Picture Credit: Monica Elizabeth, WikiMedia
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
A recent Nassau Weekly article, “Access For All: A Reflection on Reproductive Rights at Princeton,” by a member of Princeton Students for Reproductive Justice (PSRJ), explains the club’s proposal to install vending machines that would offer emergency contraceptives, among other products like lubricants and condoms, to “womxn” on campus.
I do not fully understand the article’s proposition that “PSRJ will never stop trying to provide womxn who seek sexual health products with access to these products.” Such efforts seem unnecessary because this goal has already been achieved. Every Princeton student knows, or was at least informed, that these products are available on campus. The mandatory “Safer Sexpo” presentations for freshmen provided guidance on the accessibility of these products and their respective purposes. The Residential College Advisors (RCAs) offer free condoms outside their doors. The McCosh Health Center offers various forms of contraception, some of which are free. The CVS on Nassau Street is open seven days a week and sells every sexual health product imaginable.
Nonetheless, the article argues these resources do not provide sufficient access to sexual health products. The article writes “some womxn prefer that there be no human contact while purchasing this [Plan B] product, which is completely understandable,” hence the need for vending machines. This statement is worth exploring. The uncomfortable feeling might be disguised embarrassment or intimidation. Perhaps, it also derives from shame. If you feel guilt for your actions or their consequences, then the validity of your decisions is questionable. With respect to emergency contraceptives, if you feel remorse for intentionally impeding or terminating pregnancy, perhaps you should not consume the medication.
The PSRJ initiative prompted a response from Princeton Pro-Life (PPL). The article describes PPL as “unempathetic.” While surprising that a group defending unborn babies is characterized as such, the article further mischaracterizes PPL and its platform. PPL identifies the beginning of a pregnancy as the moment when an egg is fertilized by a sperm, namely conception. By contrast, the article uses the definition that a fertilized egg implanted in the womb is the beginning of a pregnancy. However, the PSRJ article states “Plan-B prevents implantation” of a fertilized egg, thus confirming that Plan-B is an abortifacient within Princeton Pro-Life’s definition of pregnancy. The crucial distinction is whether pregnancy begins before or upon womb implantation, and these different interpretations are irreconcilable.
The tension between pro-life and pro-choice ideologies illuminates a greater underlying problem: an insulated political mentality with limited willingness to understand opposing views. The article resists conversation with pro-life supporters, stating that “there really is no point because we have no shared vocabulary.” The article claims Princeton Pro-Life’s statement is “meant to put the fear of God into the reader.” In fact, there are no religious doctrines emphasized—or even alluded to—in Princeton Pro-Life’s statement. PPL maintains a nonsectarian institution, and its current president is an atheist. The article assumes that the only approach to pro-life ideology is through a religious framework, contending that “people approach the topic from two disparate standpoints: one secular and the other religious.” There are many approaches to the pro-life movement, and since they cannot all possibly be captured in the scope of one article, I will focus on a biological argument that demonstrates that a human in utero can be properly recognized as an independent life, even in the absence of religious precepts.
Genetic makeup is determined at the moment of fertilization, not womb implantation. This means that a person’s sex, hair and eye color, blood type, and other qualities have been established before womb implantation. The fertilized egg utilizes metabolic processes and maintains homeostatic processes necessary for growth and development. Four weeks after fertilization, a neural tube has developed, forming the brain and spinal cord. A fetal heartbeat can be detected as early as five weeks. The sensory organs have begun to develop. There are distinctly human features observable in the first trimester of pregnancy. It is difficult (but perhaps not impossible) to argue that a human with a heartbeat is not living, and nearly nihilistic to posit that a human with a heartbeat, neural activity, and sensory perception is not alive.
This biological argument is one among many establishing that theology is not required to recognize human life. However, I would like to digress from the arguments surrounding abortion. Regardless of one’s personal position on abortion itself, Princeton University is not financially responsible for students’ sexual activity and the consequences thereof. The institution has no obligation to provide free or subsidized Plan-B. The funds proposed for abortifacients can be better allocated to other initiatives that benefit a community broader than “womxn.” For example, the funds proposed for purchasing vending machines and replenishing products can be allocated to provide lectures on sexual health. Perhaps the funds could hire more psychologists who specialize in sexual therapy to help those who have endured trauma, including women who are experiencing emotional distress after an abortion.
The pro-choice movement proclaims “my body, my choice.” But never “my finances.” The Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, excluding instances when the mother’s life is endangered. The legislative provision is annually renewed, which proves it is consistently validated by members of both parties. Although the Hyde Amendment appears to be violated when Planned Parenthood accepts Medicaid, its purpose is to ensure that pro-life taxpayers are not financially supporting abortion. The University should uphold a similar standard: tuition and fees collected from pro-life students must not fund abortions. This could be further expanded: money from students should not be allocated to any sexual health products, for no one is financially responsible for another’s voluntary sexual activity.
I acknowledge that there is emotional debate among well-intentioned people. The piece “Access For All: A Reflection on Reproductive Rights at Princeton” demonstrates dedication to the pro-choice movement, and I respect the commitment. However, the article misinterprets the arguments presented by pro-life advocates, specifically the nonsectarian statements from PPL. I welcome a conversation with PSRJ members to clarify our (or at least my) views. While our opinions may conflict, I trust that we can collectively address students’ needs without diminishing personal beliefs.
I hope that Princeton University critically evaluates PSRJ’s proposal and concludes that it is not financially responsible for sexual health products, specifically abortifacients. From my perspective, an institution “in the service of humanity” does a grave disservice to humankind by encouraging and facilitating the destruction of its most vulnerable members.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.