The Cluster

At the risk of sounding like a man who doesn’t want women in office, I am getting on my soapbox again this week to lament the impact that Elaine Lucas is having on the city of Macon.
She does not deserve public office, because she has abused the position and has helped lead Macon further away from a bright future that sees Macon become an important part of the Southeast.
She and her husband both have caused more racism and prejudice with their words and idiocy.
I will be honest; I have really only started paying attention this summer during the elections for the primaries.
I noticed a friend had posted on a Facebook page called “Remove Elaine Lucas from Office.”
I was really intrigued. I began to look through the pictures of the page that were screenshots of things she had said and written on public websites such as Facebook.
It was truly despicable, the rhetoric and vitriol that she had used to convince her voting constituents that there were still “carpetbaggers” and active KKK groups out to get them if she didn’t stay in office, along with the “nationwide plot to unseat Obama” running through her position in East Macon.
I could go on and on quoting the things she says, but the essence of what she is saying is that the Republican Party wishes to enslave and cripple the black/African-American population in Macon.
It is a sad day when she attacks her own party members with such hatred, only to see her husband lose his seat to Miriam Paris—who I hope will be a great improvement.
Chris Horne, supported by many people who share similar views with me, only lost by 126 votes, meaning that plenty of people are seeing what kind of fool she is.
Trenton White, former SGA President and a current SGA Senior Senator, spoke with me about what he has noticed.
I routinely saw him respectfully comment back to Lucas on her personal Facebook page, where she would dodge and ignore his intelligent comments.
“We don’t need that sort of unfounded slander in our local leaders,” White said.
He also told me that “[He] closely followed the summer’s citywide elections and was very disappointed by Elaine Lucas. Even now, Ms. Lucas consistently uses divisive and inflammatory rhetoric that undermines any sort of unity our community is building.”
Trent had the same emotions I, as well as hundreds of others, have. In fact, there is a campaign to bring her up on ethics violations for the harmful words she says.
To give proof as to the slavery comments, she wrote in August that “Republicans are our masters and really know what we need.
We ought to be happy that we have such kind people taking care of us. All they want us to do is behave like good little children and pick dis here cotton. Now let’s all get back to work or I’ll tell master on you.”
This is just another moment in a long line of idiotic and ignorant things she has said, only to fuel racial stereotypes and further harm the city of Macon.
Lucas might have supported upgrading Jeffersonville Road, supported the Marriott Hotel in her ward, sponsored the Booker T. Washington Center’s rehabilitation, and secured $500,000 for the Rosa Jackson Center.
However, a few improvements to centers and fixing a road is not enough to wipe out the bitter words that are now on the public response.
She has even insulted Macon residents on Facebook who don’t even have public office.
Nevertheless, her inflated ego is also a great stumbling block, simply because she has convinced herself that the road to Obama’s re-election for the U.S. Presidency runs through her position next year.
It is nice to know that our elected officials care more about national politics than the own areas they are supposed to represent.
Claiming that the Republican Party’s agenda is all anti-black and racist against African Americans is a bit extreme, especially since no one in the Republican Party is changing his or her name to include offensive hate organizations like she is—e.g. Erick Erikson to Erikkk Erikkkson.
The city of Macon would be better off without her involvement.
I’m not an expert, but any elected official who does not add any benefit to the city—she also has sponsored boycotting local restaurants— while saying some very horrible things needs to lose her position.
She doesn’t even support the mayor despite his being in office.
Elaine Lucas has been around since the 1980s. Her presence is bad news. She was brought up on faking sick leave in 1995 by the Bibb County Board of Education in the amount of $634.38, along with two others.
This culture of thinking that she’s above everyone else must be nipped in the bud, finally.
Hopefully the massive amount of complaints about her breaking the code of ethics will finally change something in this city.
As for you Mercerians, I urge you to get involved.
There are bound to be good and bad individuals at all levels of government, all around the country.
I want to get involved and see if I can help turn the tide against propagated racism in Macon.

Comments, questinons, concerns or rebuttals can be sent to Garret.mcdowell@gmail.com.

I can’t stand Michele Bachmann. Blunt, yes, but the woman is not what the United States needs in 2012 or, frankly, ever.
I do not like the Tea Party that much, but I respect their origins in trying to stave off the debt crisis. Even though the recent debt ceiling crisis occurred, it wasn’t like they ignored it. Scott Brown—someone the Tea Party endorsed intelligently—is a beacon of light in this current political climate.
Anyway, I bring up Scott Brown just because of how much better he is than Michele Bachmann. She is a joke.
For example, she has repeatedly criticized and lamented the stimulus package, about which Americans are of mixed emotions still. That is perfectly legitimate and acceptable to critique, but you cannot then say that your district needed funds and defend the stimulus.
This flip-flopping, combined with other factors, cost John Kerry the 2006 Presidential Election. Bachmann is just trying to appease every voter possible, which actually might work in an uneducated voting populace.
She won the Ames Straw Poll, which is a big deal, and it also scares me. Luckily, the only individual who has ever won the Presidency after winning the straw poll is George W. Bush.
Nevertheless, another reason I cannot stand Bachmann is that she is against mandatory public service and criticizes AmeriCorps and other government organizations that are service-based.
While I can agree that everyone might not be cut out for AmeriCorps or other groups, telling the Minnesota Independent that they could become “re-education camps” for young people is a joke and just a fear tactic. It’s frustrating.
Another reason I cannot stand her is that she is willing to sacrifice the well-being of the country she wants to be in charge of in order to stick to party lines. In the aforementioned debt ceiling crisis, she repeatedly said that no compromise should be made on what the Republicans want. She advocated default.
Her current political momentum has even been attributed as one of the reasons that Standard and Poor downgraded the US credit rating from the pristine AAA rating. The reasoning is that if the current political climate has potential leaders advocating default, then the future of those bonds is not good.
She countered with her ridiculous plan that had the majority of government funded programs being penniless. Her refusal to work across party lines over something that was of grave importance to the future of this country was just another sign that she is bad news.
To continue this train of thought, her interview on Sunday’s “This Week” just proved her flakiness and ineptitude. She said that Social Security needs to be reformed because you shouldn’t run a program the same way for 80 years.
Now, unless you are very knowledgeable about politics, I wouldn’t expect the everyday American to know that Ronald Reagan actually fixed that program somewhat in 1983… just 28 years ago. However, I do expect and pretty much mandate that the Presidential candidate I vote for HAS to.
Bachman is an uneducated moron who is running off the uber-religious right who want to see the nation return to a more morally-oriented country that is respectable.
As a matter of fact, I would like my leaders and elected officials to have morals and virtues as well, but I am not willing to sacrifice competent leadership for it. How she ever got enough support to win a Congressional seat in Minnesota is beyond me.
I know that you run on party lines to get primary votes, but there are certain things that can’t be erased. When asked how she was going to work with Democrats in the Senate to reassure markets of fiscal stability in this country, she simply said that she wanted to work on getting a filibuster-proof majority of Republicans there.
Yeah, that scares me, and it should scare anyone who actually cares about the U.S. surviving the next few years.
When you support Creation myths being taught as actual science, something is wrong. When you want to dangle nuclear strike capabilities in front of a somewhat hostile nation in Iran as a response, something is wrong. When you support nuclear power, you might actually have an intelligent thought. That is one thing I agree with her on.
However, she’s still a horrible choice and candidate for President. I hope that her campaign dies in the primaries much like her bills routinely die in committee.

Greetings, Mercerians new and old! It is another school year, and with that recognition comes bombardment from all signs to join this club or that organization, or help some freshman find their way to Willett. I write to you today to explain from an insider’s perspective the reasons why you should not run away from the over-enthused Greeks who will shove their letters in your faces and act like they’ve not only had way too much caffeine, but are unable to unscrew their gigantic smiles.

First, let’s address a few stereotypes. Greek life at Mercer is not analogous with the monstrous scope of Greek life at major SEC schools, or any other school for that matter. This campus holds only four sororities and eight fraternities, along with five NPHC organizations. The student body boasts 26 percent Greek involvement, a small share compared to other institutions. Mercer is also a dry campus, but of course all of you new kids heard that already with sighs of disappointment.

At Mercer, you will not be buying friends. Being Greek is an investment in your future. Not only does each fraternity and sorority wield a large amount of influence through extensive alumnae organizations, letters look great both on jerseys and on your resume. Greek organizations hold members to higher standards of involvement and leadership positions on campus, social and community obligations and academic integrity.

You will not be hazed. Each organization on campus has strict regulations to prevent hazing. Greeks do not play around with the h-word.

Now, I will just encourage you straight from the heart with a personal story to register for Fall Recruitment 2011.

Deciding to join a sorority was the best decision I made my freshman year, and you can quote me on that. In high school, I was the quintessential insecure perfectionist. I had very few friends who were girls and a low self-esteem to boot. I was involved in a lot of clubs and teams, but I joined them for college applications rather than my own interest. Moving to Macon was a fresh start. I knew that I could step up, change my image and enjoy the next four years, or fade into insignificance on a small campus in the middle of nowhere.

Since then, I have joined only clubs in which I have genuine interest. Over 50 sisters  love me just the way I am, and I can walk confidently across campus shouting hello to every person I meet. My sorority has taught me how to love myself, meet new people, prepare for my future and has ushered in a new chapter of my life.

This is the chapter where I am the master of my destiny, my happiness, my Mercer.

Of course, there are other ways to reinvent yourself on campus. There are other religious and athletic organizations that will offer you T-shirts and opportunity. But they are nowhere near as fun as running up a hill on Bid Day, screaming and throwing on a jersey with funny letters and knowing you have been accepted and welcomed by something bigger than a house, deeper than a friendship, stronger than any bond.

Comments on this opinoin can be sent to 

online@mercercluster.com

Mercer University’s College of Liberal Arts has implemented a unique experience for undergraduates to display their research for colleagues and professors to recognize.  The students who presented at the new Breakthroughs in Engagement, Arts, and Research (BEAR) Day, which took place two weeks ago, really showed how impressive Mercer students are at research.

All day long students could visit panels addressing a wide variety of topics, ranging from research on languages to children’s transitions from orphanages and even local Macon outreach projects. BEAR Day even allowed different modes of expression by students presenting orally, with or without media, or a poster display in the University Center.

Based on the four panel presentations I attended, Mercer CLA students demonstrated how well Mercer University prepares undergraduates for research and analysis. I was especially impressed with my fellow colleagues’ ability to convey their research in a timely manner that was understandable to an audience that may not have any familiarity with the research topic.

To further continue my accolades for the event, CLA and Dean Lake Lambert made a great decision to cancel class to allow students to attend some of the panels throughout the entire day.  The decision to cancel class allowed for a great turnout as every panel I visited had no less than fifteen students in the audience listening and engaging in the questioning period. Even the keynote speaker held a large, well represented audience.

The only critique I have of BEAR Day experience came with the feedback given to the presentations — or should I say lack of feedback. The only feedback given was who the winners were and who the winners were not. This, unfortunately, gave the impression to many students that their presentations were not sufficient for criticism.

Only those who were awarded received feedback on their work. Many students were left wondering why their research and presentations did not win or what they needed to work on. If Mercer University wants BEAR Day to become a successful event in the future, the faculty must reconcile this problem. Students need feedback to better their research, further their work and understand their mistakes and accomplishments.

Maybe a BEAR Week would provide the remedy. Instead of presenting every project and poster in five hours, allow several rounds of presentations and critical rounds. More time will enhance the experience.  This way not every school has to close down for an entire day and not all presentations have to be presented in a concentrated time.

Instead, a block system would provide a number of panels to present. Then, after all participants have presented on the final day of the week, the selected top presenters can present again in front of a much wider academic audience. This will provide more feedback, more analysis and a more thorough experience for all Mercer students. This year’s BEAR Day, though, was a great step in the right direction.

Not everyone, it seems, thought BEAR Day was important enough to allow students to participate. Several students and faculty stated that Mercer University’s Business School, among others, declined to cancel class. This left students taking classes at the Business School, who may have wanted to attend, with the threat of penalization for missing class or participating and supporting their fellow students at BEAR Day. This projected the message that BEAR Day, and student research, is not important to the Business School. This decision to not cancel class points to a serious problem: either we, as a university, support one another or we do not.

No matter what the logic or reasoning, the Business School’s actions show that it does not wish to support other entities on campus. This shows a serious divide that should not exist on our campus. All of Mercer’s colleges benefit from other colleges excelling at what they do. Many students who major in political science take entry-level courses in economics, engineering students take classes in science and foreign languages, and so on and so forth.

Why do students take a wide variety of classes? Because we believe that a liberal education with a wide range of learning experiences enhances our collegiate experience. To interpret my understanding, Mercer University does not consist of several colleges but several colleges belong to Mercer University.  This lack of apparent willingness to collaborate shows either a lack of leadership at a high level or unwillingness to work with others.

Those who made the decision to not join in the CLA’s decision to afford all students the opportunity to participate on BEAR Day clearly did not think about this perception.  That is unfortunate and only shows yet another reason why Mercer must create things like the new Lyceum to encourage people to work together.

Comments on this opinion can be sent to donald.e.mitchell@live.mercer.edu

Last week, the nation erupted in outrage over an incident that had liberals and conservatives engaged in vicious mudslinging. Was it the United States’ involvement with the war in Libya? No. Was it the disturbingly partisan nature of the recent budget crisis? No. It was something much worse. Popular clothing line J. Crew, heaven forbid, recently ran an ad featuring a small boy with bright pink polish on his toenails.

The ad was part of a feature in J. Crew’s catalogue titled “Saturday with Jenna” that gave a peek into the life of its president and creative director Jenna Lyons. In the photo Lyons is grinning from ear to ear at her laughing son while holding his foot, which sports hot pink toenails. Touching moment between mother and son captured on film? NO. Intentional assault on gender norms and family values everywhere!

As one Fox News contributor Dr. Keith Ablow asked, “If you have no problem with the J. Crew ad, how about one in which a little boy models a sundress?” Nope — sorry, Fox News, no problem with that either. The controversy about this ad centers around the concept that there are things that belong to boys and things that belong to girls, and anything that blurs the line will undoubtedly end with gender confusion and ultimately sex-change surgery, or, as Ablow calls it, “procedures to grotesquely amputate body parts.”

Aren’t we supposed to be past gender stereotyping? As one commentator on the story pointed out, the world would pass over an ad featuring a young girl wearing jeans and playing in the dirt with a Tonka truck without a second glance. And why? Because her crossing of gender norms makes her an empowered woman!

As a matter of fact, the general public would reject a requirement that a female child be forced to wear a pink dress and play with dolls for the purpose of advertising, so why should this little boy be forced to do likewise? We can’t pick and choose which gender norms we reject and which ones we follow.

More important, Lyons is being backhandedly accused of bad parenting as a result of this ad. Bad parenting, really? As pointed out by a columnist on RVAnews.com, a New York mother recently killed herself and her three children, but we’re concerned about a mother painting her son’s toenails. Parents abuse, neglect and abandon their children daily.

A mother who does not conform to gender norms is not a bad mother. A gay couple who I know very well recently adopted three beautiful children after years of unsuccessful ventures with adoption agencies around the world. Their birth mother has five children under the age of six, and all of them have been taken away from her. Are we really supposed to believe that these children would be better off with their biological mother because now they have two loving daddies who aren’t likely to enforce strict gender roles? Somehow I think not.

Comments on this opinion can be sent to editor@mercercluster.com

I would like to begin this article by thanking Mercer for ruining my excitement about the graduation ceremony. Yes, thank you. To avoid singling out certain individuals I will direct my article, simply, to  Mercer.

Judging from the multiple conversations and Facebook statuses, I’m sure seniors can agree with me that Mercer is wrong for limiting us to only five tickets for graduation. Ever since the distribution of tickets I have seen at least five Facebook statuses from different students asking—and even begging—for extra tickets.

Is it space, Mercer? You can fix that issue. How hard can it be to rent the Macon Coliseum so that there will be no worries about seating? I don’t care whether I graduate on or off campus; hell, I graduated high school at the Gwinnett Civic Center. It’s not a big deal. My family doesn’t care about seeing the campus either; I have been here four years and they have seen enough of it.

Is it a money issue, Mercer? Does it cost too much to rent the Macon Coliseum for a day? If the school can spend money on pointless programs such as MercerMobile (which we saw was a complete fail, among other things), then why can’t there be an initiative for a better or larger venue for the graduation ceremony?

This five-ticket thing is ridiculous. I don’t think Mercer, the school I have attended for four years and for which I will be in debt, doesn’t care that I have to tell family members that have been influential figures in my college career that they cannot come because I am only allotted so many tickets.

For me college graduation is far more important than high school, and you’re telling me that my family traveling to Georgia from New Jersey can come sit in the Medical School auditorium and watch me graduate on a screen? That’s insulting!

What about those who have more than five people in their immediate family? Surprise, Mercer, I actually have two parents and more than one sibling! Shocking, right? I can’t imagine how those with more than two or three siblings are handling this ticket situation.

It seems as if Mercer cares more about their own interests rather than the interests of the students who pay tuition to go here. I promise I’m not the first or the last to complain about Mercer rationing students five tickets as if our families (outside the immediate family) don’t care about our achievements.

At some point shouldn’t you listen, Mercer? This isn’t another complaint — take into account how annoying it is to only have five tickets for my college graduation as opposed to my high school graduation, for which I was given 20.

May 14 is a special day for not only students, but also our families, relatives, friends, mentors and others  who have been supportive during out time here at Mercer. I’m not saying students should be given 20 or 30 tickets, but would five more really hurt? As much as tuition costs for four years at this university, I should be able to have at least 10 tickets!

Comments on this opinion should be sent to editor@mercercluster.com

There are 300 million people in the United States, and 1.5 million of them are active duty members of the United States Armed Forces. These are members of the Marine Corps, Navy, Army and Air Force.

They are the defenders of our country, our values, our way of life and our democracy. They preserve freedom for not only our country, but also freedom for many other countries around the world.

Here at Mercer, we are privileged with the opportunity to share our academic pursuits with men and women who will go on to serve in these branches of the Armed Forces; the men and women of ROTC. They work harder and longer in a day than some students do in a week.

They are models for what every student and citizen of our country should be: patriots. Because of their rigorous schedules and trying obligations, I believe that the students of ROTC should be allowed to register early.

These students wake up at five in the morning nearly every day. After waking up they are required to do rigorous physical activity for an hour. Then they go to their regular classes, meaning the classes required for their majors or the general education track.

These classes have to be fitted around their required ROTC classes. Every ROTC student is required to take at least one Military Science class a semester, plus a required lab that lasts two and half hours. The class plus the lab comes to a grand total of three credit hours per semester, even though ROTC students are usually in these classes for close to six hours a week.

In addition to taking these ROTC classes, these students also have to make sure that they are on track to graduate or face the risk of losing their scholarships. A two-year, three-year and four-year scholarship is offered to these ROTC students. Most of the ROTC students are on a four-year scholarship, which means the American government pays for their tuition and Mercer pays for their room and board. In order to keep the scholarship the student must have a 2.0 GPA, take at least 12 hours every semester and must serve in the Armed Forces.

The requirements set upon these students are burdensome, time consuming and time constraining. These students are the future and current defenders of our country; it is time that we as a university recognized the honor of the daily and lifelong struggles they will face in service of our country. There are approximately 5,300 students in ROTC nationwide who have different and sometimes less rigorous requirements than our program has.

We have approximately 45 of those students. Shouldn’t we be asking as a university what we can do to help them in their academic pursuits? The very least we can do in aiding their progress is to give them the privilege to register early. If we hold athletes and honor students to a higher standard and aid them in their academic pursuits, why not the students who will and who have served our country?

Comments on this opinion can be sent to cjakins007@hotmail.com

The name Hazel Bryan Massery is probably unfamiliar to a lot of Americans. Similarly, Elizabeth Eckford, while probably more prominent, is still not an everyday name heard in 2011. These two women’s paths crossed in a single moment that would be photographed and evolve into one of America’s most notable icons of the Civil Rights movement.

Elizabeth Eckford was one of nine black students who were thrust into national attention when they broke Arkansas’s segregation laws by integrating Little Rock Central High School in September, 1957. Hazel Bryan (as she was known then) was photographed screaming at Eckford as she walked to school under the supervision of the National Guard. Most of us are familiar with this picture and have seen it in our history books since elementary school. Though Massery (along with many other Central students) later apologized personally to the Little Rock Nine and eventually supported integration efforts in the South, this photograph proved to be worth a thousand words and Massery would be remembered in history as an emblem of Southern racism despite her later renunciation of her segregationist stance.

Today we see a different version of the Civil Rights movement in the United States playinhg out. LGBT Americans are daily denied equal rights ranging from marriage to health benefits, to protection from the law to not being fired from their jobs due to their sexuality. We see people such as Fred Phelps and his rabid flock of crazies (possibly America’s most famous lunatics since the Manson Family) who picket everything from funerals to rock concerts shouting such malarkey as “God hates fags,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Hates America.” For a more complete list of what God hates, just Google “Westboro Baptist Church” (Note: God probably also hates the Internet, so be careful).

On a less extreme level (but perhaps a more dangerous one due to their being taken seriously and having actual authority), we see many politicians (mostly conservative but also some moderates who don’t want to lose conservative voters), religious leaders and everyday people who also believe and assert that LGBT Americans somehow do not deserve the rights or protection their straight counterparts enjoy.

I am certainly not condemning all politicians and religious leaders. Many politicians, including several Republicans, have been tremendous supporters of LGBT rights and even more religious leaders have been invaluable to the cause of full Queer equality in the United States. However, we are living in a time where the most vocal anti-equality activists are sending a message loud and clear in the United States that it is somehow wrong and not acceptable to be Queer in the U.S., which they do by supporting the Defense of Marriage Act and denounce DADT Repeal and the Matthew Shepherd Act.

Apart from being unethical, un-American, intolerant, backwards and untrue, such statements are dangerous and irresponsible. We all remember last year when there was a surge of LGBT youth suicides. These suicides, in my opinion, are the direct responsibility of those (like Phelps and other anti-LGBT voices) who create an atmosphere of hatred and intolerance much like those who shouted obscenities and death threats at nine teenagers for simply going to school 54 years ago. These people are certainly entitled to voice their opinions by comparing LGBT people to pedophiles, sexual perverts and deviates (however vile and demented these points of view may be), but when these comments and the atmosphere they creates begin to kill children, I’d say we have some serious soul-searching to do as a nation.

What I am interested in are the basic principles of liberty (including the liberty of being with whomever one loves under the same terms as everyone else) and fairness that the United States claims to love so much yet denies to its own citizens. To give ourselves the credit of being a diverse, accepting nation, we must act in that manner which isn’t accomplished by denying human rights to other human beings under any circumstances. Simply put, I ask those who oppose Queer equality for whatever reason simply to consider how future Americans will remember them when the LGBT rights movement finds its way into the history books. Just as Hazel Massery’s image has become one that characterized all of Arkansas as racist and intolerant, these same people who viciously fight against civil rights in the contemporary will make the entire populace look backward and intolerant in the future.

Comments on this opinion should be sent to kyle.mitchell.shook@live.mercer.edu

Look, this pro-life/pro-choice thing is obviously becoming such an issue that it has reached me all the way over here in Ljubljana, Slovenia (ah, the wonders of Facebook). There have been a couple of times throughout my Mercer career that I’ve wanted to throw my two cents in on this issue, but I’ve shied away from it because who really wants to draw a red target on their own forehead? After seeing photos of the chalk war on a friend’s Wall, however, I’ve decided I’d like to throw my opinion out there. Let me begin by saying I am Roman Catholic and I am pro-choice.

Go ahead, freak out. Now let me explain. I find there to be a fundamental problem with the title “pro-choice.”

Pro-choicers tend to throw out this argument that protecting the rights of the unborn strips away the rights of the mothers. Pro-choice claims to stand for the “choice” of the mother, that it is her choice what happens to her body.

Well yeah, sure it is…but the only choice this seems to be talking about is the choice she makes after pregnant. Another choice came before that. Sex leads to pregnancy; if a woman has chosen to have sex then she has chosen the risk of pregnancy. Every form of contraception declares a 99.9 or less percent effectiveness.

Which means even if a couple chooses to have sex with protection, they are accepting a .1 percent or higher chance of pregnancy. If a woman willingly chooses to have sex then she has already chosen to accept the risk of pregnancy. That’s the choice that is most important in my eyes.

And that’s the choice that should be emphasized in this issue. By the time a woman is pregnant, she has already made her choice. Why should a child who results from that choice be terminated because the woman regrets the consequences?

As much as I would like to emphasize the choice made before becoming pregnant, I would also like to address the pro-life side by saying it is unrealistic to expect abortions to be made illegal. Prohibiting abortions would only drive women to riskier and often deadly procedures. If you are truly pro-life you cannot promote a decision that would put a life at risk.

Please note that throughout the above I used phrases like “willingly chooses.” Cases of rape or otherwise impaired choice are completely different situations and I would NEVER demand that a raped woman bring a baby to term. I have heard firsthand accounts of raped women who regretted aborting their babies or were even more traumatized by the abortion than the rape as well as those who found therapy in bringing the baby to term and keeping the child or giving him up for adoption. For others, however, having the baby could be more traumatic than abortion and more damaging to their body or psyche.

These are the first stats a Google search gave me (from surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics), so take them for what they’re worth:

“Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in ‘hard cases’ are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons.”

Provided those statistics are at least generally accurate, that means a HUGE majority of abortions are birth control or because the mother could not take care of the baby. Those are two issues I think both sides of the abortion argument should get together to solve. Focusing our efforts on solving those together would be more effective in decreasing the amount of abortions and improving quality of life for women than having more useless chalk arguments.

For the birth control issue I would hope we could all agree that abstinence is the only way to completely remain pregnancy-free. Abstinence-only education, however, is ineffective.

Abstinence-inclusive education is ideal, with accurate information on all forms of birth control. As a Catholic I imagine many of you may be surprised that I would promote birth control. But let’s be real — this is a human world, people are going to choose to have sex. It seems preferable to me to choose to prevent life than to abort it once it’s begun.

As to the economic question, I would hope that comprehensive sex education would knock out a large portion of that problem. If women are thoroughly educated about their options before sex then hopefully more of those who cannot afford to bring children to term would choose to prevent pregnancies before they happen.

However, that means making all birth control options widely available and possibly paid for for those who cannot afford them on their own. It also means improving adoption and foster care systems so that those women who choose to carry the baby to term but cannot keep the child have a safer, better option for their children than those available now.

Improving the system might also make it more attractive for women to at least give birth to the baby. Perhaps some of their expenses could be covered during the pregnancy.

The problem with the abortion argument is that it calls for one to walk an incredibly thin line: retaining the rights of both baby and mother. For me, the ideal would be that no baby would ever be conceived who was not wanted or could not be cared for. For now, though, we should work towards a compromise that may in time lead us to such an ideal.

The arguments that have been flying back and forth from both sides recently have been convincing no one and annoying everyone. I would be more impressed if both Mercer organizations could get together and talk about how we can improve the world together and not whose concept of morality is better.

At the beginning of this article I said I was pro-choice, and I mean that but in a different way than either side uses it right now. The choices I am “pro” on are the choices made before a pregnancy occurs: the choice to engage in sex safely and willing to accept the consequences of that act and the choice of society to inform and protect both women and children.

Comments on this opinion should be sent to sarah.e.stitt@live.mercer.edu