Friday, November 16

Submission: UC should emphasize child care coverage as alternative to abortion


On April 12, an informative article appeared in the Daily Bruin about a new legislative proposal known as Senate Bill 320. The bill would require the University of California to cover abortifacient, or abortion-causing, medication in order to continue to receive state funding for student health insurance coverage.

State Senator Connie Leyva proposed the bill, arguing that covering abortifacient medication in university student health care plans “will improve the academic success of students,” by making the option of an abortion more conveniently accessible to UC students – despite the many available contraceptive and abortifacient services already covered in the health care plans.

This is wrong, and the state legislature should not pass this bill. Instead, the UC should emphasize child care coverage as an alternative to abortions.

As an analogy, one of my philosophy professors once gave our class a thought experiment involving a lifeguard in a jeep, a person drowning in the ocean and a person lying in the sand between the two. The objective of the experiment was to justify the lifeguard running over and killing the person in the sand to rescue the drowning victim.

Abortion is the prime example of how our nation approaches the scenario in this thought experiment. We live in a state that justifies the lifeguard running over the person in the sand to save the drowning victim, even if “saving” might only mean providing a higher quality of life.

In fact, it’s disturbing that the bill’s financial terms and conditions are manipulatively pro-abortion.

The Daily Bruin article suggests that support for Senate Bill 320 is based on the needs of a pregnant student to have more convenient access to an abortion so that they can focus on their education.

While unintentional pregnancies do occur, we as young men and women need to be more considerate of the consequences of our actions prior to an undesirable outcome.

Instead of just being more informed on how to procure an abortion more conveniently, students also need to be more informed on what other options are available. The UC must equally represent and provide child care options and reproductive care options.

Raising awareness of other services would help counteract the ideology behind abortion services, which is that we can sacrifice a developing life in order to attain a higher quality of life. One life is improved at the involuntary expense of another.

While abortifacient medication may seem like a more humane method for procuring an abortion because it facilitates an early-term abortion, it is an unsatisfactory measure because an abortion is still the final result. The lifeguard still runs over the person in the sand for the convenience of the person in the water.

The moral concerns regarding abortion surpass religious ideologies. The unborn have been persecuted by abortion-minded ideologies for decades, making the anti-abortion view a social justice concern. Anti-abortion ideology considers human beings to be living in all stages of life from conception to death. This includes an unborn child. Human beings are not protected under the law until they are born, which is why we must be the voice that speaks on their behalf.

The anti-abortion argument only fights for the unborn, a group which does not have a voice of its own. It fights for a group that has been denied the basic right to life for decades so men and women can have sexual intercourse and avoid the consequences of their actions.

The right to a certain quality of life stops when it comes at the expense of another life. The unborn are as alive as another human, despite their developmental immaturity. Since they have no voice of their own, it is up to us to advocate on their behalf. It is up to us to stop the lifeguard from running over the person in the sand – especially if the person in the water isn’t even drowning.

Colombo is a third-year English student.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+Share on Reddit

Comments are supposed to create a forum for thoughtful, respectful community discussion. Please be nice. View our full comments policy here.

  • Young Reaganite

    Very well thought out piece. I would disagree with you on one point; Pro-life arguments have nothing to do with social justice. The purpose of the Pro-life movement is to defend the natural rights that all humans (including the unborn) have to pursue a life of liberty and happiness. I would agree that abortion should never be encouraged as it is one of the greatest moral evils of our time; however, mandating that the University provide more child care options is not the way to go. This ultimately comes down to a cultural problem. Consequence free sex has been celebrated and elevated to an almost sacred status. Youth and teenagers need to be taught that sex is not a casual act, nor is it consequence free. I have no problem with using contraceptives, but I strongly believe that casual sex degrades those who participate in the act. This shift back to a traditional, and spiritual view of sex and human relations needs to begin with our generation. The Baby Boomer generation (our parents) failed us in this regard and it is time that we have reverse the course that our culture is taking.

    • NC

      I know feelings feel more important than facts, but it’s not reality. Problem is the “traditional” view of sex led to a LOT of messed up (and hushed up) abuse because when a natural human drive is repressed it tends to break out in perverted ways. I see a need for a balance, and that’s certainly not puritanism: the places that push abstinence education the most are the places that have the highest rates of unwanted pregnancies. The prudish Victorian times allowed fathers to “teach” their daughters about sex, and many didn’t stop at lectures. So, please, let’s not return to that.
      And, nope, babies aren’t born with full rights. The parents have all kinds of control over the child’s liberty and pursuit of happiness (no need to start up a debate on circumcision, but that’s just a small start).

      • Young Reaganite

        Does a parent have a right to kill their own child if they feel that the child is interfering with their lifestyle?

  • Eggz

    Wow, this reads like a straight up advertisement for a right wing advocacy group. I didn’t know you can run an article when you pay for an ad.