LUCC v. Pro-Life

The opinions expressed in The Lawrentian are those of the students, faculty and community members who wrote them. The Lawrentian does not endorse any opinions piece except for the staff editorial, which represents a majority of the editorial board. The Lawrentian welcomes everyone to submit their own opinions. For the full editorial policy and parameters for submitting articles, please refer to the about section.

While some Calvinists might look at ‘goodness’ and quibble about ‘original sin’ and the ‘inherent flaws of man,’ I think I speak for most people when I say babies are good chunkers. With their doughy faces, massive craniums that wobble and cause the body to go tumbling as gravity takes hold, and their open-mindedness regarding what can be consumed off the floor, babies selflessly provide enrapturing entertainment for all.  What’s more, babies elicit hopefulness amid adult-observed chaos and misery.  

While they may not be giving TEDx Talks about positivity, the baby coalition’s near-limitless potential spurs parents towards action for the good of their young. What’s more, it also serves as a reminder that not everything can be fully rectified right now and that another generation will take on emergent challenges. So when I read articles like, “Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them” at NBC, and “Here’s why China’s one-child policy was a good thing” in the pages of the Boston Globe, I get a bit peeved.  

Malthusians — people who consider population growth as both inevitable and harmful — have been with us long before Malthus started musing about population control of the commoners for the good of all. His central contention was simple enough: the food supply would fall behind population growth and cause mass starvation. In a micro context, such as a far-flung village, I think the argument makes some sense; there’s only so much food to go around, and the most productive villager should be fed at the expense of the less useful. However, with technologyassisted production far surpassing population growth, we now face rampant obesity among the poor in the United States, not mass starvation. Poor Economics tells much the same story; we do not lack for food in the developed world, but voluntarily balanced diets. 

Were Mr. Malthus alive today, he’d likely incorporate climate change into his hypothesis. This way, he could stay relevant and earn tenure. What rankles most for me is how modern Malthusians and the aforementioned news contributors are utterly pessimistic about our chances of managing climate change. Defeatism is gross, and even worse when the defeated point at babies and say that it’s them who must shoulder the punishment. I think that we can think our way out of climate catastrophe because we humans are pretty darn good at getting out of scrapes, despite our many foibles. Even if the worst should happen and the glaciers melt, we’ll live at the bottom of the ocean, just as the Jonas Brothers prognosticated. Have a little faith, people. 

This discursion into pop-based climate science logically brings us to LUCC. To give my thoughts on LUCC, I believe that, while certainly infantile, it has none of the friendliness or goodwill of infants, instead acting as a fortification of petty tyranny in college life. I see student government as the collection drain of campus busy-bodies and scolds. Like Yooper mosquitos to a bull moose, they cannot help but be pestilential. Their classmates elect them to their seats for one of two reasons: either so that the candidate stops badgering their classmates, or because the student wishes to affirm their progressiveness. I’ve found that a vote for X to LUCC is a vote for “Please stop bothering me.”  

So LUCC carries on with whatever it is that they do, rarely disturbing the day-to-day lives of their peers. Unfortunately, LUCC has been trying to keep a Pro-Life group from being recognized as a permanent student organization. Apologies for the above pejoratives, but LUCC simply has no reasonable grounds to reject or hassle this group, which I believe they have been doing.  

LUCC preaches inclusion and the affirmation of human rights. The right for all persons to exist, which I believe LU Pro-Life inherently supports, should be not only uncontroversial but laudable. I see it as a fundamentally optimistic and woman-affirming stance — women can have children and be successful. The relationship between child-rearing and success should be a win for everyone.  

Since I can hear the “No Ovaries, No Opinion” rabble approaching, I will point out that my lived experience as a pre- and post-born baby permits me to speak on behalf of babydom. Furthermore, to litigate abortion in this piece should be unnecessary, as a Pro-Life group’s existence at Lawrence threatens “reproductive rights” not a whit. This persecution is a matter of LUCC disliking what I believe is an unpopular political group’s human rights campaign and seeking to punish its heterodox political views.  

Whether you agree with pro-lifers should be inconsequential at this juncture; I think that they deserve the ability to organize and receive funding. Simple as. 

Agree? Disagree? Think I’m an Atwood-ian womanhater? Let me know at Cheers!