Recommended Posts
rushmc 23
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
quade 4
QuoteIf they fund one side they had better fund the other.....son't you think?
No actually.
I want you to try to see this from the VAST majority of pro-choice people's point of view (I'm not saying you have to agree with it, please just try to understand it for a minute).
To the vast majority of pro-choice people the issue has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. For most it's more of a biological issue and how a woman -might- keep options open. No woman (in her right mind) WANTS an abortion and I'm pretty sure most would only use it as a last resort (certainly, there are exceptions I can't deny that).
Pro-life supporters, on the other hand, can really only argue on the side of "morality", which, by at least a minimal definition makes it a religious argument. There really is no way to be Pro-life AND be concerned with the biological issues of women, since banning abortions will only make them illegal and therefor MUCH more dangerous and life threatening toward anyone that seeks one out of necessity, because certainly banning it will never stop the practice, only drive it underground.
So, no. One side is a women's health issue and the other is a religious issue. They are not the same.
This confusion between health and religion has caused -quite- a few problems over the years. If people hadn't been so danged high and mighty that AIDs was a "gay" problem rather than a human health issue we probably would be 10 years closer to the cure by now.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
kallend 2,150
QuoteQuote
This confusion between health and religion has caused -quite- a few problems over the years. If people hadn't been so danged high and mighty that AIDs was a "gay" problem rather than a human health issue we probably would be 10 years closer to the cure by now.
"People" being mostly Ronald Reagan....
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Richards 0
QuoteTo the vast majority of pro-choice people the issue has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. For most it's more of a biological issue and how a woman -might- keep options open. No woman (in her right mind) WANTS an abortion and I'm pretty sure most would only use it as a last resort (certainly, there are exceptions I can't deny that).
Pro-life supporters, on the other hand, can really only argue on the side of "morality", which, by at least a minimal definition makes it a religious argument. There really is no way to be Pro-life AND be concerned with the biological issues of women, since banning abortions will only make them illegal and therefor MUCH more dangerous and life threatening toward anyone that seeks one out of necessity, because certainly banning it will never stop the practice, only drive it underground.
So, no. One side is a women's health issue and the other is a religious issue. They are not the same.
This confusion between health and religion has caused -quite- a few problems over the years. If people hadn't been so danged high and mighty that AIDs was a "gay" problem rather than a human health issue we probably would be 10 years closer to the cure by now.
I realise there is to some extent an apples and oranges issue happening but this needs to be looked at from the school administrations perspective not the pro-choicers. Yes there needs to be pioritisation (health counselling, suicide counselling etc before political and such) but the pro-choice groups do not actually provide the abortions they simply advocate the right to have one, while the pro-life group cannot stop a woman from having one, they simply express thier view on it. While I disagree with thier view they have the right to say it. One of the principle ideas of academics is to get people to express unpopular views and be willing to encourage controversial debate.
The school needs to acknowledge that if they are using tuition fees to fund student groups then so long as it does not take away from critical services they should be willing to allocate that equally. Otherwise all groups should have to find thier own funding.
You mentioned that ignorance about aids causing the problem to be ignored and I agree with you but open discussion has to have all parties being given equal opportunity to express thier views (so long as they are not openly expressing hate messages or harrassing anyone). In this case the school would be wrong to fund one group and not the other even though you and I may find the other sides views to be somewhat archaic.
Richards 0
QuoteI agree. My college funded a lot of sports and student-support based activities but did not fund purely political activities. Such a stance is no problem as long as it's universal
Regrettably, sports programs do get a disproportionate amount of the funding at the expense of other programs.
Regarding the student support programs you refer to I am not sure what you mean. If by student support you mean academic support and critical care support (like counsellors for students who are experiencing a crisis) and such, I would place a bit of a premium on that over sports, arts, politics etc, but yes in spirit I agree that greater distribution of funding needs to happen.
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteIt would be interesting to know what the constitution of the student association says about what grounds are sufficient for expulsion.
The guild of students at my university just voted to deny all funding and related priviledges for the Christian Union students club. In our case the club breached the equal opportunities clauses by not allowing non-christians to join, which makes it a no brainer. Didn't stop the CU from stating their intention to sue. The one you posted doesn't sound so cut and dried - they better be sure they're not leaving themselves liable.
Most universities are pretty similar when it comes to student group funding guidelines. I beleive that so long as you do not place undue barriers against equal participation and do not hurt you should be eligible for the funding (also providing you are not a carbon copy of an existing group). Unfortunately the extremist agendas seem to be getting pushed at many universities. Subsequently freedom of speech seems to be a selective right.
Richards 0
QuoteI believe my (private) university's position is that it can not fund any group pushing a political agenda on account of possibly jeopardizing its tax status as a not-for-profit. Students can form political clubs if they want, but no university money supports them. Maybe Carleton is the same.
That is probably a sensible approach to take. Unfortunately what Carleton seems to be doing is deciding which political views they will support. I do not agree with the pro-life view since I do not presume to have the right to say what anyone else does with thier body. That said, thier tuition pays for this very funding so either they should get a reimbursement on that portion or they should get the funding. Maybe Carleton should follow your university's lead and stop funding for any political student group.
rehmwa 2
QuoteIs there a difference between funding a health issue and a religious one?
I believe there are non-religious types that are also anti-abortion. Their arguments are based on, gasp, HEALTH, reasons. The health of the mother and the baby......
So displaying the debate as a "health vs religion" debate is very insincere. {BTW, I'm in the camp of let's all mind our own business and keep both sides out of government - I won't argue with your 'choice', though I'd typically find it distasteful, but don't make me pay for your 'elective procedure'. In essence, I'm against both sides of this debate.}
Your argument, which wallows in a stereotype of anti-abortion advocates, itself is another political slant on a very political debate.
I think that university clubs of all kinds need to be self funded. But if that is just not good enough for a university, then it's a terrible thing to fund one club and not those that oppose it. Especially when they are based on political or subjective type issues.
I like Kallend's and Richards' positions.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
quade 4
QuoteSo displaying the debate as a "health vs religion" debate is very insincere.
You are free to believe anything you wish about the subject.
It doesn't change the facts as I see them and yes, I actully do see the issue this way and my view are in no way insincere.
Quote
Your argument, which wallows in a stereotype of anti-abortion advocates, itself is another political slant on a very political debate.
Hogwash (of course, that's just my opinion).
I actually do believe that the only way a person can be against choice is because they have a "moral" issue with it. Opening that door does, in fact, make it health vs. religion as I've previously stated.
Those are my beliefs. You can disagree with them if you choose (which obviously you do), but to dismiss it as "wallows in a stereotype" is nonsense because there is far more to it than that.
I'm NOT talking about the "evangelical nut jobs" (because that clearly IS the stereotype). I'm talking about common, everyday people that might not even go to church yet are squeemish about removing a few cells of living tissue that -I- believe are not yet human.
But thanks for lumping me in with the anti-religion bigots. I appreciate that.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
QuoteQuoteIs there a difference between funding a health issue and a religious one?
I believe there are non-religious types that are also anti-abortion. Their arguments are based on, gasp, HEALTH, reasons. The health of the mother and the baby......
Actually, evidence indicates that there are fewer risks to the mother from abortion than from giving birth.
Breast cancer risk is temporarily increased after a term pregnancy (resulting in the birth of a living child). Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level). -American Cancer Society
Women aged 15-24 had an increased risk of pregnancy-associated death due to diseases of the circulatory system, reflecting their elevated risk of death from cerebrovascular disease--primarily intracerebral hemorrhage and hemorrhagic stroke--after giving birth.
-Gissler Met al., Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion, 1987-2000, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2004
Among 51,430 nulliparous women--a population that is believed to be at highest risk for preeclampsia--the rate of the disorder among those with a history of abortion was 2.6%. The rate was 2.9% among women without a history of abortion, The risk of preeclampsia among women who had never been pregnant was 2.9%. Therefore, the risk of preeclampsia during subsequent pregnancies was reduced in women who had previously had an abortion.
-Preeclampsia Not Linked to Prior Miscarriage, Abortion
OB/GYN News, Sept 15, 2001 by Kathryn Demott
And the most significant statistic of all:
"In the U.S., the fatality risk with mifepristone (RU-486) is slightly less than 1 per 100,000 cases, compared with 0.1 per 100,000 for surgical abortion... Pregnancy itself carries a fatality risk of 11.8 per 100,000." -Consumer Reports quoting the FDA.
The risk of pregnancy is 118 times higher than the risk of abortion.
I'm not sure but I think it was discovered that the criteria impresse on that Christian group, wasn't required of a number of other student organizations.
rehmwa 2
QuoteThe risk of pregnancy is 118 times higher than the risk of abortion.
I cannot agree with your position that all pregnancies should be aborted and enforced by the government.

On the other hand, within 3 years, the amount of diapers going into the landfills would be decreased dramatically.
note the smileys
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
I wouldn't have a problem with the anti-choice groups that distribute "health" information, if their information was accurate. It usually isn't, and it's usually designed to frighten rather than to inform.
When I was in college, no non-academic club received funding (sports teams weren't considered clubs). The clubs that were funded were clubs that were related to degrees offered at the school. This situation was because LMU is a catholic school, and the administrators were taking heat because one of the funded student clubs was the AGLA (Association for Gay and Lesbian Awareness, LMU's gay/straight alliance). So, the school just decided that no funding was permited for clubs that weren't directly related to classes.
The ironic situation was that the school's decision pissed off so many students that the AGLA became probably the best funded club on campus. Students went out of their way to support the club's fundraisers as a way to offset the university's lack of support.
Maybe the same will happen with the christian club in question here.
rehmwa 2
QuoteWhen I was in college, no non-academic club received funding (sports teams weren't considered clubs). The clubs that were funded were clubs that were related to degrees offered at the school.
I think this is a GREAT policy.
It's a shame that your LMU put it in place as a response to something politically sensitive rather than just original policy. Funny example of how one specific wrong turned into a generally correct position in this case though.
I think Richard's point is that LMU and Carleton are analogous to each other and LMU responded correctly and Carleton didn't. I have to agree with Richards.
The only thing is funny here is the PC aspect of each. If they both did the same action, many people
would be outraged at one school and not at the other though the issues are very analogous.
Too bad both schools didn't just avoid funding in the first place rather than let their bias drive them to the eventual correct result anyway.
The best practice in any area is fund as little as possible. Keeps it simple and keeps the funds in the most local control available.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Richards 0
QuoteI wouldn't have a problem with the anti-choice groups that distribute "health" information, if their information was accurate. It usually isn't, and it's usually designed to frighten rather than to inform.
I agree. Again though, if funding is there for agenda groups and it comes from students tuition it should be dispbursed equitably.
I really am not impressed with most of the extreme pro-lifers. I particularly disagree with thier tactics at abortion clinics and support the idea of bubble zones that have been put in place around abortion clinics in some areas.
QuoteQuoteI agree. My college funded a lot of sports and student-support based activities but did not fund purely political activities. Such a stance is no problem as long as it's universal
Regrettably, sports programs do get a disproportionate amount of the funding at the expense of other programs.
What's regrettable about that? If students want to fund their recreational activities, great. The poing of those dues is to support things that they want to do. The great bit about a large university is that there are enough willing participants for every 'minor' sport one can think of. At Cal I learned to sail, kayak, play racquetball and improved my tennis at varying costs from free to minor.
Colleges (along with all the schools below) should do all they can to encourage athletic pursuits. The alternative is already hard to miss.
>should fund fairly.
I agree. My college funded a lot of sports and student-support based activities but did not fund purely political activities. Such a stance is no problem as long as it's universal.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites