Catholic University makes an important contribution to the Church’s work of evangelization. It is a living institutional witness to Christ and his message, so vitally important in cultures marked by secularism, or where Christ and his message are still virtually unknown. Moreover, all the basic academic activities of a Catholic University are connected with and in harmony with the evangelizing mission of the Church: research carried out in the light of the Christian message which puts new human discoveries at the service of individuals and society; education offered in a faith-context that forms men and women capable of rational and critical judgment and conscious of the transcendent dignity of the human person; professional training that incorporates ethical values and a sense of service to individuals and to society; the dialogue with culture that makes the faith better understood, and the theological research that translates the faith into contemporary language. “Precisely because it is more and more conscious of its salvific mission in this world, the Church wants to have these centres closely connected with it; it wants to have them present and operative in spreading the authentic message of Christ.”
This means that every Catholic university is to bring the message of Christ, as revealed by the Church, to every person that sets foot on the grounds of St. Thomas. This includes promotion of the Church’s teachings of the sanctity of human life, the Church’s teachings on the dignity of the human person, Church’s teachings on marriage and the Church’s teachings on human sexuality.
you people sure do write a lot. Can’t we keep these comments shorter than the articles?
“Why, then, should we allow men to make the decision about a woman’s right to have an abortion when it is not their bodies they are debating? Drug prohibition laws are the same no matter if you are a man or a woman.”
This is not entirely coherent. These ideas aren’t analogous. Saying that abortion laws only pertain to women would be like saying that drug prohibition laws only pertain to drug users, or those with the hereditary tendency toward addiction (because not every woman would want to procure an abortion). I could argue that since my father quit smoking cold turkey, I have a lower chance of getting addicted. This means that I should have less of an opinion on drug prohibition laws, because drug use does not affect me in the same way it would someone who could get addicted. This does not make sense, and neither does the idea that women should be the only ones to have a say in the abortion argument. If it is soley up to the woman to decide whether her child lives or dies, then why are men required to pay child support? If the father of the child has no say about the future of the fetus, and the woman decides NOT to get an abortion, how is this magically now his responsibility? I am not saying that child support should be banned, not in the least. However, you see how the logic just is not coherent.
”
it is only the woman’s PHYSICAL BODY that is being affected.” This is also completely up for debate at this point in our society. I would, based on my belief system, and based on much scientific research that has come out in the past few years, completely and totally disagree with you there. The fetus, embryo, child, cluster of cells, however you choose to define it to soothe your conscience, is completely affected by an abortion. True, you may not agree that it is a physical body, or a person, but you cannot state it as a fact, because it is still up for debate.
One final comment I would like to offer is that you were consulted, in a way. The Undergraduate Student Government is comprised of representatives of each class, and several different groups on campus. You may not realize it, but you have at least three representatives on UST (your class president and your two class senators), in addition to the executive board, and the club/committee representatives. So yes, you are represented on USG. True, you were not made aware that the decision would be made, and the argument could be made that that was unethical/unfair. However, you cannot claim that you had absolutely no say over the decision.
I hope you don’t feel that you personally are being attacked, and it is somewhat unfortunate that you were the only dissenter to the article. I fully appreciate that your views are shared by many, and I truly thank you for sharing yours, and opening this up for discourse.
Hi Sarah,
Though I don’t expect a response from you, perhaps someone who understands your opinion will be able to answer my questions.
Quote: “I do not support laws that would specifically hinder [women’s] rights”
I believe your conclusion is, “I do not support anti-aportion laws”.
If I am wrong in this assumption, I am sure someone will correct me. I do not wish to put words in your mouth, but no single quote seemed to summarized what I intuitively guessed your opinion was. So, if this is wrong, please, do not read the rest of this post. Simply correct me and we can continue in our argument from there.
However, if this assumption is correct, I have another question.
The implicit premise here seems to be that anti-abortion laws are laws which infringe on women’s rights, and the women’s rights alone. The right in questions seems to be the right for women to have sovereignty over their own body. My question then, and again my apologies for taking so long to get to it, is this. In what way do anti-abortion laws violate the woman’s right to have sovereignty over her body? Though this connection may seem intuitively obvious to you, it is important to support our intuitions with further explanation because our intuitions can, and frequently are, wrong.
I don’t want to get into the abortion debate, but none the less, I’d like to address a part of Sarah’s concern that I think has been overlooked or misunderstood.
I think her point that this memorial was erected by an all male group merits some discussion… While certainly there are many pro-life women, I think it’s safe to say that the abortion debate as a whole would look quite different if men faced the same negative repercussions of pregnancy that women face. Obviously, in some cases there are medical concerns that arise, cost particularly when parents do not stay together (and yes I know about child support, but the statistics on this are dismal at best with respect to how often and how much), time, lost opportunities, social stigma, cultural pressure to not ever look like a woman who’s had children, etc. Before everyone starts crying foul, I’m not saying that this is justification of abortion, but I am saying that men and women have subjective perspectives. With respect to pregnancy/abortion, women’s perspectives are influenced by these negatives, while men’s perspectives are influenced via the lack of these negatives. In virtue of being individuals that are subjectively located via gender, culture, race, religion, etc. no human being can have a completely objective moral view.
And Paula- I would read Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion.” I’m guessing this is what Sarah’s referring to with respect to bodily sovereignty.
-Katherine-
seconded
Hey Kathryn,
Quote: “While certainly there are many pro-life women, I think it’s safe to say that the abortion debate as a whole would look quite different if men faced the same negative repercussions of pregnancy that women face.”
This statement is rather ambiguous. “Would look quite different” could mean several things. That being said, I address this point with caution, but still would like to clarify a few things. Men and Women have similar opinions on the topic of abortion according to the latest opinion polls. Now we could argue over the validity of these surveys. Regardless, your statement is either wrong, or unsupported. Feel free to add some support.
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx)
Also, I have read Thomson’s essay, but at this moment, I am more interesting in hearing her argument, not Thomson’s.
My dearest Knights and peers,
I am a full-blooded woman. I began as a woman in the womb, completely unprotected by the government. In fact, the government took away my human rights when I was a woman in the womb. It imposed its threats of abortion on me when I was in the womb. Who could understand my situation? No one outside the womb could know what it was like in my situation. And yet some ‘born’ people had the ‘authority to declare their views on an issue that affects only’ UNBORN ‘bodies.’
Science has proven that I was an individual human being in the womb. When life begins is no longer debate of the subjective. Modern science has proven it to be a fact: life begins at conception.
Women dear and close to me have found themselves pregnant, unloved, alone, and scared. But they rose above that because they knew, as scared, alone, and unprotected women that someone was just as alone and just as unprotected as they: the little human being in their womb. And they knew that it was their duty to succeed where the government has failed to protect that human life. And they did. And now this world has a higher chance of finding a cure for cancer or ending world hunger or bringing about peace on earth. That is what is at stake.
For my dear knights who recognize the beauty in every individual, no matter what they look like- no matter if they are born or unborn, woman or man, as a WOMAN who was once an UNBORN WOMAN I say a thousand thanks. A thousand thanks for your support and understanding of me now and especially when I was an unborn woman.
Thank you everyone for taking interest in such an important issue. We should all feel blessed that this monument has been installed as yet another reminder of the sanctity and beauty of all human lives, including our own. It is also refreshing to see this affirmation of our Catholic identity as an institution. It was for this reason we were founded and for this reason we continue – as a beacon of light and truth to the world.
It seems to me that a commonly used term in this debate has been “choice.” Society at large wants unlimited choices and views freedom as the ability to do what I want, when I want it, without interference from others. Yet when freedom neglects its link with truth, it negates and destroys itself. Our world has an ever-growing push for promoting human rights, including the self-evident rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the United States of America. Yet where does the unborn child fit into this? Life begins at conception – any biology book can tell you that. There is a flaw in logic when this right to life does not extend to the unborn – a life with much potential, NOT a potential life.
I also have noticed a recurrent reference to the woman being affected by abortion and a woman’s “right” to treatment of her physical body. I would love to share more with you, Ms. Ritterspach, about the Church’s beautiful views on women, including the New Feminism and John Paul II’s “feminine genius.” In fact we have a club on campus called ENDOW (Educating on the Nature and Dignity of Women) that discusses these issues and the complementarity of woman and man. But that’s a whole different topic.
It saddens me to see other women who would be willing to inflict such pain upon themselves as occurs during emotion – physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Women do regret their abortions and never forget this horrendous act they have committed. Yet our God, who created us not because he needed us for God is perfect in Himself, but rather out of love, is a forgiving God, and there is mercy in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. And though each pregnancy may not be “planned” by the individuals, it was part of God’s grandeur plan and thus has value. Crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies exist to care for women and their children when it otherwise may not be financially possible, and I pray that more people would make use of these services. It is a mark of weakness to tell women that we need to kill our children rather than fix the difficult situations that are often factors in the abortion decision (poverty, teenage pregnancy, genetic abnormality, etc). We must work to alleviate suffering, not eliminate sufferers.
Ms. Ritterspach, I am pleased to hear that you also are a supporter of life, as demonstrated in your effort to battle cancer. I would like to leave you with the words of a cartoon that is displayed on my fridge at home: One man looks up to heaven and says, “God, when are you going to send us someone who will fight aids, who will achieve world peace, who will fight cancer…” God responds, “I already did! You aborted them!”
Thank you again for your comments. Thank you, Author of Life, for this precious gift itself.
can we at least agree that nobody here is willing to listen to , or accept, each other’s opinions without a fight?
I am sincerely disheartened by Ms. Ritterspach’s departure from this discussion I believe she brings up a valid point; I merely disagree with how it was presented. Bear with me as I try to present the same problem within another context. I would sincerely appreciate your best attempts to help me understand what it is I may be missing. To begin, I will concede the following three points to all who may oppose my position.
1. The monument is in line with the Catholic teaching.
2. The monument had the approval of both the Undergraduate Student Government as well as the St. Thomas administration.
3. The monument is a representation of a pro-life ideal.
Now, given all of the above, I would like to ask was this monument truly necessary, and in its creation does it serve the interest of the University of St. Thomas community?
Please take your time in answering and consider the following. As a university, St. Thomas educates primarily through its professors. There is no understanding that one needs to learn from inanimate monuments that decorate the campus. As such, this monument need not serve as an instrument of education. In looking at similar constructs such as the globe of people outside the Library, the Jester near the Summit Ave classroom building or even the statue on South Campus with a passage from the Bible, no statue or monument on campus attempts to do what this monument does. It is alone in its function and the first of its kind (to my knowledge) in this schools 124 year old history. The function is an assertion of a particular group’s opinion (or belief) without representation of any other opinion. This strikes me as preferentialism. I do not say this lightly, however, I would be astounded if any other group was able to immortalize their beliefs in stone and display it across campus. This institution does not need such decorations. To elaborate on the dangers of preferentialism, especially at the administrator’s level it greatly devalues the self-worth of the other clubs and organizations knowing their unifying trait is less valued by the institution.
Furthermore, I would be very interested in hearing exactly what rationale was given to justify this monument. Perhaps it was intended to strength the Catholic presence on campus? If that is the case this was definitely a weak step in doing so. The monument is viewed by a relatively low portion of the students, and it is highly unlikely that it will affect them in any life-changing way. If not that, perhaps it was to bring comfort all those that would read it? Well, clearly that did not turn out to be the case and it would have failed already in its primary goal. Now, I could speculate all day on what the reasons could have been, but I’d rather say what it already has done. Forgive me if I’ve made a false assumption but those rallying to defend its construction are those already of a Catholic identity. Those that do not appreciate it are typically not of Catholic identity. It is relatively simple and can be seen as amounting to little or nothing.
That is as far as I will go for now on my opinion of the monument. Perhaps if my confusions are answered I’ll be able to add more substantially to this discussion.
I will, however, take it upon myself to answer some of the arguments left unanswered. First and foremost this oft-repeated comparison between abortion laws and drugs laws is absurd. One is clearly regulating what enters the human body, in this case a very dangerous drug and the other focuses on the expelling of a natural product of the body(or two as it were). They are not similar enough to make an accurate comparison between how they should be handled legally.
To help clarify the argument generated from the mentality that abortion is a woman’s issue I would draw the following parallel. I would like to take this time to indicate the example is sexual in nature and may be skipped for that reason. For men, an erection is something that can often be controlled and sometimes cannot. I see little to no possible way for a law that attempts to limit what a man should do with an erection as A) passing and B) being successful. You can expand that further to masturbation it will be the same result. If you think it is absurd than I will agree with you but I ask that you take that understanding and try and view abortion a little differently. Now, the severity of the consequences may seem greater in the case of abortion but the foundation is a claim that laws have an inherent dominion over ones personal body, and that is the contention that is being made. If instead of the process of abortion as we know it, the fetus was safely removed and implanted into an environment where it could continue to mature I do not know of any pro-choice member that would still call for its termination.
Brett, Wow. In all due respect, what are you talking about? I’m sorry, but I see no cohesion to your argument, nor do I understand its message. Yes, UST has the right to erect a pro-life monument as much as a secular artist has the right to put a crucifix in a glass of urine or make an image of the Virgin Mary out of animal dung. We, as Christians have had to endure these sacrileges all through history. How about the misguided individual who has stolen a host and incorporated it in a blender with other ingredients and proclaimed that Jesus is a good breakfast drink? And you have issues? Think about it. You have chosen to attend a Catholic University. What’s preventing you from transferring?
Paula,
I couldn’t have made a better argument for life myself.
Paul M.- My point was not aimed stirctly at surface beliefs, but more so toward the origination of those beliefs. Most people form their views on abortion under religious influence, familial influence, and cultural influence. Most religious structures are patriarchal. Most family structures are patriarchal. Most cultures are patriarchal. I think it’s a safe bet to say that this plays a role in how people view a lot of things, abortion being one of them.
And I’m sorry for recommending Thomson’s article, but since you said to Sarah “Though I don’t expect a response from you, perhaps someone who understands your opinion will be able to answer my questions,” I was attempting to fill that role.
Greetings,
I really don’t know how, but I have spent that last half hour reading this thread. With that being said, I think something has been grossly overlooked. Sarah’s original post has so very, very little to do with the ethical debate over abortion. Its been debated literally millions (I’d put money on that) of times, and I sincerely doubt we will find some sort of reasonable middle ground on the issue using the website of a small, private college’s media department. This is not the venue to be bringing up these broad and heavily opinion-fueled arguments.
If you can, read Sarah’s original post WITHOUT immediately tying it into the ethical debate over abortion. Ready?
The main issue here is the MISREPRESENTATION that is going on at St. Thomas. The mere fact that this statue is “pro-life” is essentially coincidence. It is an example of the chosen few getting their beliefs represented. St. Thomas has a long tradition of instilling Catholic values in their students, and there is nothing wrong with that. But when a majority of the student body is not in fact Catholic (44% reported as Catholic, however percent practicing is significantly less), shouldn’t they have most of the spotlight? Realistically speaking, can they at least have some?
When I was a freshman, one of my professors labeled St. Thomas as a “suitcase college.” Having learned what he was referring to, it made absolute sense. A lot of students at St. Thomas come solely for the academics, myself included. Sure, a football game here and there, but nothing on campus draws or compels me to be anywhere near it unless it’s for class. There is really nothing that is 1. Available or 2. Advertised. I’m not saying that we are being force fed Catholic beliefs here, but I never really grasped a welcoming belonging or niche on campus, mainly because I’m not Catholic. I can’t for a minute think I’m in the minority in this thinking.
You never would know because although many students feel the same way, most just grin and bear it. The basic trend is that if you dislike it, you disassociate yourself from campus and the events that go along with it and have your own college experience. Those who don’t feel like they are a part of a University rarely will come out and complain about it, so it often goes unsaid. Why would you waste your time trying to become a part of something that doesn’t appeal to you? I’ve enjoyed my time here, but I can’t attribute any of that to St. Thomas related activities.
I know, I know, “You picked this school. Not only did you pick this school, but you had the option to transfer or drop out, and here you are.” I decided to stay because in the end, a St. Thomas degree is a valuable thing to have. But should it really be this unpleasant of a process? I ran for USG my sophomore year, for President of Administration Affairs (snazzy, isn’t it?). I ran against one other person. Three fellow students also ran for student government positions, two of which ran against one sole opponent as well. Believing we could actually change the atmosphere of campus to becoming a more welcoming environment was the only reason for running. All four of us lost, despite a supportive effort from our friends. I was told that there were 700 votes, a near record turnout. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s definitive proof that only people who are represented are involved with St. Thomas, but it is a little eerie, no? Even if we only got 150 votes each (all of which were first time voters), that means about 550 people out of 6,000 actually participated in something you would think was important for the heart of the student body.
(Flash Forward: Last election, Spring 2009, the president of USG ran unopposed, as well as several other offices. Turnout was low, due to lack of interest. Something is wrong with this picture.)
I also submitted a new club proposal, Enhanced Media, a club dedicated to lovers of music and film. It was shot down to make way for Academic Quiz Bowl (whose web page has yet to be updated), a second Table Tennis club (Yes, there’s two of them), as well as another Christian related club. Well, I tried. Tried to get involved. Nothing appealed to me so I attempted to create something people would enjoy. We had 20+ interested members lined up. So now I am again on the outside, not involved. The world keeps spinning, but I digress….
The point I’m trying to make is as follow: Sarah, I agree with you. Again, St. Thomas has chosen to only represent what I imagine to be a select portion of the student body. And like you, I am frustrated that this is old news. Clearly this is not an institution composed of all Catholic Students, yet nothing the school does portrays that fact. Yes, it is a Catholic University, I realize the tradition and whatnot, but universal representation has to be made. Or at least attempted. This is not just my opinion, but also the opinion of an alarming number of students.
I will graciously exit this forum, and while doing so subtly suggest a change of pace in the future, for the good of the student body and the University as a whole.
Ms. Kovach, if my post truly does lack “cohesion”, I urge you to read Mr. Larson’s post. Perhaps a more personal account the issue would help clarify. If for some reason, these are both confusing the following article outlines the same issue we are discussing.
http://www.stthomas.edu/magazine/2002/spring/Diversity.html
From that website:
Dwyer addressed this issue last September when she announced the creation of the Office for Mission and Diversity, saying the climate study underscored the ambiguity surrounding Catholic identity at St. Thomas. “The unfortunate conclusion that some within the community have reached is that diversity and Catholic identity or Catholic mission are inherently in conflict,” she wrote.
Those who had no religious affiliation or are not Christian were more likely to report negative perceptions and experiences than Catholics and other Christians.
This article, as you can tell, is around 8 years old. However, it provides a depressingly accurate depiction of what I have experienced in the past few years here at St. Thomas including this current discussion. Speaking about my attendance at St. Thomas, the notion that one should transfer because they do not fall completely in accordance with the university is absolutely wrong. It is a terrible idea that I can only imagine is conceived in the most closed-minded of individuals. Every school will have issues, and I do not plan on transferring each time I encounter them. In addition to that, I will strive to seek improvement of both myself and my surroundings.
For the record, of those that report their religion 43% are Roman Catholic(http://www.stthomas.edu/psychinternship/general/ust.html). I understand quite well that I am attending a Catholic institution, do you realize that potentially 57% of my peers aren’t Catholic? If that is so, do you honestly believe that if that monument (repeat, IF that monument) causes distress to 57% of it is still absolutely necessary? Is there no better way to affirm the Catholic identity than a pro-life quote on a slab of rock?
As for the remainder of your post, I have never, nor would I perform any of the sacrileges you mentioned. I fail to see their relevance, unless you are trying to appeal to a sense of pity to make your argument. I will stress that I would do not condone those acts as they are clearly disrespectful of another person/groups beliefs. Admitting that, would you not be able to see how this monument might cause the same sense of dissatisfaction amongst those that do not ascribe to the message it is displaying?
Corrections:
http://www.stthomas.edu/psychinternship/general/ust.html
Last paragraph, second to the last sentence “I will stress that I would not condone those acts as they are clearly disrespectful of another person’s/group’s beliefs.
Brett, My congratulations to you on the admittance that you have respect for another person’s religious beliefs. Yes, you have made a very valid point about me suggesting that perhaps you should transfer due to your disagreement with Catholic issues. I concur with your defense. I read Mr. Larson’s post and, quite frankly, it all sounds like sour grapes to me. Would he have the same arguments if he were a Lutheran that attended a college that proclaimed a student body of 43% Baptists?
Please don’t mock my reporting of sacrileges to my religion as something that I want to seek pity for. I view that as an insult and a gross misconception on your part. It would be akin to me insulting all that you hold dear and holy in your own life. Reconsider your evaluation of what I had to say. I think you missed the point entirely. Finally, I do believe that as long as we try to understand each other’s point of view, while maintaining respect, debates like this will always be possible.
Hey All,
I am not out here to discuss whether abortion is right or wrong- because as much as we argue, beliefs won’t change. I do, however, want to address some statements made by others.
Brad- Thank you for stating what really needs to be said.
Ken- Please do not clump all Catholics into the belief system you described. For example, thousands of Catholics believe in this statement:
“We Believe In A World: Where all women and men are trusted to make moral decisions about their lives. Where the decision to start a family is thoughtful and planned. Where policy makers and advocates are free to support policies that create a more just and compassionate society. Where life-saving health interventions aren’t blocked by sectarian interests. Where abortion is safe, legal and truly accessible, and both contraception and child care are available and affordable.” – Catholics for Choice
Ken, in all honestly, do you think it is great news that:
• …Women around the world cannot get an abortion, even if it would SAVE HER LIFE?
• …A rape survivor in a war-torn country can be told by the Vatican that she must continue the pregnancy that resulted from her attack?
• …More than 40 million people live with HIV and AIDS while the Vatican lobbies against the use of condoms?
Here is more recent news:
“According to a new poll of Catholic voters carried out by Belden Russonello and Stewart for Catholics for Choice, Catholics support both a public option in healthcare reform and a plan that would include funding for abortion. The results show that the views of Catholics have been seriously misrepresented by the US bishops and by conservative Catholics in the debate over healthcare reform. A large majority of those polled, 84 percent, attend church regularly, from several times a week to a few times a year.”
CFC president Jon O’Brien said, “Conservatives, including the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, have been presenting their own views as an accurate representation of all US Catholics. This poll clearly demonstrates that the bishops do not represent Catholic voters. Catholics have compassion. They want everybody to have access to comprehensive healthcare—including abortion in many circumstances. It is telling that the US bishops have done two polls on abortion recently. On neither occasion did they poll only Catholics. We did and the results are clear: US Catholic voters see reproductive healthcare as part of a comprehensive healthcare package—and that includes abortion for women who need it.”
Maybe you may find this story of a BISHOP of value: He recently joined Planned Parenthood after being a long-time anti-choice advocate. What prompted him? For the past year he had been counseling the parents of a fourteen-year-old girl who had died from a back-alley abortion. They were shocked and devastated, and couldn’t believe what had happened. Adding to their pain was the fact that the priest at their home church said the girl shouldn’t be buried on church grounds because she’d had an abortion. The bishop was moved to speak out—on the importance of compassion, and on the need for young people to have good information about sexuality and contraception in order to be safe and responsible. Sadly, this young woman has neither. Her death was the heartbreaking outcome of a set of cultural dictates that keep young people ignorant about their sexuality, deprived of access to contraception, and ashamed to discuss their pregnancy options and get the help they need.
Let’s look at your biblical distortions:
Funny how you stop short with the Jeremiah verse. You state: “Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you’…” (Jeremiah 1:4-5) … But then you forget to finish the sentence: “…’and I appointed you a prophet to the nations.'”
This passage is specific to one, very special person—Jeremiah the prophet, whom God has called to provide miraculous powers and authority to the world. Since we are not all destined to be divine prophets, this verse cannot be construed as applying to any fetus except the unborn Jeremiah. Again, anti-choicers are being dishonest by pulling this verse totally out of its context.
Let’s check out Psalms:
Psalms 139:13-16: “For Thou didst form my inward parts; thou didst weave me together in my mother’s womb. I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are thy works! Thou knowest me right well; my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”
All this passage states is that God is directly involved in the creation of a fetus and knows its future. This is useless for the anti-choice position, since God creates all living things, including trees and bugs. Plus, just because God is supposedly omniscient doesn’t give fetuses any special status—it simply means God already knows whether they will live or die. It is dishonest to conclude from this verse that a fetus is a human being deserving of more protection than women. The passage is poetic prose that anti-choicers have twisted and trivialized by giving it a literal, objective meaning where there is none.
The Book of Exodus clearly indicates that the fetus does not have the same legal status as a person (Chapter 21:22-23).
Exodus 21:22-25, which reads:
“When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
Here the Bible states clearly that if the fetus were a Human Being, it would deserve the same consequences for its offenders, but obviously it does not…So Ken and Paul, you can stop demeaning the woman and uplifting the fetus above her. In fact, you could probably find a LOT more evident for God taking children from this world than not!: Hosea’s curse, Exodus’ first-born children, also in Numbers Moses makes statements on this, God’s ordering of death of all of Amalek, and many more.
It both embarrasses and hurts me to see anti-choice people trying to use the Bible as a great distortion tool- I am fully Christian, I believe in Jesus as my Lord and my Savior, and I am sick of the lies you use to devalue women and promote your twisted agenda at the expense of our Holy Book.
I can keep going if you want, but really, it doesn’t matter, because NEWS FLASH: NOT EVERYONE IS CATHOLIC OR EVEN CHRISTIAN!!! It is silly to state facts out of a book that not everyone believes in, I just thought I’d respond.
Leandra and Paula- I’ve got something to say about the Sanctity of Life. Consider this: All religions revere life. It is because we believe in the sanctity of all human life that we are sensitive to the effects of an unwanted pregnancy on women and families. We pray for a world in which every child is wanted, loved, and cared for. Because we believe in the sanctity of human life that we believe a child has the right to enter the world wanted and loved. Because we believe in the sanctity of human life we are sensitive to the effects of an unwanted pregnancy upon individual women, upon their loved ones and their families, and we recognize that they, not we, must determine what is best for those directly concerned and involved.
Brett-
I am having a hard time connecting your first post to your later posts.
Reply to your first post: How would you feel if we put a Pro-Life statue on campus? As much as I am pro-life, it makes no sense to put one up on a diverse campus as St. Thomas. “You will not hear me say that any person should be forced to do something.” Obviously you ARE forcing someone to do something with an anti-choice agenda. And the sad truth is, you have NO idea what that woman which you made a decision for may be going through. Have you ever heard of situations where she might DIE if the pregnancy were continued? Have you ever thought about the extreme physical pain the fetus may endure if it had to continue the birthing process, as well as the extreme physical and emotional pain the mother and her family would have to continue to bear? Have you ever thought that the baby’s spine may be growing outside of its back, and the suffocation and bleeding could be the worst possible scenario but you let it be so just because you decided to play “doctor” for this woman and force your naïve beliefs upon her?
Reply to your second post: Thank you for recognizing the problem with giving preferential status to one organization and not the next. And true, the drug analogy is completely unrelated to the issue at hand.
Mark, you bring up this whole “woman chose to have sex” thing. What is the man’s consequence? You have been competely chauvinistic. You really have no idea what it is like to be in the woman’s position. The problem with this statue is that it looks as if publicly, it is representative of the entire student body. If there were to be a racist statue posted just because there was some KKK group on campus, would you be okay with that, too? Do you have to be the president of the college to have a problem with this?
Michael, the point of this is that the statue was representative of anti-choice beliefs.
Kathryn is right. I can’t blame the guys here for saying what they say, they just have no idea.
Tony: you are right, education can take place if there is misunderstanding, but beliefs will never change no matter how hard each side tries to argue.
Katie: Please explain to me more about what you “thought about” while you were in your mother’s womb. You are also using examples of those who are near to you, and you make claims for all women based on just these few examples. Ending world hunger? I think there is a heck of a lot of evidence that world hunger will NOT be resolved with all of these unwanted children. And don’t get me wrong, I believe ALL children ought to be wanted children, and that is why I am Pro-choice. For example, a harsh one: I am heart broken by stories of babies thrown into dumpsters, but it happens. Which do you choose-the fetus being aborted painlessly when it is the size of the point on a ball-point pen, or a living, breathing, alive human being thrown away? Those are your options. Or, a third option may be possible, if you can go around the entire world and adopt each every one of these? I would love that.
Sarah, keep it up. Pro-Choice certainly does not mean Pro-Abortion, NO ONE IS PRO-ABORTION! Only one thing I’d have to say about your statements; you said it only affects the woman’s physical body. The emotions going through a woman are extremely directly connected to the procedure. Whether devastation at the loss of a child where something went wrong, or pure relief for ending the pain. Abortion is NEVER an easy choice! Sometimes, it is the BEST CHOICE, but most of all, it is ALWAYS a WOMAN’S CHOICE!!!
“Guard your steps when you go to the house of God; to draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they do not know that they are doing evil.” (Ecclesiastes 5:1).
Peace out.
Hey Solome,
Thank you for your response. Please check my post again. I never say what I thought about in the womb. But since you asked, at 5 weeks after I was created an individual human being, my brain and spinal cord began to develop (and continued to do so until I was a fully grown adult- I don’t know if they really have stopped developing). At 25 weeks I had stimulus-induced heart rate accelerations. Anywhere from 20-27 weeks, I responded to loud sounds. Studies have shown that babies recognize their mother’s voice. They must have had the thought-capacity to make the connection. At around 36 weeks, I had REM sleep- a stage in sleep when dreams occur. “Thus fetal-cognitive motor activity, including auditory discrimination, orienting, the wake-sleep cycle, FHRs, and defensive reactions, appear to be under the reflexive control of the brainstem which also appears capable of learning-related activity” (Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D. Brain Research Laboratory).
The more people we have with brains, the more chances we have of ending world hunger. Because clearly, decreasing our population (which was supposed to cure all that) isn’t helping at all. Ending world hunger doesn’t take ending human life. It takes more minds generating ideas on how to go about doing.
As for my examples, they stand in and of themselves.
Now, I’m not calling anyone names or passing judgments. But the debate about whether the unborn child is a human or not is over. Science has proven it is. It’s really become an ethical question. I see eerie parallels between slavery and abortion. Again, I’m not calling pro-choice people pro-slavery. I believe pro-choice people are good people. But I see the same types of arguments being used. For example, allow me to take your standard on whether a human being should live or not and take it back to the 1800’s. “I believe ALL people ought to live, and that is why I am Pro-slavery. For example, a harsh one: I am heart broken by stories of African Americans who are in danger of being taken to sugar plantations and being thrown into fiery furnaces, but it happens. Which do you choose-the African American being a slave to a white-man, [I omit ‘painlessly’ because scientific research has proven unborn babies feel pain; I also admit ‘the size of a ballpoint pen’ because in one year alone, 42,350 abortions occurred at 16 to 20 weeks and over 13,310 occurred on women who were 21 weeks or more into their pregnancy. The unborn child is far from the size of a ballpoint pen.] or a living, breathing, alive human being thrown into a fiery furnace? Those are your options. Or, a third option may be possible, if you can go around the entire world and adopt each every one of these? I would love that.”
So the logic, as I see it, does not follow. I consider the pro-life movement to be in solidarity with the abolitionists of the 1800’s. We value human life no matter what it looks like (tiny and “not like us”), no matter what the Supreme Court has ruled, no matter what the popular opinion of the day is. I hope everyone will soon get on board and fight to get rid of this holocaust! Yes, let there be peace on earth. Let there peace in the womb.
Sincerely,
Katie
Katie,
In your first three sentence, you conclude them with “in the womb.”
You cannot use slavery as a parallel for women’s rights because freeing slaves was not at the fatal expense of a more valuable being (The unborn fetus is NOT the same as the fully grown, human being woman, no matter what you say).
You are trying to prove unborn fetus > woman. Fetus does not even = woman, better yet should it get more rights than the already living woman.
It has NOT been concluded by science that a fetus deserves personhood /life begins at conception (CELL ACTIVITY BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, which would be the exact same process which tumors go through, and I do not see you collaborating funerals for those- or fetuses at this time for that matter, either? Interesting), and I would argue otherwise that there is MORE evidence for this, so don’t use phrases like “the debate about whether the unborn child is a human or not is over. Science has proven it is,” because that is purely incorrect.
All of these statistics you prove still are irrelevant to the fact that a woman’s right to life is more important than the group of cells.
PLEASE show me evidence for truth in this statement: “The more people we have with brains, the more chances we have of ending world hunger.”
“We value human life no matter what it looks like (tiny and “not like us”)” – Yes, you talk about the tiny and “unlike us,” but where do you ever mention the “us”? The Real Women!? You have no mention of them! Funny how pro-life people are really just pro-embryo.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter, I do not want you or your politics in my body, just as I do not want to seemingly represent to others something as degrading as what this statue upholds to everyone who views it at St. Thomas.
Ms. Kovach, my sincerest apologies for how I responded to your mentioning of the sacrileges. While ignorance is not an excuse, I would like you to know that my comment was not as well thought out as it could have been and my lack of understanding their significance played a role in that.
Solome Tibebu, my first post was a “knee-jerk” reaction to the way Ms. Ritterspach handled her response to the situation. I was speaking not necessarily from my own perspective on the issue as I was not prepared to give a full account of my opinions at the time. However, my second post comes after much thought and consideration on the issue and should stand as my opinion on the matter. I hope this clears up any confusion you or the other readers might have. Furthermore, it was not may intention to assert an opinion either pro-life/pro-choice so I’m sorry if that was confusing as well. Your response seems to indicate you interpreted something a bit removed from what I was trying to say.
Solome,
Yes, that was my state of being “in the womb…”
Alright, this will be my last post because I know abortion will only end by changing hearts- not winning debates. Plus, evidence that the child is indeed an individual human being at conception is about to be presented. I need not say more after this.
I can use the parallel of abortion and slavery because the argument for slavery was, “They are not human beings.” The exact same argument is being used against the unborn child. Science has indeed proven the unborn child is a human being independent of his or her mother. All the DNA of the individual child is there at the moment of conception. The organs and everything else just need to develop. Everyone continues to grow and develop until they reach adulthood. So, by the argument that an undeveloped ‘zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, adolescent, teenager’ is not a human being, I was not a human being until I reached adulthood. Please read the following carefully. “A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.
“Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime. At the average time when a woman is aware that she is pregnant (the fifth to sixth week after conception), the preborn human being living inside her is metabolizing nutrition, excreting waste, moving, sucking his or her thumb, growing, and doing many other things that non-living things just do not do. As early as 21 days after conception, the baby’s heart has begun to beat his or her own unique blood-type, often different than the mother’s. (Moore & Persaud, The Developing Human, p.310; Nilsson & Hamberger, A Child is Born, p.86; Rugh & Shettles, From Conception to Birth, p.217.) At 40 days after conception, brain waves can be read on an EEG, or an electroencephalogram. (Dr. H. Hamlin, Life or Death by EEG, JAMA, Oct.12, 1964, p.113.)”
As far as ending world hunger, since you don’t think that having more people on this earth will help end world hunger, it logically follows that your solution to ending world hunger is to have less people on this earth. Therefore, doesn’t peace interrupt the process of ending world hunger?
Real women verses… fake women? What is a fake woman?
“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.” The “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris
“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece.
Kind regards,
Katie
Hey Brett,
The comments on drug prohibition where not intended to be an argument against abortion. Rather the comments were meant to challenge Sarah’s first premise on the grounds of being inconsistent with her actually believes. Good arguments are built when we critique and challenge their premises. Indeed, she did take the time to correct her premise. I’m sure you understand all of this, but I wanted to make sure this was clarified before someone else took the statement out of context.
I agree that the monument is superfluous, however I am not convinced that it shows preferentialism any more than the cathedral or any other religious monument around campus. The monument seems to reaffirm a philosophical/theological belief of the Catholic Church rather than make a political statement on abortion. Granted, this philosophical belief will be the justification for the Churches position on abortion, but I see no difference in a monument that reaffirms the pro-life philosophy of the church then a monument that reaffirms the saving nature of Christ or the existence of the Holy Spirit (which can be found on south campus).
Hey Brad,
Yes… Sarah was arguing that the statue was a misrepresentation of the views of the student body. Unfortunately, that wasn’t so much an argument, as much as a statistically unsupported conjecture. Until someone conducts an Abortion Survey here at UST, it will remain only a conjecture. I’m not saying her position is wrong or right, it is simply unsupported and thus not worthy of any discussion.
Solome and Katie,
You are being juvenile with your comments. You have both declaired that life does (and does not) begin at conception, but neglected to define what life is. Any discussion without a clear definition of terms will prove useless and annoying. I would also advise against using capslock to make your point. Much like yelling, it is a sure sign that you do not know how to properly support your position.
Yeah Paula I’d have to agree, at this point there is really no use in continuing because the question is then, “What is Life.” I do not, however, think it makes for a good discussion for only one side to make all these statements without the other side getting a representation. For all of those reading, many untrue statements could be made and SOME unknowing readers may take it for fact just because it is all that was said, so that is what prompts me to respond. It still may not be worthwhile without unsupported statistics like you said about Sarah, even though I do not see how you would need a study to be conducted to show that this statue was on behalf of one student group among many others, and thus preferential. Thanks for the reminder, although condescending as it was said.
this is getting almost comical…
you’re not even MENTIONING the monument in your arguments anymore.
Katie,
I have to apologize, I did not see your latest post when I made my last comment.
My name is Mike Brandell, am the Financial Secretary for the UST Knights of Columbus and one of the key stakeholders in the Monument project. I am writing this to answer some questions and give you all the facts on our project. First, that the Knights of Columbus received permission from the Office of Mission, Campus Ministry, Campus Life, Physical Plant & Facilities for this project. Also, this project received support from the university adminstration staff. Also, the Knights of Columbus is a Family Fraternal Benefits Society not just an all male organization and the life issue is an issue within the Catholic Church. One of the reasons why our council made the decision to pursue this project is to continue to support the Catholic Church’s teaching that “Every procured abortion is a moral evil.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 2271). Next,
the UST Knights of Columbus Council will not be reimbursing students monies that was given to them by Undergraduate Student Government (USG) as we properly followed their special initiative funding guidelines. If one of our members decides to reimburse from personal resources then that will be his decision. Each official UST Club/Organization has the opportunity to propose for special initiative funding to USG and at this time the UST Knights of Columbus will not be asking other UST Club/Orgs for reimburesement for projects that we do not agree with. I’m open to discussing this matter more fully, however, would prefer to answer questions in person or via phone or e-mail. You can feel free to contact me at mdbrandell@stthomas.edu or (651)500-8065. For more information on the Knights of Columbus please visit http://www.kofc.org.
I think that many are forgetting that this is a Catholic University. This means that Catholic views and beliefs are going to be and should be promoted in virtue of its Catholic nature. This is something you should have known before coming here and if you do not agree with it than there are many public universities and colleges that do not promote the Catholic Church or any other belief system. Each and every one of the students here made a choice to come to St. Thomas, a Catholic university. You do not need to be Catholic to come here, but you should expect, as I said before, that the university is going to and should be promoting the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I just don’t like that it looks like someone is buried in the quad now. Wish they would have chosen something less um.. “tombstone-y” This campus has a lot of beautiful monuments and statues on it, i don’t feel this is one of them. But i DO have the knights to thank for all those tootsie rolls after church when i was a kid…
Mike- The Knights of Columbus is an all male organization. Obviously, it is Catholic as well, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s all male.
And while I understand your Catholic identity, as well as that of the university, I find it frustrating that a few thousand dollars would be spent on building a monument which in all likelihood won’t convince anyone that abortion is wrong rather than going toward actually preventing abortions.
It doesn’t seem the monument serves much of a purpose other than to remind folks on campus who agree of what they already believe and to engender exclusion towards those who don’t. I doubt that was the intent, but it seems to be the result.
Kathryn,
It is true that Knights of Columbus is an all male organization. What is wrong with that? There are all female organizations out there as well. The point being here, that this is a common experience. Abortion is NOT a male or female issue, but a human issue. What is at stake is a human life. Earlier, you somewhat expressed that patriarchical structures influence views, abortion being one of them. Are these groups better or more effective at expressing morality? Immorality is neither a masculine or feminine issue, but an objectively human problem. Why bring gender into the issue at all. It is true that women give birth to children and men do not. A man’s physiology aside he provides much to the contribution in the rearing and education of children. Is the point of the monument to convince people that abortion is wrong or is it to provide that human life is always good and right?
Kevin- I didn’t say there was anything wrong with all male organizations; I merely said “I think her point that this memorial was erected by an all male group merits some discussion… ” My point to Mike was in response to the fact that he said the Knights of Columbus is not just an all male organization.
Nor did I say that morality itself is a male or female issue. There’s a distinction between what actually is moral, and views of morality. Views of morality are influenced by our subjective experiences and perspective, and gender is a subjectively locating factor.
Yes, often men do make significant contributions in raising children, but it doesn’t follow from that, that men are equally affected by unwanted pregnancy.
With respect to the point of the monument, the article above states that it was intended “to promote the faith on campus and give an awareness to the students,” and then in Paul S.’ comment he refers to it as a “memorial to the unborn.” Perhaps the memorial wasn’t intended to convince anyone that abortion is wrong, but my point is simply this: why spend a few thousand dollars on a memorial rather than spend the same money on something that would actively benefit the principle the memorial was meant to represent?