College Republican Enemy #1
Well, probably not. I wish I could boast that title. But I did get an editorial published in our school newspaper today. I will give you the article that I responded to:
Commentary: Pregnant women need both education and services
Issue date: 4/19/06 Section: Editorial
In her recent attack on the unborn child, Kate Rohdenburg reminded us all of why the feminist movement has become so misguided ("South Dakota anti-abortion law deserves criticism," April 12).
What was once a noble crusade for equality and justice is now a movement largely concerned with the preservation and glorification of selfishness and perverse lifestyles.
Rohdenburg charges that the recent South Dakota abortion ban violates women's rights and proclaims, "Embryos should in no way take precedence over a living, breathing, loving mother/daughter/sister/friend, already established on Earth." Using the despicable "fetuses are just a clump of cells" misrepresentation, she shows the true face of the pro-choice lobby.
In fact, embryos are not simply meaningless and lifeless groups of insignificant biomass. Within hours, these embryos contain all the genetic information of full-grown human beings, and within less than 3 weeks, the nervous system is functional and the heart is beating. It is no wonder that over 90 percent of women who see their living and developing unborn children on ultrasound screens choose not to have abortions.
Furthermore, less than 3 percent of abortions are performed in the interest of protecting the health of the women, and the merit of many of these cases is often questionable i.e. the mother's "emotional well-being" would suffer, thus constituting a "health risk."
One last interesting tidbit of information: Margaret Sanger, the galvanizing figure responsible for the eventual legalization of infanticide, was a seething racist. Here are two quotations from the goddess of the pro-abortion movement:
"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
However, the pro-abortion feminist movement would rather women don't see these facts or the ultrasound images that end up saving thousands of lives a year. Instead, they constantly indoctrinate women into believing that it is somehow their "right" to terminate the lives of their children, because of the inconvenience or hardship that childrearing would impose on their lives.
Rohdenburg argues that the constitution protects a "woman's due process right to privacy." How she equates privacy with murder is beyond me. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You'll notice that not only is the word privacy never once mentioned, but also that this amendment has literally nothing to do with the issue at hand. The Fourth Amendment protects private property and personal effects, not the right to destroy your developing offspring. Roe v. Wade is an undeniably unconstitutional U.S. Supreme Court decision, and must be reversed immediately if we are to protect the rights of our children, not to mention states' rights.
Ignoring the Constitution and ignoring the facts have become a hallmark of the pro-choice movement. Instead of fighting for equality, these neo-feminists are more concerned with protecting and promoting casual promiscuity and irresponsible behavior for both men and women.
So maybe instead of struggling for the right to kill the unborn, Kate Rohdenburg and the rest of the Students for Choice should start fighting for real women's rights. We all can push for more options and more education for pregnant women. Right here at Northeastern, we should be offering pregnant students the accommodation they need to both get their education and raise their children - not force them to choose between the two. Daycare services, specialized housing, tuition assistance, sex education (and, no, I'm not one of those people who promote only abstinence-based sex education) and counseling are some of the services and choices we should be working for.
Rohdenburg finished her article by saying, "Women have the right to
life," which is absolutely true - that is, unless you believe what Margaret Sanger preached:
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
- Dave Moberg is a sophomore political science major and the president of the Northeastern University College Republicans.
Well, I found a great and many things wrong with this, but could only address so many. I left out how using Margaret Sanger's racism is sensationalism and how equating feminism with pro-choice is incorrect...I wanted to make my response a little more direct about his lack of diplomacy in making his point.
Letter to the Editor: Moberg had chance at valid point, failed to make it
Issue date: 5/10/06 Section: Editorial
The title of David Moberg's commentary last week, "Pregnant women need both education and services," was grossly misleading. I agree with the title; women should be given education, support and options if they become pregnant and do not know what to do.
Dave supports this title with a strong statement toward the end that I completely agree with, but along the way, uses rhetoric that presents members of the pro-choice movement as baby killers (the word "infanticide" is used, which is in no way, shape or form a synonym for abortion; an infant is a born child) who promote promiscuity and irresponsibility. Instead of being a powerful piece to promote the noble ideas of one of his last paragraphs, it made me wonder how people like Dave get off making claims that are blatantly untrue.
First of all, there are a few problems with the "pro-life" movement. The biggest problem is the name, which insinuates that if you are not for this cause, you must be "pro-death." Does that concept not seem almost laughable? Do members of the pro-choice movement truly mean to "indoctrinate women into believing that it is somehow their 'right' to terminate the lives of their children, because of the inconvenience or hardship that childrearing would impose on their lives?" No.
As a believer in pro-choice values, I am an advocate for the importance of women having sanctity over their own bodies. I would never suggest a woman have an abortion if there seemed to be another feasible option, but I find it completely unreasonable to make the decision for her. This comes to another problem with the pro-life movement: How in the world can any legislative body come up with a law that could encompass and rationalize all the reasons why or why not a woman (or person, for that matter) should have certain procedures done on or to her body? Why should this not be left to the individual? Oh, and I did have a laugh at "Roe v. Wade is an undeniably unconstitutional U.S. Supreme Court decision."
Undeniably unconstitutional? The forefathers knew amendments would need to be made to the Constitution, that's why it has them. The Supreme Court is an entire branch dedicated to interpreting this document. The Constitution is open to interpretation and meant to be rewritten and enforced as seen fit. Dave Moberg, a sophomore at Northeastern University, does not understand this more than the Supreme Court justices who deliberated Roe v. Wade!
I thought Dave made an excellent point when he stated that women shouldn't have to choose between school or a career and a child, and that there need to be more support and services for women who become pregnant without having planned on it. I would have commended and respected him if he hadn't entered a ridiculous smear campaign, calling pro-choicers "infanticidal" maniacs who support unprotected, promiscuous sex because abortion is the best choice for women who become pregnant and don't want to have a baby. This isn't what the pro-choice movement is about, and he needs to take some time and get his facts straight if he's going to get a respectable point across.
- Katie Vachon is a middler accounting major
I am sorry that all I use this thing for anymore is political rants...I might just make a journal called "Donkey Punch."
PS. Dave Moberg, at an anti-war rally I attended, held up a sign that said "Straight Pride" on one side and "Hippies Smell" on the other.
Commentary: Pregnant women need both education and services
Issue date: 4/19/06 Section: Editorial
In her recent attack on the unborn child, Kate Rohdenburg reminded us all of why the feminist movement has become so misguided ("South Dakota anti-abortion law deserves criticism," April 12).
What was once a noble crusade for equality and justice is now a movement largely concerned with the preservation and glorification of selfishness and perverse lifestyles.
Rohdenburg charges that the recent South Dakota abortion ban violates women's rights and proclaims, "Embryos should in no way take precedence over a living, breathing, loving mother/daughter/sister/friend, already established on Earth." Using the despicable "fetuses are just a clump of cells" misrepresentation, she shows the true face of the pro-choice lobby.
In fact, embryos are not simply meaningless and lifeless groups of insignificant biomass. Within hours, these embryos contain all the genetic information of full-grown human beings, and within less than 3 weeks, the nervous system is functional and the heart is beating. It is no wonder that over 90 percent of women who see their living and developing unborn children on ultrasound screens choose not to have abortions.
Furthermore, less than 3 percent of abortions are performed in the interest of protecting the health of the women, and the merit of many of these cases is often questionable i.e. the mother's "emotional well-being" would suffer, thus constituting a "health risk."
One last interesting tidbit of information: Margaret Sanger, the galvanizing figure responsible for the eventual legalization of infanticide, was a seething racist. Here are two quotations from the goddess of the pro-abortion movement:
"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
However, the pro-abortion feminist movement would rather women don't see these facts or the ultrasound images that end up saving thousands of lives a year. Instead, they constantly indoctrinate women into believing that it is somehow their "right" to terminate the lives of their children, because of the inconvenience or hardship that childrearing would impose on their lives.
Rohdenburg argues that the constitution protects a "woman's due process right to privacy." How she equates privacy with murder is beyond me. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You'll notice that not only is the word privacy never once mentioned, but also that this amendment has literally nothing to do with the issue at hand. The Fourth Amendment protects private property and personal effects, not the right to destroy your developing offspring. Roe v. Wade is an undeniably unconstitutional U.S. Supreme Court decision, and must be reversed immediately if we are to protect the rights of our children, not to mention states' rights.
Ignoring the Constitution and ignoring the facts have become a hallmark of the pro-choice movement. Instead of fighting for equality, these neo-feminists are more concerned with protecting and promoting casual promiscuity and irresponsible behavior for both men and women.
So maybe instead of struggling for the right to kill the unborn, Kate Rohdenburg and the rest of the Students for Choice should start fighting for real women's rights. We all can push for more options and more education for pregnant women. Right here at Northeastern, we should be offering pregnant students the accommodation they need to both get their education and raise their children - not force them to choose between the two. Daycare services, specialized housing, tuition assistance, sex education (and, no, I'm not one of those people who promote only abstinence-based sex education) and counseling are some of the services and choices we should be working for.
Rohdenburg finished her article by saying, "Women have the right to
life," which is absolutely true - that is, unless you believe what Margaret Sanger preached:
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
- Dave Moberg is a sophomore political science major and the president of the Northeastern University College Republicans.
Well, I found a great and many things wrong with this, but could only address so many. I left out how using Margaret Sanger's racism is sensationalism and how equating feminism with pro-choice is incorrect...I wanted to make my response a little more direct about his lack of diplomacy in making his point.
Letter to the Editor: Moberg had chance at valid point, failed to make it
Issue date: 5/10/06 Section: Editorial
The title of David Moberg's commentary last week, "Pregnant women need both education and services," was grossly misleading. I agree with the title; women should be given education, support and options if they become pregnant and do not know what to do.
Dave supports this title with a strong statement toward the end that I completely agree with, but along the way, uses rhetoric that presents members of the pro-choice movement as baby killers (the word "infanticide" is used, which is in no way, shape or form a synonym for abortion; an infant is a born child) who promote promiscuity and irresponsibility. Instead of being a powerful piece to promote the noble ideas of one of his last paragraphs, it made me wonder how people like Dave get off making claims that are blatantly untrue.
First of all, there are a few problems with the "pro-life" movement. The biggest problem is the name, which insinuates that if you are not for this cause, you must be "pro-death." Does that concept not seem almost laughable? Do members of the pro-choice movement truly mean to "indoctrinate women into believing that it is somehow their 'right' to terminate the lives of their children, because of the inconvenience or hardship that childrearing would impose on their lives?" No.
As a believer in pro-choice values, I am an advocate for the importance of women having sanctity over their own bodies. I would never suggest a woman have an abortion if there seemed to be another feasible option, but I find it completely unreasonable to make the decision for her. This comes to another problem with the pro-life movement: How in the world can any legislative body come up with a law that could encompass and rationalize all the reasons why or why not a woman (or person, for that matter) should have certain procedures done on or to her body? Why should this not be left to the individual? Oh, and I did have a laugh at "Roe v. Wade is an undeniably unconstitutional U.S. Supreme Court decision."
Undeniably unconstitutional? The forefathers knew amendments would need to be made to the Constitution, that's why it has them. The Supreme Court is an entire branch dedicated to interpreting this document. The Constitution is open to interpretation and meant to be rewritten and enforced as seen fit. Dave Moberg, a sophomore at Northeastern University, does not understand this more than the Supreme Court justices who deliberated Roe v. Wade!
I thought Dave made an excellent point when he stated that women shouldn't have to choose between school or a career and a child, and that there need to be more support and services for women who become pregnant without having planned on it. I would have commended and respected him if he hadn't entered a ridiculous smear campaign, calling pro-choicers "infanticidal" maniacs who support unprotected, promiscuous sex because abortion is the best choice for women who become pregnant and don't want to have a baby. This isn't what the pro-choice movement is about, and he needs to take some time and get his facts straight if he's going to get a respectable point across.
- Katie Vachon is a middler accounting major
I am sorry that all I use this thing for anymore is political rants...I might just make a journal called "Donkey Punch."
PS. Dave Moberg, at an anti-war rally I attended, held up a sign that said "Straight Pride" on one side and "Hippies Smell" on the other.