-

The Observer is a Student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame & Saint Mary's. Learn more about us.

-

news

SMC display examines Planned Parenthood services

and | Monday, November 2, 2015

Last Thursday, 1,852 flags were displayed on Library Green at Saint Mary’s as a visual representation of the health services offered by Planned Parenthood. The exhibit was Feminists United’s response to a campus visit from the Planned Parenthood Project on Oct. 15, religious studies professor Stacy Davis said.

The Planned Parenthood Project is run by Students for Life of America, a national organization with the goal of abolishing abortion, according to its website.

Flags stood at Saint Mary’s representing Planned Parenthood services unrelated to abortion or contraception.Photo courtesy of Stephanie Szymas

Flags stood at Saint Mary’s representing Planned Parenthood services unrelated to abortion or contraception.

“[The Planned Parenthood Project] focused exclusively on abortion, one service that Planned Parenthood provides,” Davis said. “Feminists United wanted to present information about Planned Parenthood’s other services, including HIV tests, pregnancy tests and cancer screenings.”

Each flag represented ten services provided by Planned Parenthood that are not related to abortions or contraceptive services, Stephanie Szymas, vice president of Feminists United, said. Collective Conscience sponsored the flags and the display, she said.

The Saint Mary’s Feminist United Student Group supports the education of people on all sides of an issue in order to better understand complex topics, Szymas said.

“Respectful disagreement helps students grow in their own personal understanding of difficult political and social topics,” Szymas said. “We believe empathy is a crucial part of the human experience, therefore, the Saint Mary’s Feminist United Club and our supporters celebrate the services Planned Parenthood provides for all women, especially women who may not have access to health insurance.”

The event was originally planned for Oct. 16 but was delayed until Oct. 29 due to administrative issues. The scheduling of this event during Respect Life week was a coincidence, Davis said.

“The flag display was the culmination of two weeks of hard work for Feminists United,” Davis said. “Through their arguments, leadership and respect for the College’s existing policies, the students received permission to plant the flags.”

Feminists United hoped the display would help inform members of the Saint Mary’s community on aspects of Planned Parenthood of which people may not have been aware, Szymas said.

“We intended to speak out on behalf of the one in five women who will turn to Planned Parenthood at least once. Ultimately, we want to inform our fellow Belles through a healthy and respectful discussion,” Szymas said.

Davis said students showed interest in the display, asking questions about the meaning of the flags and taking fact sheets.

“The best conversation was with a student who identified as pro-life and wanted to talk about whether organizations such as Planned Parenthood work to reduce abortions,” Davis said. “Her questions and comments were thoughtful and showed Saint Mary’s students at their very best.”

Szymas said she thought the message was positively received. Numerous students and alumnae reached out and thanked Feminist United for the display and awareness it created.

“Feminist United is very touched and encouraged by the support that we received,” Szymas said. “We understand that supporting Planned Parenthood is controversial. We do not wish to offend anyone, however, we would like to challenge beliefs by fostering an informed discussion.”

“Wendy Davis, a Texas state senator and candidate for governor, best stated what our display meant to us,” Szymas said. “She shared our social media posts and said, ‘Young women often ask me, ‘How can we make a difference?’ My answer: follow your heart, speak up when you feel the need to be heard.’”

Junior Kayla Gaughan said she believed the display was a way to increase conversations about women’s healthcare.

“Part of Saint Mary’s mission encourages students to think about real world complex issues in an informed and educated way,” Gaughan said. “… There are Catholic organizations that support the right to choose — for example, Catholics for Choice. However, the visual was not about abortion or contraception and adheres to school policy.”

The next event co-sponsored by the Feminists United Student Group will be a panel on reproductive rights on Nov. 2 at 7 p.m. in Spes Unica 145.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the next Feminists United event would take place on Nov. 7. The panel on reproductive rights will take place tonight (Nov. 2). The Observer regrets this error.

Tags: , , , , , ,

About Alex Winegar

A junior at Saint Mary's, Alex is a Communicative Sciences and Disorders major. She serves as the Saint Mary's co-associate news editor. Alex enjoys traveling, food and spending time in "The Mitten."

Contact Alex

About Kathryn Marshall

Kathryn Marshall, Saint Mary's College '17, is a Biology and Humanistic Studies double major. Follow Kathryn on Twitter @kmarshallSMC

Contact Kathryn
  • João Pedro Santos

    “We understand that supporting Planned Parenthood is controversial.”
    I don’t understand how supporting Planned Parenthood is controversial. Supporting Planned Parenthood is supporting affordable care without judgements. In Planned Parenthood, everybody can talk about their sexuality or about the decision to get birth control without being shamed by conservative doctors.

    • FriendlyNeighbor

      Because most people blindly cling to some book about a man in the sky instead of thinking for themselves.

      • Ed Knauf

        Perfect – besmirching a “book about a man in the sky” while interested in affairs of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s (both names referring to a woman about whom we would know nothing, who would have been completely forgotten 2000 years ago, were it not for that book and her Son’s Church).

        • FriendlyNeighbor

          I don’t think all campus activities have to follow within the Church traditions, otherwise you wouldn’t see student groups of other faiths ranging fro Judaism to Hinduism across both campuses.

          The schools may have been founded in Catholicism but they aren’t strictly and uncomtemptibly held to it in a way that they only admit Catholic students and enforce religious requirements like some other universities might have.

          • João Pedro Santos

            That’s right. Unless ND decided to only accept Catholic students (and then it would lose a lot of their students and as a consequence it would also lose reputation), they can’t impose “Catholic teaching” to non-Catholics. Especially when even a lot of Catholics are against the Catholic Church in things such as reproductive rights and LGBT rights.

      • FortSteve

        I think you will be in for quite a shock when you depart life. Luckily for you, God is forgiving and loves you no matter what you believe.

        • João Pedro Santos

          LOL, threatning people with supposed afterlife. So typical from religious fanatics.

          • FortSteve

            “Threatening you with the afterlife?” Wow, now that is the most ridiculous comment I’ve heard in a long time. I’m not concerned about your afterlife because it has no bearing on mine. I have said a prayer for your conversion and have moved on.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Ah, yes, because God obviously opens up those pearly gates to those who who act as if they are above others and judge them because they have faith in God. Please do say a prayer for my conversion. That is all I ask. You seem so close to God; He is sure to hear your prayer and lead me toward him. That is already enough; don’t worry about helping me understand your faith or guiding me towards some indication that God is here. No, I’m sure God will take care of all of that, since it was you who made the request to save my soul. It must be so hard looking down on us heathens when your nose is in the way.

            I’m sorry, I don’t usually get sarcastic in these sorts of discussions, but give me a break. If you were truly concerned about your afterlife, you would actually show some regard for others and make a case for your claims. You aren’t alone in this life and you certainly won’t be in the next, assuming there is such a thing.

          • FortSteve

            Jenna, a comment section is hardly the place to lead someone to God. If you were really interested, you would seek Him out. I suggest talking to friends and family about their faith and religious beliefs, not some guy on the internet. As I said to another self professed atheist, I can no more prove that God exists than you can prove that He doesn’t exist. Belief is where faith comes into play. I prefer to think that we are living our lives for something greater in the afterlife. Without that belief, our lives would lack purpose and direction.
            I wish you well in your future.
            God bless!

          • Jenna Wilson

            I don’t believe I have proclaimed myself to be an atheist, only that I am not religious, but I will dismiss that. And yes, I agree, but a comment section is also hardly the place for belittling those who don’t agree with you or share your views.

            From what I understand, your claim “that we are living our lives for something greater in the afterlife” is in accordance with many religious ideas of the afterlife, but do note your language. If there is something “greater” in the afterlife than there is in your current life, then the greatest life on earth must be rewarded by the greatest afterlife. You don’t get a pass on life just because you will be “saved” by entering an afterlife. Your idea of the afterlife should not only give you hope beyond death, but also motivation to have the best possible life on earth, or so it would seem. Of course, then your entire life would be a means to an end as you tried having the best life for the purpose of having the best afterlife. But you’re right; my life has no purpose or direction, making my words just as meaningless as my life… if your life has more purpose and direction because I hold different views than you, then I’d rather aimlessly wander and enjoy living for the sake of living.

          • sheesh

            You might not be religious now, but wait until you have children. You will completely reorder your life. You will have been given, by God, the greatest gift of all time, with the exception of eternal salvation. You will fight, scratch and claw to make sure that life is taken care of and your goal will be to get that child to Heaven. Funny thing is, you will develop a relationship with Jesus along the way that will go well beyond the Heavenly goalpost and your child will be well served by it. Until then, carry on.

          • João Pedro Santos

            LOL having children doesn’t turn someone religious.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            Speak for yourself.

          • Ed Knauf

            Not uniformly, no. But quite often, yes.

          • Tom Z.

            Haha we live in the information age, this nonsense ended with your generation. We will fight, scratch, and claw to make sure our kids live fulfilling lives, are good people, and contribute positively to society. Not brainwash them with bullshit teachings and scare them into believing that they have to follow a subset of rules in order to live in fantasy land. You are just passing off your ridiculousness with your children and do not be surprised or offended when they see the light and stop following your bullshit.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            So you have no rules in your parenting?

          • João Pedro Santos

            So, Urstpsoshtup, do you need religion to have rules in your parenting? Then you aren’t a good parent in the first place.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            By your standards.

          • sheesh

            I don’t “need” religion. I need a relationship with Christ and I have that and, thus far, my children have that. They will zig and zag as many do in their early formative years, but they, as I was, have been given the foundation of faith and I am confident that they will build on that foundation and that it will lead them where they need to go in their personal relationship with Christ. Not a foundation based on “rules” but a foundation based on love, humility, service to others, dignity of the human person(all persons: the unborn child, the elderly, the homosexual…). As the Jamaicans say, Respect, mon.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            Sheesh, you and your children are making the world a better place!
            Thank you for your commitment and service to Christ.
            If I were in the category of ‘the vulnerable’ I would want you on my side.

          • Jenna Wilson

            My parents gave me a foundation of faith, too. Be careful, they might turn into a heathen like me!

            Just because I am not religious does not mean that I don’t have all those qualities you list or that I will never be able to have them (we’re all still learning, right?).

          • Urstpsoshtup

            Sadly, you are throwing pearls to swine.

            It takes too much effort for some people to contemplate their existence. It’s inconvenient to answer to a higher being.

            Plus it just nice to be your own god.

          • sheesh

            Uh, ya. I just figured that one out.

          • Jenna Wilson

            You’re right, “It takes too much effort for some people to contemplate their existence.” That’s why you only contemplate the existence of a “higher being;” and although your contemplation of such is obviously imperfect, since it is a “higher” being, you blindly follow the rules set forth by such imperfect contemplation.

            It must be nice to be able to deny your own imperfect thinking when you think it came from a most perfect higher being.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            How is goodness evil?
            How is being a pursuer of decency evil?
            How is wanting the happiness of your fellow human beings evil?
            How is honesty evil?
            How is joy evil?
            How is feeding the poor evil?
            How is clothing the naked evil?
            How is being open to Life evil?
            How is forgiveness evil?
            How is caring for children evil?
            How is caring for the old evil?
            How is preserving marriage evil?
            How is being humble evil?
            How is respect evil?
            How is pure love evil?
            How is putting others needs before yours evil?
            How is self control evil?
            How is meekness evil?
            How is sacrifice evil?
            How is the beauty of life evil?
            How is giving DUE praise and worship to your Creator evil?
            How is following the teachings of Jesus Christ evil?
            How is passing those teachings on to others through deed, sacrifice and love evil?
            How is gratitude to your Savior evil?

          • Jenna Wilson

            I am confused, did I say that any of those things were evil? Or are those questions that you consider to be involved in contemplating your existence? I would think contemplating one’s existence you include questions such as “What is my purpose here on earth? Do I even have a purpose? Why do bad things in my life happen when I try so hard to do good in the world?” These are all questions that can be contemplated and answered with or without God.

            Also, thank you for your backhanded insult that I am not “high minded” enough for whatever you are recommending. Once again, your insults just demonstrate a lack of respect for other humans.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            No thanks needed. It was my pleasure.

            I’m still working on my patience. Bear with me.

          • Jenna Wilson

            “[T]hank you for your backhanded insult that I am not ‘high minded’ enough for whatever you are recommending. Once again, your insults just demonstrate a lack of respect for other humans.”

            “No thanks needed. It was my pleasure.”

            I certainly do not want to be “helped” by anyone who takes pleasure in insulting others and demonstrating a lack of respect towards others.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Why would my goal as a parent revolve around getting my child into heaven? It’s hard enough trying to get a kid through the first 18 years of their lives on earth! If the goal of parenthood would be to get the child to heaven, then why not let them starve to death after they’re baptized while they’re free of sin? I’d rather be able to put food on the table for him/her. And even if I tried to ” get that child to Heaven,” it’s not my choice to make. The best I could do would be to guide him/her towards being a decent human being, which can be done without religion. I couldn’t force anyone, even my own child, to be a good person.

            None of this is to say that I won’t one day get more involved with religion; I’m just trying to point out the flawed and irrelevant argument presented.

          • sheesh

            Your vacuous and self absorbed response leaves me so very sad for you. Best wishes to you as you pursue a life full of……….you.

          • Jenna Wilson

            If allowing my child free will is self-absorbed, then God is pretty self-absorbed, too, since he gave all of his children free will.

          • sheesh

            So I am now thinking you are doing some sort of project for a class. I’m not sure what it is but I think it has something to do with how long you can argue and twist the words of complete strangers before they take an ice pick to their ears.
            Sheesh I would have hated to have had you in one of my classes. You’re ‘that girl” and you don’t even see it. You raise your hand(actually you probably don’t even extend that courtesy to your professors) and the room does a collective groan, coupled with an eye roll.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Nope, this is involved with no class, I am simply arguing my point. Why would I give up arguing something that I believe in? This is no chore, and while you think that I continue to argue because I am stubborn, it is that I like to know what people think, or to have a new point-of-view that I have never considered. And just because you groan and roll your eyes at me from home that everyone does. No one liked Socrates either, but he kept going. Your bitter words won’t keep be from defending what I believe to be accurate.

            You have no obligation to respond to me, but if you do, I expect you have some sort of rebuttal. I am daring you to prove me wrong, but I have not yet been provided the evidence to convince me of such. If I am using your words inaccurately, then please try to explain them again.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            Hahahahaha!
            You are no Socrates!
            There is the ego, again.
            Gasp, you do know that Socrates was a man, right?

          • Ed Knauf

            Jenna, with all due respect, the vehemence with which you’ve been arguing shows that you are not interested in how people think, or in any point-of-view but your own. You went off to SMC probably thinking you were a believer, and under the influence of Dr. Davis and her department (the REAL problem behind this whole issue) you’ve lost your faith (God is mysterious and can’t be known, so you said) and have taken on beliefs completely contrary to the Church your college claims to be faithful to.

            You are defending an organization that has killed more than one million little children over the past three years. Think about that, will you?

          • Jenna Wilson

            I am passionate about learning and thinking. I have not made any response without thinking about what was said and why I think differently. I do believe that this can be done outside of a religious system and have not been convinced of otherwise by any of the arguments presented in these comments.

            Again, you falsely assume that SMC has somehow turned me into a “non-believer,” but that could not be further from the truth. You don’t know anything about my life, so I would appreciate it if you could refrain from making such untrue assumptions.

            If I am “defending an organization that has killed more than one million little children over the past three years,” then you are defending a culture of sexual violence by placing all the blame for abortion on this organization and failing to realize the true problems of society that have led people to the services offered by this organization.

          • Ed Knauf

            No, Jenna, I’m not placing all the blame for abortion on this organization. I’m only placing the blame of them for the 327,000 abortions they willingly performed last year at great profit. That’s 327,000 human lives that they ended. Open your eyes. Thou. Shalt. Not. Kill.

            And just because I find Planned Parenthood reprehensible does NOT mean I find a culture of sexual violence any less reprehensible. There is no logic in your assertion – None. Planned Parenthood and their culture of contraception/abortion/sexual license CONTRIBUTES to a culture of sexual violence, while somehow you think that organization is the antidote. It’s not, and either you’re naive or hoodwinked or intentionally keeping your eyes closed. And it’s mind-boggling how little critical and logical thinking you’ve displayed on this thread. SMC has failed you if this the best you can do.

            You are defending an organization that killed 327,000 babies last year, and not only defending but somehow thinking they’re good and even “Christlike.” You have resorted now to grasping at straws.

            Read, if you have a few moments, with open mind, eyes and heart, the beautiful and cogent response of Bishop Kevin Rhoades to this St. Mary’s pro-Planned Parenthood display:

            http://www.todayscatholicnews.org/2015/11/catholic-identity-planned-parenthood-and-the-gospel-of-life/

            God bless you, Jenna. You are in my fervent prayers.

          • Jenna Wilson

            My eyes are open. I have not killed. However, people do kill and have killed and will kill, and I can do my best to prevent killing, but without recognizing that everyone is capable of killing and understanding why it is that people do kill, we will not be able to effectively prevent it. I do not claim that PP is the antidote, but that it is not the root of the evil that is abortion and that destroying and blaming it is not the solution. These are quite different. I choose to focus my efforts towards bettering society in order to eliminate the need for the services provided by PP, while you choose to focus your efforts towards eliminating PP.

            You also assume that every argument I make means that it is what I believe. This was my argument:
            “According to the New Testament, Jesus focused his ministry on the outcasts, including minorities and the poor, which, as you stated, are the neighborhoods in which Planned Parenthood clinics are often located. They do this because they provide healthcare to those who do not have and/or cannot afford health insurance. Hence, their mission statement actually promotes a very Jesus-like mentality towards the outcasts of society.”

            Could you please indicate which words in my argument indicate that I truly believe that PP is Christ-like? At best, I claimed their mission statement to Christ-like, but there is no vocabulary that implies what you have inaccurately extrapolated. In fact, my response was in direct response to your question:

            “what exactly is PP’s ‘intention’ / mission today? How does that mission in any way coincide with what the Catholic Church teaches (you claim based on an entire life of Catholic education that you understand something of what she teaches)?”

            I provided a way that PP’s mission coincides with Catholic teaching. In fact, I would never have thought of the comparison if you had not asked me this question.

            Again, I would like to point out that your attacks on my “critical and logical thinking,” or lack thereof, as you imply, are not effective. Demeaning the mental capabilities of others is a poor display of respecting human life, especially while advocating a position based on respecting all human life. You are free to continue to throw insults at me and belittle my ability to think, but I will not stoop so low as to do the same in retaliation or defense.

          • DaGeek

            Did you read Bishop Rhoades’ essay? He explains much better than I can exactly what is so wrong about Planned Parenthood, and why a Catholic college, engaged in the moral formation of its students, must lend no respectability to such a heinous organization.

            It’s pretty clear that we are all talking past each other. I and others are looking at this issue through lenses informed by Catholic belief. You and others who support Planned Parenthood are looking at this from a paradigm steeped in our secular culture, a culture contrary to (indeed opposed to) Catholic belief. Yours and Joao’s way of thinking is foreign to Catholic belief, and sadly SMC has done a poor job (as did your high school) in forming you in the Faith.

            Unless and until you are converted in your heart (which DOES happen to women at SMC, I saw it), you simply won’t get it. I will continue to keep you in my prayers.

          • Ed Knauf

            Jenna, did you read Bishop Rhoades’ essay? He explains much better than I can exactly what is so wrong about Planned Parenthood, and why a Catholic college, engaged in the moral formation of its students, must lend no respectability to such a heinous organization.

            But to end this, it’s pretty clear that we are all talking past each other. I and others are looking at this issue through lenses informed by Catholic belief. You and others who support Planned Parenthood are looking at this from a paradigm steeped in our secular culture, a culture contrary to (indeed opposed to) Catholic belief. Your and Joao’s way of thinking is actually foreign to Catholic belief, and sadly it appears that SMC has done a poor job (as did your high school) in forming you in the Faith, the foremost responsibility of Catholic education.

            Unless and until you are converted in your heart (which DOES happen to women while at SMC, I have witnessed it), you simply won’t get it. So let’s stop right now, huh? I will continue to keep you in my prayers. God’s blessings to you.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            News flash human beings don’t ALLOW free will it’s already present. It can not be taken away.
            You have expressed your free will. As you said, your parents raised you in Christ. But through your free will you have chosen not to practice his teachings or should I say, not give him the credit for the love you possess for others. This means that your love is incomplete because it has left out the author of that love you possess which makes that love incomplete this not as fruitful as it could be. Inviting the Holy Spirit into your life can only come from you. Rejecting the Holy Spirit can only come from you. The same holds true with our children as well. But the worst thing would be to not allow your children to either accept or deny the Holy Spirt (Blessed Trinity). Don’t take that from them. Present God as a choice.

          • Jenna Wilson

            That is your opinion. If you would like to argue your point, I am open to considering your evidence and conclusion.

          • Ed Knauf

            Your arguments get more and more inane by the hour. The reason one would not starve their children is pretty obvious, isn’t it? There’s a commandment (#5) that pertains to “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” There is no greater responsibility of a parent than to ensure the eternal salvation of their children. And “being a decent human being” won’t get anyone to heaven – only Jesus Christ, by His life, death and resurrection, gets anyone to heaven. So raising children to believe in Him and live lives that reflect that belief is the foremost responsibility of parents.

            It doesn’t matter, Jenna, whether you are “one day involved with religion.” All that matters is whether you know and love Jesus Christ as Lord. From that faith, you will be far more than a decent human being – the only goal of your life should be to be a SAINT. Be a decent human being all you want, but if by your life choices you’ve chosen to live apart from God for all eternity, you’ve failed.

            St. Mary’s, despite the motto “Ave Crux, Spes Unica,” unfortunately FAILS these days to teach or proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. There was nary a mention of Him at the commencement this past May. If SMC were to adopt as its sole mission the salvation of its students, faculty, and other stakeholders through faith in Jesus Christ, none of this Planned Parenthood malarky would ever have been allowed to transpire.

          • Jenna Wilson

            “There is no greater responsibility of a parent than to ensure the eternal salvation of their children.” If this is so, why should a parent not break a commandment and sacrifice yourself so that your child can go to heaven sin free?

            I would argue that following the teachings of Christ are just as important as having faith in Christ for getting into heaven, according to the Church, but please let me know if this is incorrect thinking or if I am misunderstanding what you mean by “‘being a decent human being’ won’t get anyone to heaven.”

            I would also argue that there are many people who act, perhaps without the same fervent faith, simply to help others and that it is remarkable when people do good without any expectation of reward or acceptance to Heaven; these people exist outside of the Catholic church and, in my opinion, are more decent human beings than those who act in sin, but claim that they will be absolved solely based on Catholic faith. I am not claiming that either of these descriptions applies to anyone in this conversation, but I think it is an interesting thing to think about.

            It is unfair to judge SMC as failing “to teach or proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior” based on this event or a lack of mention of Jesus at commencement. Those are 2 events that are, at best, controversial as to whether or not they truly failed at this mission. (I will give you this display as considered a failure “to teach or proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior” on account of Bishop Rhoades statement.) There is so much that goes on here that accomplishes this mission every day. If you choose to judge this display, then go for it, but don’t use one “failure” to belittle the entire institution.

            Finally, SMC is not a Church, but a liberal arts educational institution founded on Catholic ideals. As such, it’s sole mission is to educate and involve students in all topics, including religion.

    • FortSteve

      You sound like a young, naive person Pedro. You are only repeating liberal talking points about Planned Parenthood. They offer services that can be found elsewhere. The do NOT perform mammograms on site. I challenge you to find examples of women being “shamed” by conservative doctors. There have been over 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Think about that Pedro! 50 million pregnancies terminated, the vast majority of which would have been healthy babies. Abortion is not birth control, it is replacing God and deciding who lives and who dies based on convenience. You should thank your mom for having you.

      • João Pedro Santos

        “it is replacing God”
        Until someone proves that God exists, that argument has no validity. And even if God does exist, isn’t fighting diseases that would be a certain death a hundred years ago “replacing God”? You know, it could be “God’s plan” that people died from things such as cancer or tuberculosis.

        • FortSteve

          You clearly don’t understand the consequences that came with God’s gift of free will. As for proof, you can no more prove that God doesn’t exist than I can the He exists. I have faith and a belief that our life works towards the goal of getting to Heaven. Your arguments are the same worn out arguments that all Atheists use. I was hoping for something more from you, but I’m not surprised.

          • FinalDanish

            Thank you Steve for respecting other beliefs by capitalizing Atheists. That is very much appreciated even when others and myself disagree.

          • João Pedro Santos

            “for respecting other beliefs”
            I have seen no respecting of beliefs by FortSteve. In fact:
            “You clearly don’t understand the consequences that came with God’s gift of free will.”
            “Your arguments are the same worn out arguments that all Atheists use.”
            This is not respect, this is hate speech.

        • Ed Knauf

          Joao, both Notre Dame and SMC INSTITUTIONALLY believe God exists, because both proclaim themselves CATHOLIC. Please don’t lose sight of that fact, at the heart of this issue. In fact, if you have no concern for the catholicity of either college, perhaps you should butt out. This is no concern of yours. The crux of the issue is whether a college that proclaims itself to be Catholic should give its implicit endorsement to an organization that is, in almost every respect, opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches. Since you care less about God and the Church, this is of no concern to you. Bye.

          • João Pedro Santos

            “INSTITUTIONALLY believe God exists”
            What does that even mean?

          • Ed Knauf

            C’mon, Joao, you can’t be serious.

            All it means is that the schools, in their founding, their charters, in their mission statements, in their names, in their raison d’etre, are all about God. If you don’t like that, find a secular college. But both institutions exist in order to point the way to God through His only Son, Jesus Christ. (Saint) Mary, Our Lady, “Notre Dame,” – all refer to a humble Jewish woman by whose “yes” to the angel we have our salvation and who lives now pointing the way to her Son. Now are you really questioning that the colleges INSTITUTIONALLY believe in God??

          • João Pedro Santos

            No. Schools, whether religious or not, are not about God, they are about teaching. Churches are about God. In fact, a lot of students from ND and SMC are non-Christian (or even non-religious at all). Unless ND and SMC only want to accept Catholic students (and therefore losing a lot of excellent students and professors), they won’t be “about God”. They will be about giving quality education to all students, regardless of their faiths. If you don’t like that, go to Russia or Saudi Arabia, where employers can impose their religious beliefs on workers.

          • Ed Knauf

            Let’s play a game – see if you can’t find GOD (and the Son, Jesus Christ) in the Notre Dame mission statement:

            “This statement speaks of the University of Notre Dame as a place of teaching and research, of scholarship and publication, of service and community. These components flow from three characteristics of Roman Catholicism that image Jesus Christ, his Gospel, and his Spirit. A sacramental vision encounters God in the whole of creation. In and through the visible world in which we live, we come to know and experience the invisible God. In mediation the Catholic vision perceives God not only present in but working through persons, events, and material things. There is an intelligibility and a coherence to all reality, discoverable through spirit, mind, and imagination. God’s grace prompts human activity to assist the world in creating justice grounded in love. God’s way to us comes as communion, through the communities in which men and women live. This community includes the many theological traditions, liturgies, and spiritualities that fashion the life of the Church. The emphasis on community in Catholicism explains why Notre Dame historically has fostered familial bonds in its institutional life.

            “A Catholic university draws its basic inspiration from Jesus Christ as the source of wisdom and from the conviction that in him all things can be brought to their completion. As a Catholic university, Notre Dame wishes to contribute to this educational mission.”

            Now will you please STOP! So long as Notre Dame and SMC represent themselves to the world that they are CATHOLIC institutions, then they have an obligation to not advance positions (explicitly or implicitly) contrary to Catholic teaching. And support of an objectively evil organization like Planned Parenthood is contrary to Catholic teaching. Stop. Just stop.

          • Ed Knauf

            Sadly, the SMC mission statement never mentions God or Jesus Christ, not even once, nor does it mention its namesake, Mary the Mother of God, although they would tell you it’s implicit in their claim that it’s Catholic.

          • Ed Knauf

            Sadly, the SMC mission statement never mentions God or Jesus Christ, not even once, nor does it mention its namesake, Mary the Mother of God, although they would tell you it’s implicit in their claim that it’s Catholic.

          • João Pedro Santos

            “So long as Notre Dame and SMC represent themselves to the world that they are CATHOLIC institutions, then they have an obligation to not advance positions (explicitly or implicitly) contrary to Catholic teaching.”
            If “Catholic teaching” is contrary to the LAW, then they can’t follow “Catholic teaching”. Simple as that. Plus, if it were Muslims trying to impose their beliefs on others, everybody would be calling them extremists. But since they’re Christians, apparently that’s fine.

          • Ed Knauf

            Wow. Just wow. What a completely illogical, backassward argument. Is logic no longer taught at Notre Dame? All I’ll say is that you’re making Jenna look good by comparison.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Did you skip over the first sentence? “This statement speaks of the University of Notre Dame as a place of teaching and research, of scholarship and publication, of service and community.” It is not a place of worship or a guide to God or Heaven.

            “[I]n [Jesus] all things can be brought to their completion. As a Catholic university, Notre Dame wishes to contribute to this educational mission.” This is a contribution to the educational mission, not a replacement. At the bare minimum, all students are required to take Theology courses. This additional requirement is, as ND states it, a contribution to education, with the emphasis on getting students into heaven, but on providing a complete education as understood by the Catholic church. If something taught in a science course is contrary to Catholic teaching, it is still going to be taught because these are educational institutions, but it makes the college no less of a Catholic institution.

          • DaGeek

            Not germane to the point being argued, which was whether ND and SMC INSTITUTIONALLY believe God exists. That either of you would argue that point is either ludicrous or indicative of how far the two schools have fallen.

          • Jenna Wilson

            It is germane to the argument in that ND and SMC also “institutionally believe” in educating their students. They are educational institutions as much as they are Catholic institutions.

            Although I don’t agree that SMC has endorsed PP in any way by allowing this display, I do agree with @edknauf:disqus that “the issue is whether a college that proclaims itself to be Catholic should give its implicit endorsement to an organization that is, in almost every respect, opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches,” or at least that this is part of the issue; but the other equally important issue is whether a college as an educational institution should limit the education and information it provides its students because they “oppose” what the Catholic church teaches.

          • Ed Knauf

            Not germane to the point being argued, which was whether ND and SMC
            INSTITUTIONALLY believe God exists. That either of you would argue that point
            is either ludicrous or indicative of how far the two schools have fallen.

            (didn’t realize someone else was logged in so pardon the name change)

          • Jenna Wilson

            I had a comment before, but I’ll comment again, so pardon any discrepancies.

            To clarify, I am not arguing that ND and SMC do not “institutionally believe” in God. I do think this phrasing is a bit odd, since an institution can’t themselves have ideas or beliefs; I think something more like “was founded on Catholic teachings and continues to promote ideals of the Catholic church,” but this is just nomenclature.

            My argument was that ND and SMC are educational institutions that “believe in God,” and as such, education should have as high a regard as religion in the schools, which includes open discussion of topics, even if they are not in accordance with Catholic teaching.

          • Ed Knauf

            In a Catholic setting, one cannot divorce “education” from “religion” as if they are or should be separate. All education in such a setting is (or should be) informed at all times by the Catholic Faith.

            Now I absolutely agree with you that a college should have an open discussion of topics, although in this case such a discussion ought not be devoid of “formation,” to use Bishop Rhoades’ word, meaning that the discussion should result in the proper formation of the student and her conscience. And discussion of topics, in a Catholic classroom, oughtn’t be devoid of Catholic teaching regarding the morality involved in the topic. In the case at hand (to get back to Joao’s original point), that means that the Catholic institution is obliged to have a “judgment” about Planned Parenthood informed by its Catholicity, and the Catholic judgment about Planned Parenthood is that they are a very significant contributor to the “culture of death” in our nation. From other SMC grads’/students’ postings over the past week, it’s clear that the Women/Gender Studies department is actually forming (or attempting to form) SMC’s students in beliefs that are OPPOSED to Catholic teaching (which is the real heart of this matter).

            Putting out flags and having the faculty distribute fact sheets was not an “open discussion of topics” – it was rightfully interpreted as SMC’s institutional endorsement of Planned Parenthood and their activities. Which is why the administration should have simply said “NO.”

            If the administration really wants this to go away, they’ll put up 327,000 red flags on campus (might need to buy some more land for that many), to show the world what Planned Parenthood does every year.

  • Laura Winn

    @Joao Pedro Santos, it’s important that you understand why supporting planned parenthood is controversial.
    Have you seen the recent publicized videos of the harvesting of body parts that go on behind the doors of planned parenthood facilities?
    After you watch one of the many videos, you should understand.
    Here is a link..
    http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/if-you-still-support-planned-parenthood-you-are-simply-not-a-decent-person/

    • João Pedro Santos
      • Ed Knauf

        Do better. Since then, independent analysis has confirmed the authenticity of these videos. And a number of them (they’re up to eleven now) have been released since that bogus NYT report.

        • FriendlyNeighbor

          The US Gov has been looking into it and has not yet confirmed its authenticity.

          • FortSteve

            Do you trust the U.S. government neighbor? If so, your common sense waved goodbye to you a long time ago.

          • FinalDanish

            I suggest spending more time in analyzing the argument at hand, determining the authenticity of videos, measuring importance of moral convictions, etc. rather than ad hominem based arguments that attempt to call people like Pedro and Neighbor stupid. Obviously contributing to the conversation by providing their own authentic perspective and research proved their abilities as intelligent human beings.

          • FortSteve

            The videos have already been proven authentic. Placing trust in our current government is nothing more than folly. I appreciate your vapid comment and I stick by my comments.
            Good day to you.

          • João Pedro Santos

            “The videos have already been proven authentic.”
            Where are such proofs?

          • FortSteve

            http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/29/forensic-analysis-planned-parenthood-videos-are-authentic/
            We are done here Pedro. Bury your head in the sand or make some inane response, but I am done suffering your idiocy.

          • João Pedro Santos

            “The Daily Signal is a digital-only news publication created by American conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation based inWashington D.C.”
            Unbiased sources, please.

          • Jenna Wilson

            This video is irrelevant. It is simply propaganda whether it is authentic or not. If it is authentic, then it is a disgusting video that did not need to be shown to the public. It is an effort to stoop so low as to flood naive minds with terrifying imagery so as to influence them to join their side of the argument, because they need more quantity regurgitating the same arguments in order to compensate the lack of quality behind the claims made. In this case, it is a desperate attempt to salvage the arguments put forth. This is not a unique tactic; it is simply marketing. Now if it is inauthentic, then we’re all just blowing smoke anyway. Not everything you read online is true.

            Perhaps this is a misinterpretation, but @disqus_R9POzVEpCT:disqus’s questioning of the PP controversy was rather rhetorical. He is basically saying that he doesn’t understand how affordable healthcare could be controversial, which is what PP provides. Moreover, this video is, once again, irrelevant given the context. The controversy does not stem from this video, but rather from a disagreement about whether or not we can support PP and it’s many beneficial services given that it is also an institution that provides abortions. The video provides no more than a distraction from the real conversation that is to be had.

            Lastly, and possibly most importantly, the majority of this conversation has resulted in meaningful discussion. No one should ever be told to “bury [their] head in the sand” or that you are suffering on account of their idiocy. You, @fortsteve:disqus, chose to comment and partake in this conversation and you have no right belittling others who are doing the same. Moreover, if you are going to leave the conversation after posting some link without hearing the rebuttal or engaging in any followup, then you have no business posting in the first place. And although you have posted anyway, your comments have done no more than demonstrated hypocrisy; for you cannot claim to fully believe in the human right to life if you treat everyone else as if their lives and thoughts are so much less significant than yours.

          • Ed Knauf

            If it is authentic it didn’t need to be shown to the public, you say. And you say you’re “pro-choice” not pro-abortion. Doesn’t the concept of choice imply making an informed choice, with full knowledge of all relevant facts? Isn’t it relevant to making an informed choice to be made aware of what kind of organization Planned Parenthood is? And as an informed citizen, voting on life issues, isn’t this quite germane? You like Planned Parenthood, for whatever reason you’ve not divulged. But that doesn’t mean that what goes on there oughtn’t be made public.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            Ed Knauf, you are one of the few ‘real men’ left in the world. I hope you have sons in training.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Yes, because women and daughters could never amount to such. Hopefully they are off somewhere thinking for themselves.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            Wow! You are one on fire feminist! Everything is about you!
            I’m sorry that you have daddy issues but…..
            Ed and hopefully his next generation of well informed, strong, courageous, valent SONS will represent MEN (fathers) well.
            Geesh!
            Suggestion find a quiet place within Gods creation and meditate on the beauty of BOTH male and female.

          • Ed Knauf

            Jenna’s become hysterical, and yes, I know the root of that word and used it anyway. Her arguments are incoherent, illogical, and despite a lifetime of Catholic education, betray not only a complete lack of faith but a complete lack of understanding. That she saw your compliment as a affront to women is laughable and actually quite sad. It is not productive to pity her so I will continue to pray for her.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            I will continue to pray for her as well. Honestly, I offered Mass for her and Pedro this morning and our family rosary last night.
            Conversions do happen.
            I had one when I was 22.

          • Jenna Wilson

            If you and @edknauf:disqus genuinely believe that I need help from God and that praying will help me, then thank you. I sincerely mean this. I don’t have the faith that you claim to have (I don’t know who you are or anything about you, so I can only trust your claims to being such), but I respect your desire to help me find truth, even if I your way of helping me is not something that I have the faith to believe in myself.

            However, it is also possible that these comments are insincere or generated out of anger rather than care. I truly hope they are not, but I think it is worth mentioning. Despite the negative remarks that both of you have made against me, I am going to hope that you are being sincere in this aspect.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            You can trust that my concern and Ed Knaufs are sincere and honest.
            Pax Vobiscum.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Compliment or not, the comments certainly excluded women. Whether you are aware of it or not, stating that “well informed, strong, courageous, valiant SONS will represent MEN (fathers) well” implies that these are qualities that are only valuable when demonstrated by men. I truly hope that you have “well informed, strong, courageous, valiant” daughters and brothers that will represent humans well.

          • DaGeek

            Absolutely, frighteningly, illogical.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Could you point out what you see as logically flawed in my comment? I sincerely am curious. Simply stating that my comment is illogical will not help me fix my arguments.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Which of my words in my previous comment present themselves as angry? This is sincere, because I meant no anger at all, only perhaps a bit of sarcasm. I never dismissed men in my comment, only pointed out that you have dismissed women, which you confirmed in this response.

            Moreover, you should have no concern for whatever issues I may have, especially since you don’t actually know anything about my life. Your apology for my “daddy issues” only shows that you, while arguing for a cause that is about respecting life, have no respect for the lives of those who disagree with you or point out flaws in your argument.

            Just to show how little you know about me and how incorrect your rash assumptions are, I’m going to direct you to an article that I wrote and was printed in this newspaper about gender equality:
            http://ndsmcobserver.com/2014/10/embrace-gender-equality-movement/

            I am quite aware of the beauty of both sexes and think that both are capable of being well-informed, courageous, valiant (which I assume you meant, since “valent” is not a word), and able to think for themselves, all of which you seem to think should be left to men, based on your comment.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            it’s okay to be angry when someone compliments someone else. It’s just proof that you need to work on humility.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Again, I ask you to please direct me to whichever words that I have used to lead you to believe that I am angry. I am not angry, nor jealous, whatsoever, so I am genuinely curious as to what words in my comment implied such emotions.

          • Ed Knauf

            Thank you. No boys, only daughters.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            They will pick great husbands if that is their vocation.

          • Ed Knauf

            Thank you. God willing!

          • Jenna Wilson

            First of all, you are arguing for making informed choices while also arguing against a display on SMC campus that was doing exactly that, providing information so that we could make informed decisions about our own healthcare. It seems that you only think that making informed choices means making them based on facts that you agree with, which is not an informed choice at all, only your choice.

            Secondly, I do think making an informed choice is important, but making an informed choice does not require such disturbing footage. I could send out a video of a young woman getting raped or pictures of the trauma suffered by a woman from getting raped to argue that it is horrible and she should have access to healthcare that she cannot afford, which is available at PP, but I would never do such because it is obscene and unnecessary, even though it would scare people into realizing how important woman’s healthcare is, especially in cases where women are too embarrassed to ask for help or don’t have the funds to see a regular doctor to discuss her options with. Such footage is intended to scare people into following the movement. This tactic is also seen in the Bible, primarily in the Old Testament. The OT often presents God as something to be feared and He displays this through “the wrath of God.” The New Testament brought about a new image of God as caring and loving, even to those who stray from His path.

          • Laura Winn

            Pedro and Neighbor are just as highly valued as all the other people behind their comments.
            The authenticity and moral convictions are clear. It’s the denouncing of the atrocities that are being committed towards the vulnerable that are being refused as intelligent.

      • Laura Winn

        The article that you refer to does not confirm that the videos are false. It simply states that the videos were edited of “waiting periods” and “bathroom breaks”. You don’t really believe that the known people in the videos were “look alike actors” do you? What was said and done by these people, who are employees and executives of planned parenthood, are not being denied. There is no disputing. Do you care to be informed? Did you read the above article that I posted? Or did you just want to defend a falsehood?

      • FortSteve

        You really need to exercise your critical thinking skills Pedro. Willful ignorance is the path of the lazy and uninformed and that is the behavior the left encourages. Liberals do not want thinking people because they would lose power if the voters were better informed.

  • Ed Knauf

    A couple points:
    First, the oft-repeated statistic that only 3% of Planned Parenthood services involve abortion couldn’t be more misleading. Cecile Richards, PPI CEO admitted in testimony to Congress that 86% of Planned Parenthood’s non-governmental revenue is derived from abortion. In other words, to frame that statement in light of Roman Catholic teaching and belief (St. Mary’s IS still a Catholic college, is it not?), 86% of Planned Parenthood’s non-governmental revenue is derived from the deliberate taking of human lives! Which leads me to point #2: How is it that a college can call itself Catholic and yet officially approve such a display, supporting such a reprehensible organization, an organization whose chief mission is so at odds with Catholic teaching, so at odds with building a culture of life? President Mooney, SMC’s board and administration – I’m appalled.

    • FriendlyNeighbor

      This is silly. That’s like saying today I sold 100 things. 97 of them were pencils. 3 were cars.

      3% of my goods ARE cars. They just happen to cost more than pencils. It’s not misleading.

      • Ed Knauf

        If a car dealership earns 86% of its revenue from the sale of cars (even if only 3% of its transactions are car sales) and 14% of its revenue from the sale of services and parts (accounting for 97% of the volume of transactions), we would still say that it is a car dealership. As that is their primary business, providing the lion’s share of revenue. Planned Parenthood would have you believe that they are not primarily an abortion provider. But they are. The revenue numbers confirm this.

        • FriendlyNeighbor

          Is the identity of an organization identified by what it gets most of its revenue from? Or what services it provides the most?

          You can’t weight an abortion any more than a counseling session or handing out of a condom just because it “feels” like its worth or weighted more.

          PP claims that 97% of its SERVICES are not abortions. Which is a fact.

          • Ed Knauf

            The St. Mary’s display, intended to spin Planned Parenthood in a positive light, neglected the elephant in the living room – that PP is first and first and foremost an abortion provider – that 86% of their revenue comes from killing tiny human beings. The remainder of their revenue (those other 97% of their services) comes largely from services that are, in Catholic teaching, considered objectively sinful. And now we all know that PP intentionally “harvests” live unborn children for purposes of selling off their organs. Now – a Roman Catholic college should never support such a reprehensible organization, one so diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching and belief. And in forming your own conscience, you should know that you support such an organization at your own peril.

          • João Pedro Santos

            Do you know what else is considered sinful, other than birth control? Eating shrimp or pork. Divorce.

          • Ed Knauf

            No, Joao, eating shrimp or pork is not considered sinful in Roman Catholic teaching. In the Levitical law of the Hebrew scriptures those were proscribed by the law (I don’t know if that made them “sinful” or not), but Jesus transcended the Levitical law. Divorce is not considered sinful now. Remarriage after divorce (without a declaration of nullity) is considered to be adultery (and that is from the Lord’s own mouth). Do better, Joao.

          • João Pedro Santos

            Though remarriage is considered “adultery”, I have never seen ND firing employees or expelling students for remarrying…

          • Ed Knauf

            Now you don’t know if they’ve had annulments, now do you? Nor do you know if it was a sacramental marriage to begin with, do you? In any event, none of the acts you mention (shrimp, pork, even adultery) result in a latae sententiae excommunication as does procuring an induced abortion. Nor does either SMC or ND have displays on their lawn supporting adultery, do they?

          • João Pedro Santos

            What’s the difference between a sacramental marriage and a non-sacramental marriage? All marriages, whether religious or not, need to be recognized by governmental institutions.

          • Ed Knauf

            Wwwwhere are you going with this? What in heaven’s name does this comment have to do with the Planned Parenthood display at SMC??

            As to your first question, google is your friend.

          • João Pedro Santos

            You considered remarrying a sin (whatever a sin is). That’s where I’m going.

          • Ed Knauf

            You led us down this dead-end alley with your non-responsive “shrimp and pork and divorce” comment. I’m ending it now.

          • Jenna Wilson

            The point is that the morality system that you have presented is selective. If, as you say, allowing this display to happen on SMC’s campus violates its duty as a Catholic college, then allowing remarried faculty, staff, and/or students to teach at, work at, or attend ND violates its duty as a Catholic college by supporting adulterers.

          • DaGeek

            No, Jenna, no. Scandal. You didn’t understand the concept the first time, nor the second, I tried to explain it. I’m not trying a third. Let’s just leave it with these words of the good Bishop Rhoades: “Catholic identity is not only about what we stand for; it is also about what we will not stand for. Just as we would be rightly scandalized to see a public display portraying a racist organization like the Ku Klux Klan in a positive light, so too, we expect Catholic colleges to refuse to lend any kind of respectability to organizations like Planned Parenthood that play such a significant role in the culture of death. Authentic freedom, academic or otherwise, is always linked to the service of truth and love. It is also ordered to the formation of the human person in truth and love, formation in which Catholic colleges and universities play a critical role.”

            The real problem is that you and many others are lacking the ability to see right from wrong, good from evil.

          • Jenna Wilson

            I am honestly a bit confused. You have only posted 3 replies today, none of which have attempted to explain the “concept” of scandal. Unless this is some second account for @edknauf:disqus, I actually have no idea what you’re talking about. I don’t know why Ed would switch accounts this far into the discussion, but I will admit that I am confused by this.

            Anyway, could you elaborate on how allowing “adulterers” to work or study at a Catholic college is any less of an “implicit” support, assuming the college community was aware of of this “transgression” against God?

          • Ed Knauf

            If SMC were to make a public display on the library lawn celebrating its adulterers and their adultery as being good, that would be scandalous. As it were, I don’t think they’re advertising it if in fact they employ divorced, remarried folks who haven’t received a declaration of nullity.

            Are you starting to see the problem here? The FU club wanted a public display in support of Planned Parenthood, and they got it, President Mooney’s hair-splitting notwithstanding. They could have just had a private party to talk about PP, but no, they wanted an official, implicit endorsement of PP on the part of the College. Therein lies the scandal, for a Roman Catholic college, at least.

          • Jenna Wilson

            I would argue that the event was not intended to be a public endorsement of the organization, but a private distribution of information among the SMC community that was misunderstood as the former. If this is the case and a Religious Studies professor told her students that she was considered an “adulterer” in the Church in an attempt to privately share information among the group for educational purposes, but a student wrote an article about it in the Observer publicizing this, then I would expect it would be considered scandalous and receive similar responses as the flag display. The problem is that from it doesn’t seem, from your comments, that you would have any concern in the latter example.

            There can be varying levels of publicity. A public display can be directed towards a private audience. In the SMC display, it seems that the efforts of a club to share information with SMC students have been misconstrued as the efforts of a Catholic college to support an organization that provides services contradictory to Catholic teachings.

            A “private party” would not allow the spread of information. This display was not intended to educate the world, but the students at SMC so that they could make informed decisions and, in turn can go out into the world and share their ability to think through decisions and discuss the opposition in light of faith.

          • Ed Knauf

            Jenna, stop. There is no question that this display was intended as an act of advocacy FOR Planned Parenthood, an act intended to counter the Belles’ for Life advocacy (rightfully supported or at least allowed by SMC’s administration) from a couple weeks’ prior. You know that. It was about more than simply providing information. It was intended to paint a morally reprehensible organization in a positive light, as if providing some good services could ever counter-balance the unspeakable evil they do to 327,000 of our littlest brothers and sisters every year.
            And it’s not OK, in a Catholic educational setting, to “educate students to make informed decisions” absent any teaching about the moral implications of those decisions as informed by the Catholic Faith. I don’t expect you to grasp this as, by your own admission, you are not a religious Catholic. But by your admission, you disqualify yourself from commenting on what an institution that calls itself Catholic ought or oughtn’t do. The one who is the arbiter of such things is Bishop Rhoades, not you or I, and he has forcefully and very eloquently spoken.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Let’s assume that you are right and that the intention was to support PP in response to the Belles For Life display. If so, then it was from another club on campus and cannot be said that it is the support of the college. If the college and administrators wanted to dispute the Belles For Life event, then they wouldn’t have approved it in the first place and shut it down before it began.

            Even if you do not think I have the authority to speak on what a Catholic institution ought to do because I am not a practicing Catholic, I do have the right as a student here to speak on the educational experiences taught here.

            I assume you will refute these, but I have a question for you. You hold Bishop Rhoades as a powerful authority over SMC as part of the diocese, which is understandable given your faith. (I just want to make sure at this point that it is clear that I am in no way trying to argue for or against your trust in Bishop Rhoades as a Catholic authority; I am only trying to prompt the reason for asking my question, so please don’t take this statement as explicitly or implicitly attacking in any way.) Last week, there was an article in the Observer written by a Theology professor who disagreed with Fr. Jenkins’ decision to manufacture ND products in China. Fr. Jenkins claimed, from what I understand, that it was not supporting the poor working conditions suffered there because they would only outsource to establishments that had met certain working comdition standards. This Theology professor clearly explains why this decision is not in accordance with Catholic social teaching. (I am on my phone at the moment and can’t get to the article, but I believe it was a Viewpoint article from November 5.) So, my question is this: Do you agree with Fr. Jenkins or with Prof. Whitmore? And why? I will note that I have no intention to argue with however you answer this question. At most, it might bring about more questions, but I will not contest. I honestly have no clue as to how you might answer, but I am curious to find out, especially given your faith in Catholic authorities.

          • Ed Knauf

            No, Jenna, no. Scandal. You didn’t understand the concept the
            first time, nor the second, I tried to explain it. I’m not trying a third.
            Let’s just leave it with these words of the good Bishop Rhoades: “Catholic identity is not only about what we stand for; it is also about what we will not stand for. Just as we would be rightly scandalized to see a public display portraying a racist organization like the Ku Klux Klan in a positive light, so too, we expect Catholic colleges to refuse to lend any kind of respectability to organizations like Planned Parenthood that play such a significant role in the culture of death. Authentic freedom, academic or otherwise, is always linked to the service of truth and love. It is also ordered to the formation of the human person in truth and love, formation in which Catholic colleges and universities play a critical role.”

            The issue does not involve the private morality of employees. The issue involves what sorts of organizations the college explicitly, or in this case, implicitly, supports.

            The real problem is that you and many others are lacking the
            ability to see right from wrong, good from evil.

          • Jenna Wilson

            The provided accounts are from the Femenists United Club. No where in this article does anyone claim to support PP on behalf of the college, and it is unfair to belittle the religious aspect of this college based on such fabrications.

          • Laura Winn

            The college owns the grounds that it was done on. They are the responsibility adults that are suppose to be leaders of the students. I know in SOME of the younger generation there is a confusion as to ‘where the buck stops’. But for clarification it stops with the top leadership in this case. The Femenists United Club represent the fruit of the colleges work. It is an obligation as a student to represent the college well. Even if the student is not Catholic they should in good taste respect the leadership of the school and not mock the institutions beliefs.
            And if you don’t like the beliefs then you are a moron for supporting the college with your money and presence there.

          • Jenna Wilson

            So I’m a moron for going to a college that I’m not religious enough for? I have learned more than I could in any classroom by attending this Catholic liberal arts college because, for the most part, we are open and considerate of other views enough to have meaningful discussions about such controversial topics as this one.

            Moreover, according to your logic, if “the owners of the grounds” are in fact responsible for condoning or censoring acts according to their, in this case religious, beliefs, then any protest on public grounds reflect beliefs supported by the government. The Planned Parenthood Project was not rushed off campus by security, so does that mean our administration also condones this project, since nothing was done to censor it?

          • Laura Winn

            Two things-
            I do find it contradictory and moronic that you would support a Catholic college with your monetary funds and presence. You have made your opposing beliefs clear. In particular it is inconsistent with who you are. There are others colleges available to you that agree with your philosophy. So, “yes” I find it strange on your part.
            Government grounds are for the people of society. The essence of a government is a changing voice for all.
            The essence of Catholicism is in stone.

          • Jenna Wilson

            So am I only to fraternize with people who share my specific beliefs? That would be a lonely life! Each person is an individual and life would be boring otherwise. I will have to deal with many people that do not share my beliefs, such as now, but, instead of judging them for beliefs that I have not thoughtfully considered, I choose to discuss these discrepancies as to understand the topic more fully.

            Moreover, yes, I pay to be here, but I am no more supporting this Catholic institution than I am myself. I am supporting an education that is allowing me to flourish, despite disagreement in the religious arena. There is nothing inconsistent with who I am due to my attendance here. If anything, my attendance here is completely consistent with who I am, since I am here to learn, which is something that I love to do.

            And one can speak out against abortion without forcing those beliefs onto others. Providing alternate information is indirectly doing so. SMC Administration has done nothing but condone meaningful and thoughtful discussion on campus. The results of these discussions do not necessarily bear any resemblance to the ideals of the entity that allowed the discussions in the first place. If this were the case, then God, the entity that grants us free will, would be in support of every result of that free will, which is certainly not in accordance with Catholic teachings.

          • Laura Winn

            I applaud you for your genuine effort to be a better person. I wish others would do the same.
            As you stated, you are speaking with people who don’t share your beliefs. I don’t attend your college. But we are having a conversation.
            You see, the world will provide numerous opportunities for you to grow. In addition, you will help others to grow as well.
            You are looking at your presence at your University selfishly. Meaning your education is not just about you. The money you pay someone supports them too. I know that you receive a good out of the money spent however we need to remind ourselves that the money we spend supports whomever and whatever we give it to. So, it is an inconsistency. But, maybe, you are saying that you are opened minded to the teachings of the Church. Maybe subconsciously you have a yearning to seek the Truth and you admire the intellectuals and Doctors of the Church like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Moore and St. Teresa of Avila.

            As for your other point, providing alternative information does not judge or force a point on another it provides an informed decision. Which is ultimately up to the individual. The only control that human beings have is their Free Will.
            True, the allowance of discussion is good and encouraged however action is another case. You can discuss ill will but acting upon is it the wrong and that is the condoning part of the individual.
            So it’s not the case. God does not condone evil. Evil is a separatation from God on the free will of the one who is committing the act or allowing the known evil to occur without intervention when one has the capacity to do so.

          • Jenna Wilson

            I would argue that my view of my presence here is anything but selfish. I wouldn’t be able to attend a college of this caliber without the merit scholarships I receive. If anything, SMC pays more to support me than I do to support it, and I do not take this for granted. I max out on credit and work hours each semester, work extra hours at ND, and tutor so that I can share what I’ve learned here. If you are right in that “the money we spend supports whatever we give it to,” then SMC has been supporting me in ways that I could never repay, but I try to by participating in thoughtful discussion in the ways I’ve been taught while here. Whether it is supporting an individual student or a club, SMC does so in order to allow us to flourish in the best way they can, which might mean that they have to support us when we are faced with controversy. And although I may not have the faith of those saints you mentioned, I can still respect. I will note, however, that I was confirmed in the Catholic church with St. Joan of Arc as my patron saint because I admired her bravery in the face of adversity, and, while I may not declare any religious affiliation, I still try to embody that bravery.

            As for your last two points, those were exactly the points that I was making. It is the individual that makes the choice. Anyone else can do no more than to help them make the informed decision, which is exactly what this display was trying to encourage. And I was not saying that God condones evil, but was trying to point out the flawed logic presented. Just as God allows us to use our free will without condoning evil, any entity, in this case SMC, can allow those under its power to act in accordance with their free will without condoning what comes of it.

          • Laura Winn

            You sound like a good person. Maybe you should volunteer at a planned parenthood. That way you can be apart of all the good that they do.
            I wonder if St. Joan of Arc would have volunteered too?

          • Jenna Wilson

            Maybe I should. Maybe helping someone deal with such heavy decisions would be rewarding. Maybe I could inform them of alternative options and comfort them when they do make their decision. I see no reason why St. Joan of Arc wouldn’t volunteer. She dressed as a man in order to fight in the military, so “dressing” as a volunteer to combat acts such as abortion seems plausible. But PP is not my enemy, only yours. My battlefield is not within the PP clinics, but outside of them. I have no more than my words, but I still use them, even when they aren’t in accordance with what others want to hear.

          • Laura Winn

            I think your afraid to volunteer at planned parenthood because you are too good to pick through the remains of a baby.
            And, No, St. Joan would never have been apart of an abomination.

          • Tom Z.

            Hey Jenna,
            You are doing a great job defending your points and using intellect and reason to defend your stance. You cannot change somebody’s opinion using reason if their opinion was never formed using reason to begin with. You are lightyears ahead of Laura and co. and thank you for supporting St. Mary’s/Notre Dame community while also being ahead of the curve when it comes to social issues and utilizing your education and intellect to actually think about issues and not just regurgitate their parents’ and now their own religious beliefs. People like you will rise to the top and society will be better because of it.

          • Laura Winn

            Because rising to the top of society is worth fighting for at any cost, even the cost of butchering the innocent.

          • Ed Knauf

            While you think that Jenna’s “ahead of the curve when it comes to social issues, I would argue that her (and implicitly your) defense of Planned Parenthood is actually quite backward, and nothing but self-centered – after all, no telling when you might need to use their services, if not already. Her (and your) defense of Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with altruism and all to do with protecting a culture of sexual license, where anything goes, no rules, as-long-as-it-feels-good-do-it. And because you wish to protect your sexual turf, in your hubris, you think I’m the sad, backward one. But truth is timeless and doesn’t bend to the popular mores of the times, while individuals’ beliefs certainly can and do. In this case, we have a culture in which the understanding of human sexuality is completely distorted from God’s original plan, and both you and Jenna and Professor Davis at SMC are apparently steeped in it (like lobsters in a rapidly warming pot). The Church presents a vision of human sexuality that is beautiful, good and pure (can anyone use those adjectives about PP?), which protects the dignity of the subjects, most especially women (and can anyone argue that women’s aren’t completely degraded by the sexual license of today’s culture). Planned Parenthood claims to be “for” women – while they are really all about maintaining a culture that treats women as objects for sexual pleasure and robs them of their human dignity. I’m glad you weighed in, Tom, because truth be told, if it weren’t for male lust, Planned Parenthood would be pretty much out of business.

          • Tom Z.

            “…truth be told, if it weren’t for male lust, Planned Parenthood would be pretty much out of business.”

            You have no business weighing in on this issue. Please stop.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            He is a member of society. It’s his business.

          • Jenna Wilson

            “[My] (and implicitly your) defense of Planned
            Parenthood is actually quite backward, and nothing but self-centered –
            after all, no telling when you might need to use their services, if not
            already.” Whether or not I or anyone in this argument has received service from PP is irrelevant. Moreover, if you believe that PP only deals with those who are in trouble because they just can’t keep their pants on, then I take much offense to this. You do not have the right to imply someone’s promiscuity because you do not agree with their argument. Let me show you how to argue logically by defending myself so that you can stop retreating behind unfair and inaccurate judgements.

            Let’s suppose that I have been to PP and received a service there. As PP offers thousands of services, you would have no idea what service I would’ve received nor would you have any idea of the circumstances around the situation. What if I had gone to PP for STD testing after being raped? What if it was even worse than that and I was raped by my drunken father and then beaten by my mother, so I had no place to go and no one to ask for help or money in order to take care of my sexual and mental health? What if I had PTSD from such an incident and you just triggered it by reminding my of my visit to PP? Perhaps I am still selfish in this case, or perhaps I am defending PP so
            that they could help women in similar situations the way they had
            helped me. However, it is clear from this half of the argument that you are at least selfish enough to delve into such personal topics with no sense of awareness, consideration, or empathy towards the other person. You blindly believe that the world is perfect enough that it doesn’t need the services provided by PP, but if you opened your eyes, you would find people in circumstances that you could never even conceive of.

            Now, if I haven’t received any services from PP and have no intention of doing so and am defending the services provided by PP, then I am the opposite of selfish and defending PP so that other women can have healthcare when they need it most, even if it is provided by PP.

            You have truly motivated me with your comment, so let’s keep going through your argument. You also claim that I am defending my “sexual turf.” Again, let’s take the case of someone who has been raped. Do you think their “sexual turf” is worth defending? Perhaps if society defended her “sexual turf” to begin with, we wouldn’t need PP, but this is not the case and the only institution left to defend her “sexual turf” is PP. So maybe instead of taking away someone’s last defense of their “sexual turf,” maybe we should all focus on defending “sexual turf” to begin with. Maybe if we all respected each other enough not to degrade other by implying that they must be promiscuous because they defend a certain institution or enough not to rape our neighbors, then we wouldn’t need PP.

            You also say that I am promoting “a culture of sexual
            license.” Guess what, we do have sexual license in that we have authority over our own sexuality. The problem is that this people have decided that they’re sexual license extends beyond that of their own sexuality, leading to rape, molestation, etc. In addition, when we neglect to inform teenagers and young adults of their sexual license, they are more vulnerable to letting others infringe upon that license. PP does not promote this, but helps those who are victim to the “culture of sexual license” that you describe. Moreover, taking away PP will not change this “culture of sexual license,” as PP is only part of the culture in which we live. You can’t fix a problem by eliminating one of the solutions presented; for the problem will remain and more solutions will present themselves.

            Continuing, you say, “The Church presents a
            vision of human sexuality that is beautiful, good and pure (can anyone
            use those adjectives about PP?), which protects the dignity of the
            subjects, most especially women (and can anyone argue that women’s
            aren’t completely degraded by the sexual license of today’s culture).” Again, open your eyes. We don’t live in a culture that “presents a
            vision of human sexuality that is beautiful, good and pure” as the Church does, and that is the real problem at hand.

            “Planned Parenthood claims to be ‘for’ women – while they are really all
            about maintaining a culture that treats women as objects for sexual
            pleasure and robs them of their human dignity. I’m glad you weighed in,
            Tom, because truth be told, if it weren’t for male lust, Planned
            Parenthood would be pretty much out of business.” If you are going to pick a fight, pick a pick. You first blame PP for “maintaining a culture that treats women as objects for sexual
            pleasure and robs them of their human dignity” and then blame “male lust” for doing such. So which is it? PP and male lust certainly are not the same, and PP certainly doesn’t force themselves upon women

          • Ed Knauf

            Women are on occasion raped, so Planned Parenthood, because they provide some services for such women, is good. Completely illogical. Planned Parenthood is not the only organization that provides such services, and one arguably good service does not an absolve them of the great evil they do. You’ve become so blindly impassioned in your defense of them that you are willing to completely absolve them of any evil.

            You overlook the fact that PP is complicit in advancing a culture of sexual license (look up the word – from your response you clearly don’t know what it means), completely at odds with the vision taught by Holy Mother Church.

            So let’s get back to the St. Mary’s issue – should St. Mary’s be supporting (by allowing these flags to be placed and allowing her faculty to advertise why they’re there) an organization advancing a sexual ethic completely at odds with that taught by the Church, an organization that derives most of its income from a service (the intentional killing of a human being!) that would result in any of her (the Church’s) members who avail themselves of such a service to incur automatic excommunication and be in a state of grave sin? NO!

          • Laura Winn

            One more point, anyone who does absolutely nothing to speak out against the madness of killing children IS condoning it.
            So “yes” that includes faculty.

    • João Pedro Santos

      “First, the oft-repeated statistic that only 3% of Planned Parenthood services involve abortion couldn’t be more misleading. Cecile Richards, PPI CEO admitted in testimony to Congress that 86% of Planned Parenthood’s non-governmental revenue is derived from abortion.”
      That happens because abortions are one of the few PP procedures which aren’t government funded. So, when right-wing extremists want to defund PP, they aren’t defunding abortions. Instead, they are defunding things such as birth control, STD tests and cancer treatments.

    • ConscientiousStudent

      First off, Planned Parenthood receives government subsidy for most of their services, which abortion is not included in. Therefore, it would stand to reason that the majority of their non-subsidized revenue is a result of their abortion practices. This point in and of itself does not refute the fact that only 3% of services involve abortion. Your redaction of the data by removing government subsidies has transformed a fairly straightforward statement into a completely misleading and incomplete statement of the facts. I could argue that 0% of their governmental revenue is from abortion, which would be just as true but also just as useless to the argument. Your argument would also lend itself to that argument that Catholics should boycott any company that makes any revenue off of condom sales (prohibited by Church). Secondly, the display was not in defense of abortions, but of promulgating the breadth of female health services which Planned Parenthood affordably provides. The mission statement of Planned Parenthood makes no mention of abortion or any abortive services, making your claim of “their chief mission… at odds with Catholic teaching” questionable at best. The primary mission of Planned Parenthood, which you could find if you cared to look and give a reasonable effort at a fair argument, is primarily centered around the right of women to reproductive complementary health care and education on human sexuality. Please do some reading, and don’t pick and choose statistics without thinking of what that actually means and the conclusions which can, or in this case can’t, be drawn from them.

      • Laura Winn

        Your right, why would anyone pick on a thoughtful and caring organization that only looks out for the best interest of women’s reproductive health? I know that’s what I was asking myself when I saw the video of the living baby that was having his face cut off while the caring nurse was pulling his brains out to sell them to make up for the 0% funding that planned parenthood gets from the government.
        Are you serious? Who cares about percentages anymore? Oh my God, are any of you that are defending these monsters even human?

        • ConscientiousStudent

          I can only assume you are discussing the most recent video the CMP released in support of Carly Fiorina’s claims against Planned Parenthood? Fun fact, if you look at more than one source which includes the opinions of medical experts rather than a biased ex-Air Force Reserve colonel without medical experience (Gregg Cunnigham), you’ll notice that the procedure was not Planned Parenthood, and was most likely a miscarriage in the seventeenth week of the pregnancy, a time range in which fetuses are not attempted to be resuscitated. In terms of the “selling” it’s a common practice in organ transplants for the receiving party to fund the transportation of the organs to provide to the people in their care.

          • Laura Winn

            So, let me get this straight. The “fun”fact is- it wasn’t planned parenthood, it was just someone else, it was likely a miscarriage (and certainly at 17 weeks it was from natural causes), and the organ (baby’s brain) that was harvested was for a transplant that was needed. I got it, makes sense now. Thanks for the explanation. Hey, while I have your attention there is a bridge that I think that you would find useful. It doesn’t cost much.

        • Jenna Wilson

          Well, if you believe that being able to think for oneself and make one’s own decisions is part of being human, then I think that those defending the “monsters” are just as human as you are.

          • Laura Winn

            I don’t not believe that be able to think for oneself and make one’s own decisions is part of being human. My grandmother has late stage dementia, she cannot think for herself and make her own decisions. But she is certainly human.
            Jenna, I truly believe that if you were standing in the room where that living baby was, when his face was being cut off you would have been horrified! I believe that you would not have condoned that. So simply because it didn’t become personalized to you, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter. This is compassion. What I am asking is, “where is the compassion?”.

      • Ed Knauf

        Planned Parenthood also derives a large percentage of their abortion-related revenue from the government through the Medicaid program. The “defund Planned Parenthood” movement is aimed at their non-Medicaid revenue. Thanks be to God, individual states are, one-by-one, cutting off PP from their Medicaid program revenue.
        The display was in defense of Planned Parenthood, and one cannot in good conscience support an organization so devoted to the destruction of human life. And a Catholic college, which is the subject of this after all, absolutely has no business lending its support to an organization so completely opposed to what we as Catholics teach and believe.
        The “mission” of Planned Parenthood started with Margaret Sanger’s eugenics beliefs – the need to rid society of “human weeds” such as “negroes.” I’d suggest that it is YOU who need to do some reading before giving your support to such a heinous organization.

        • Jenna Wilson

          The Holocaust was intended to exterminate the “vermin” in Europe, but that doesn’t mean every descendent of former Nazis have the same intention. Likewise, just because PP started with a similar intention does not mean that PP has that same intention today.

          • Laura Winn

            He isn’t saying, “every descendant of former Nazis have the same intention.”
            He is saying, This company has blood on its hands. Stay away from it! Would you live in a house where you knew the entire family was slaughtered from a deranged killer? I would only assume “no”.

            He is saying stand up for what is right and good.

            Have courage and conviction.
            Boycott, protest, speak out against people and corporations that support actions that you don’t condone. If you stand for peace and life go for it. If you stand for child slavery and pornograhy go for it. But there will be backlash on both sides. This is what changes society for the better or worse. If you believe that abortion is good and right then you have a right to promote it. But don’t do it on my lawn or a Catholic college.

          • Jenna Wilson

            First of all, to continue with the Holocaust example, this logic would imply that we should all stay away from it because they’re government once decided that exterminate non-Arians and have blood on their hands. Yet, plenty of people continue to live there and support their government, and it people continue to visit this country because it is more than a place in which something inconceivably dreadful happened there not so long ago.

            Moreover, you are confusing PP with abortion, the exact misconception that this display was challenging. Those flags were a display of the good PP does through their other services. Catholicism does not reject women’s healthcare, so there is nothing contradictory about a Catholic institution condoning an informative display of healthcare options. While the controversy stems from the fact that these healthcare options are provided by an institution known for providing abortions, the display itself was nothing more than informing others of healthcare options available to them.

          • Laura Winn

            You keep pointing out that the good that planned parenthood does. Okay, I get it that you see it this way. I hear you.
            Let me put it this way for you if a mother has two children and she beats one but is gentle and kind to the other is she still a good mother?

          • Jenna Wilson

            Why does the mother have to be definitively good or bad? Why does it have to be so black and white? You do enjoy assuming my answers even though it is clear we disagree on many things. Perhaps I could have coffee with her or do any number of the things you listed. I see no reason not to. Of course, I would be worried and express that to her, but situations as such are not so simple. You don’t know what is happening inside that woman’s head. Maybe you’re right and she just is a horrible mother, or maybe she’s just as broken as the child she beats and does not know any other way to express it because no one has given her a chance or the support to change. Obviously, neither of her children are safe, but neither is she. Caring for one should not sacrifice the care for another. It’s not a matter of defending the mother or defending PP, it’s a matter of fully understanding so that we can go about change in a thoughtful, effective way.

          • Laura Winn

            Jenna, the children are in danger. It’s not a time to have coffee with her. It is a time to intervene. She is the adult. She can make her own decisions but not at the expense of the child.
            If you excuse her actions and allow it to continue then you are worse than she is. Because you don’t have the mental disorder and you recognize the abuse. You are then the adult and need to take action and follow through. Until you are confident that the children are safe.
            Yes, caring for the children IS the imperative thing to do.
            Once the bleeding has stopped then you can step in and help the mother with her healing. That’s good. But again, not at the children expense.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Who ever said I would do so at the child’s expense or allow it to continue? How can the mother beat her child if she is sitting and having coffee with me? Yes, she can make her own decision, and perhaps I could support her by informing her of other options. If her children are taken away, what is stopping her from having another baby to use as a punching bag? Or just offing herself because she realizes how much pain she has caused? If we don’t change the skewed mentality, there is nothing to stop the process from repeating. Of course I would help the children, but that doesn’t mean that I need to neglect the mother in the process.

          • Laura Winn

            No one ever advised you to neglect the mother.
            You said that you would help the children by having coffee with the mother to discuss her abuse of the children.
            Would you call the authorities?
            Would you remove the children from immediate danger?
            You keep avoiding point blank questions.

            Nothing can stop her from having another child unless she was infertile or every man in the world knew that she was a child abuser and had enough insight not to sleep with her.
            Nothing can stop her from suicide. These are her choices.

            Obviously, we are talking about planned parenthood.
            Have you discussed with planned parenthood how they could stop abusing children. Do they know their options?
            How are you going to help the children?
            How can we make sure no more children go into the clinic via their mother?

            In this case the suicide of planned parenthood would be ideal. No more harm can be done by them to the present children or the future children.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Do you think that rashly destroying a home will not affect the mother? You are making this simple hypothetical into a mess by desperately drawing on every conceivable possibility. I have no idea how I would go about such a situation of it presented itself to me. I am not avoiding any point blank questions because none have been asked. As with every other scenario, you are trying to reduce the entire color spectrum down to black and white.

            Do you realize what you are saying by allowing this hypothetical woman to kill herself? Allowing someone to wallow a state that leads to such a deep depression that she feels the need to kill herself is pure negligence; so yes, you are completely advising that the mother be neglected to the point of the mother’s demise. It seems that you see no reason to care for the monster who beat her child, as if she is no longer human. If you wanna talk about the lack of the compassion, I don’t know how much less compassion there is in this scenario.

            It also tickles me that you conveniently decided to discuss PP again, as if not to humanize the hypothetical situation so that it is okay to say that this mother should be left to kill herself, since, or course, we are not talking about a human, but just an institution. But, as I have mentioned a few times now, PP is not my enemy and they are not who the battle is with. Abortion does not stop with the medical practice, but with the mindset that it is not necessary. Without PP, we would be hearing reports of women who bled out while trying to abort with a wire hanger, or who was beaten to death because her abusive boyfriend hit her stomach with a baseball bat so violently that neither the mother nor the baby survived, or any number of problems that might arise on account of the lack of available medical services that PP also provides. PP does not instigate abortion, it provides a safe way to accomplish what our culture has become. Killing the killers only allows a culture of death to continue.

          • Laura Winn

            It’s not a home! The child is being beaten! That’s a sick home that you just called a home.

            I said, “in this case, planned parenthood should kill themselves” . Don’t misrepresent me.

            You are avoiding point blank questions.
            And they have been asked of you.

            Do you agree with abortion? Yes or no?

            The less compassion is allowing the child to be beaten because you don’t want to offend the abuser.

            We were talking about planned parenthood the whole time! It’s the issue at hand.

            They do bleed out at planned parenthood.

            Wow, no one said kill the killers. Lets not be hypocritical.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Before I continue, I would like to point out that these discussions are meant to present various aspects of an issue in order to provoke thought. The more emotional and close-minded your arguments become, the less beneficial they become; even your words are wrought with typos. With this in mind, I will continue, but I see no point in going much further with someone who cannot clearly demonstrate their though, or even form clearly written sentences.

            You also said, “Nothing can stop her from suicide. These are her choices,” when in fact any number of things could have helped her understand what was happening and how she could change. Rather or not it is a home, you are taking away children that she loves, but in a very skewed way that maybe she doesn’t even understand.

            I will assert again that you have asked no “point blank” questions. You have asked questions, but they are much more complicated than you seem to realize. I will try to answer your questions, but they will not be “point blank” answers.

            No, I do not agree with abortion. No one agrees with the killing of unborn infants. However, this world is much bigger than me, and there are many more women who are not as fortunate as I have been. They have experiences that I could never try to comprehend and are required to make decisions accordingly. I feel that it is unfair for me to assert my own disposition upon the millions of women that I will never know. What authority do I, or anyone, have over them that allows me to disregard the decisions that they have made? Believe it or not, even the women who get abortions probably don’t agree to it, but typically feel forced to because of situations that I will never understand. Do you think it’s easy for women to get an abortion? Do you think that there are no consequences, mentally or physically? Are they less deserving of our compassion because they made a decision that we could never make?

            I never said that I didn’t want to offend the abuser, but that the abuser doesn’t deserve any less consideration than the child. They are no less human.

            I do not think you know what I mean when I say “bleed out” in this case. Abortions cause bleeding out of that which is being aborted. I meant that the mother also bleeds out while attempting to complete an abortion without any medical expertise. Until the act of abortion comes to an end, people will find ways to abort, regardless of whether or not those resources are provided through clinics.

            You literally said, “planned parenthood should kill themselves,” aka you wish death upon those who you believe to bring death to others. This is the hypocrisy. This is that which promotes the same culture of death that you wish to destroy.

          • Laura Winn

            To quote you, “With this in mind, I will continue, but I see no point in going much further with someone who cannot clearly demonstrate their though, or even form clearly written sentences.”

          • Laura Winn

            Again, the clinics need to close there doors.

          • Laura Winn

            No, they ONCE did it. They don’t actively do it now. Because courageous and decent people killed the bad guys!

            I’m not confusing planned parenthood with abortion. They perform abortions. Planned parenthood is ‘what’ they do. That’s who they are.
            What you do is who you are. Plain and simple.

            The flag display was disgusting and shame on those who in their ignorance did it.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Historically, it is thought that the baddest of the bad guys involved in the Holocaust (Hitler) killed himself, although his body was never found. Most of the others ran off and those of who were tried were done so under what could be considered illegitimate circumstances. For example, Adolf Eichmann played a big role in the systematic transportation of Jews to ghettos and camps. He had fled to Argentina after Germany fell and was illegally taken back to Jerusalem to be tried. Hannah Arendt was a political philosopher who reported this trial through the NY Times. She herself was a Jewish German who left Germany in 1933, yet despite her personal connection to the subject, she claims that his acts were the consequence of thoughtlessness. He acted no differently than the American soldiers who dropped bombs on civilians in that they were doing as they were told. Her account is quite interesting and I would recommend reading Eichmann in Jerusalem.

            Regardless, no, they don’t do it now, but you used the imagery of living in a house where a family had been slaughtered. This seems to be the most extreme example of this case, a case to which you assumed no one would agree.

            What someone does is most certainly not who they are! “The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.” (Oscar Wilde) Catholicism holds that everyone, except Jesus and Mary, were born with original sin, which means all the saints began as sinners and every sinner has the chance to become a saint. Saul of Tarsus maliciously persecuted Christians, and yet he is now immortalized Paul the Apostle. It is not as “plain and simple” as you see it. An abortion is an act, PP is an institution that offers numerous services. Perhaps providing abortions is the most abominable act on this earth, but even the worst sinners have the chance to be saints.

          • Laura Winn

            While they were sinning they were not Saints.
            It’s only when they corresponded with Grace that they became Saints. So, yes, it is your actions corresponding with your beliefs that make you balanced and whole. Thus, WHO you are.
            Yes, that’s true an abortionist and those who assist do have a chance to be Saints. But, the power is always in the present moment. Every breath is a gift and should be perceived as such. If you know that you are not doing the right thing and you willfully do it anyways that’s when you start the process of dying spiritually.
            As soon as Saint Paul was given the Grace that he needed he ceased killing and spent his entire existence, at any cost, fighting for conversions of sinners. The same can and does happen to abortionist and to those that would assist in abortions. Grace is real and present. There is hope!

            American soldiers were/are heroes. Stopping the war with war was the only option. War is always a terrible reality of our fallen nature. There will always be someone in power who will be willing to inflict pain and suffrage upon the vunerable. This is a sad reality.

            Remember, even though there were evil leaders if there was no one to do their bidding it wouldn’t have been accomplished. You can’t have a war without soldiers. If everyone was willing to die before they would rip Jews from their homes and families then proceed with their evil works then it would have never been. Yet, that wasn’t the case.
            People defended and fought for the wrong. They stood by the evil.

          • Ed Knauf

            Jenna – a few questions for you: Pray tell what exactly is PP’s “intention” / mission today? How does that mission in any way coincide with what the Catholic Church teaches (you claim based on an entire life of Catholic education that you understand something of what she teaches)? And if PP’s mission is not the same as when it was founded, why are most PP clinics located in poor / minority neighborhoods? Now, if St. Mary’s wishes to tell the world that she is a Catholic college, oughtn’t she abide by Catholic teaching? Finally, are you aware of the concept of “scandal” – by its approval of the PP display, is SMC not participating in scandal?

          • Jenna Wilson

            Well, according to their website, this is their mission:

            “Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual’s income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual’s right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life and strong family relationships.

            Based on these beliefs, and reflecting the diverse communities within which we operate, the mission of Planned Parenthood is to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual; to advocate public policies which guarantee these rights and ensure access to such services; to provide educational programs which enhance understanding of individual and societal implications of human sexuality; to promote research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and encourage understanding of their inherent bioethical, behavioral, and social implications.”
            (https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/mission)

            I don’t see anything in there that goes against Catholic teaching. According to the New Testament, Jesus focused his ministry on the outcasts, including minorities and the poor, which, as you stated, are the neighborhoods in which Planned Parenthood clinics are often located. They do this because they provide healthcare to those who do not have and/or cannot afford health insurance. Hence, their mission statement actually promotes a very Jesus-like mentality towards the outcasts of society. (Yes, I did just say PP has a very Christian mission statement. Let the slander ensue.)

            Also, you have fallen into a common fallacy referred to the is-ought problem. You cannot derive an ought from an is, i.e. just because it is doesn’t mean it should be. That is, just because SMC is Catholic or acts in accordance with Catholic teachings does not imply that SMC ought to act as such. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem)

            Finally, I am indeed aware of the concept of a scandal. Are you aware of the definition of a “scandal”? Let me state it clearly just in case:

            “scandal (n.): an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage” (New Oxford American Dictionary)

            According to this definition, something must be (a) an action or event, (b) morally or legally wrong, and (c) causing public outrage. We can all agree that this display was an event, so we can accept (a). Now let us consider whether or not this event was morally or legally wrong. I think we can all agree that there was nothing illegal about this event, so it must be morally wrong in order to satisfy (b). Obviously, this is controversial and messy, so let us consider (c) and come back to (b) if (c) is satisfied, since both must be satisfied in order for this event to be a scandal by definition. Well, I don’t see any public outrage caused by this event. Everyone at ND and SMC seem to be continuing on with their lives as usual. There are not riots in the streets or numerous complaints by the community. The most “outrage” that has manifested is the comments on this page, which by no means speaks on behalf of enough of the public to consider it a “public outrage.” So, it seems that this is only a scandal insofar as it is an event. Even if you believe that this is morally wrong, this can still not be considered a scandal.

          • Ed Knauf

            I guess you aren’t as aware of Catholic teaching as you thought you were. Implicit in Planned Parenthood’s mission is the provision of abortion services, which Catholic teaching holds as a most severe sin – one that severs one from communion with the Lord and His Church (latae sententiae excommunication). Implicit in Planned Parenthood’s mission is the provision of artificial contraception, which encourages sexual activity outside of marriage, both of which Catholic teaching hold as objectively, gravely sinful. Finally, with respect to the concept of scandal, look not to the dictionary but to the Catechism: “2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.” It can be anticipated that St. Mary’s’ implicit endorsement of Planned Parenthood may well lead her students and other stakeholders to take on the morally corrupt paradigm of human sexuality perpetuated by Planned Parenthood, and frankly, lead persons into sin.
            As to your “is-ought” reference, I would refer you to Bishop Rhoades, who is the judge of both is and ought in his diocese. SMC may call herself “Catholic” at his sole pleasure. And Bishop Rhoades has communicated in the strongest terms to President Mooney that SMC must disavow herself of this action.
            Finally (I clearly will not convince you against your will, so you will get the last word, I’m done), know this – Planned Parenthood kills more than 325,000 unborn children every year. How much more reprehensible than that does an organization need to be before SMC (or you?) would withhold your support for them?

          • Ed Knauf

            Yo, Jenna – I’m waiting for a response to my last question. Just how much more reprehensible does an organization need to be before you would withhold your support of them?

          • Urstpsoshtup

            From reading her responses she supports everything. It’s an everything goes mentality.
            With the exception morals. They’re a rarity in the new generation.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Actually, I support thinking for myself. Morality is not rare, but complex, and the new generation was never taught to understand such complexity.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            You will also be judged by yourself.
            Good luck with the that!

          • Jenna Wilson

            Actually, although I am probably my toughest critic, I’m judged quite frequently by others. I am open to sound judgement, but can easily dismiss those who judge prematurely with no grounding, as presented here.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            We all have plenty of ground to judge you. You have been very transparent.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Thus far, you have judged me as a person based on an argument that you don’t agree with. My argument here provides no grounding for you to judge me as a person. This argument may be all you know of me, but that does not mean that you know all of me, and thus you have no grounding to judge all of me based on what very little you know of me.

          • Jenna Wilson

            I responded, but apparently it didn’t send. Not to worry, I’m sure I can recreate it.

            Perhaps I am not aware of Catholic teaching as I thought, but Pope Francis is probably pretty aware of Catholic teaching and has “has criticized the church for being “obsessed” with issues like abortion and homosexuality and has emphasized the opposition to them far less than his predecessors. He has also said priests should absolve women who confess to ‘the sin of abortion'” (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/us/pope-francis-issues-catholics.html?_r=0). That doesn’t sound like excommunication to me. Moreover, artificial contraception “encourages sexual activity outside of marriage” no more than it does within marriage. Birth control and abortion are available to married couples as well.

            Now, of course I don’t think Jesus would be okay with “harvesting and sale of baby parts,” regardless if it were done through PP or any other institution. However, Jesus never judged the prostitutes for their sins, but instead provided kindness and support in order to show them that they didn’t have to demean themselves in such ways. He accepted them. And guess what, there were prostitutes before PP ever existed. PP doesn’t encourage a “lifestyle of fornication,” society encourages such. Jesus didn’t go after the brothels and demand they be closed, but instead changed the way society looked at the prostitutes and diseased and impoverished by demonstrating kindness and acceptance. But of course, I don’t understand Catholic teaching or Jesus, so this must be wrong.

            Unfortunately, your definition of “scandal” from the Catechism also does not describe the display presented at SMC, unless you believe informed thinking or women’s healthcare is an “evil.”

            So Bishop Rhoades wrote the laws of logic that have been built into this world? Bishop Rhoades is not more “the judge of both is and ought” than anyone else. If you believe that God is Creator, then God is the judge of is-ought and only God. Bishop Rhoades can try to judge according to what he believes God would, but God remains a mystery to all. We have mere glimpses of God and, while Bishop Rhoades has made his opinion clear and can control the “is,” it is does not change that we don’t truly know the “ought.”

            Finally, while “Planned Parenthood kills more than 325,000 unborn children every year,” our society is such that this is allowable. Would you blame a pharmacy for giving its patients a drug that was delivered to them with a defect such that all the patients died, or would you blame the drug company that manufactured and knowingly sent the drug out? Do you blame the executioner for carrying out a death that was demanded by the king, or do you blame the king? What is truly reprehensible is our society, that our society is such that the members need to seek out healthcare after getting raped or feel that they cannot keep a child, for whatever reasons. And more so, it is reprehensible that there are people who, instead of taking blame as part of society, place blame in institutions that carry out the wishes of society, and, as a result, ignore the true problems at hand. PP is not the problem, ignorance is.

          • Ed Knauf

            Let’s take your arguments one at a time:

            Pope Francis does seem to wish to place a fuller emphasis on sins other than abortion and homosexual acts (“homosexuality” – same-sex attraction, while disordered, is not in itself sinful), but if you’ll read what he’s said (including what he said just last Friday – http://www.lifenews.com/2015/11/06/pope-francis-how-can-we-protect-anyones-rights-if-we-cant-protect-the-unborn/ ), he’s in no way saying that abortion is any less of a sin.

            With respect to excommunication, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Latae sententiae excommunication is the medicinal penalty for abortion, for the woman who has it or anyone assisting in procuring it. The canonical remedy for such a sin is sacramental confession and absolution, which under canon law must be with the bishop of the diocese. Francis extended the faculty for providing this absolution (the faculty to lift the penalty of excommunication) to all priests, not only the ordinary, for this year of mercy only. Please don’t misinterpret that act of mercy as somehow an endorsement of the sin.

            I will grant you that artificial contraception encourages sinful sexual relations (fornication AND adultery), for both unmarried and married couples, just as Blessed Pope Paul VI foretold it would. You are correct that many (probably most) couples partake of artificial contraception. That doesn’t make it any less objectively sinful, now does it?

            Jesus showed kindness to a woman caught in adultery, and also (do not overlook!) told her to “go and sin no more.” Jesus in no way “accepted” her sin – He forgave her and loved her. In today’s Gospel, He showed quite a bit of anger for a sin that I’m sure you’d agree is far less serious than killing a child. It was Jesus who said “be perfect as my heavenly Father is perfect.” It was Jesus who said “if you love me, you will keep my commandments.” It was Jesus who especially loved CHILDREN – “suffer the little children to come to me!” Jesus exemplified loving the sinner while hating (i.e. not tolerating) the sin. He came to call sinners to repentance (see Mark 1:15). I don’t think there’s any question that Jesus would not be a fan of Planned Parenthood, which dispatches (the nicest word I could think of) nearly 1,000 children per day!

            Do you really think Planned Parenthood doesn’t encourage a lifestyle of fornication? Please point me to ONE thing anywhere on Planned Parenthood’s website or anyplace else that encourages people to wait until marriage to engage in sexual relations. Only ONE, that’s all I ask. If they have anything that encourages abstinence, I guarantee it will also say “but if you can’t wait, we have all kinds of contraceptives.”

            The concept of scandal is obviously completely lost on you, so I won’t even give it another try. Except to say that St. Mary’s’ giving implicit endorsement to such a reprehensible organization might lead you and others to think they’re OK and their services are “good” (which you obviously do) and lead you and others into sin.
            And I do think that “women’s healthcare,” to the extent it involves abortion and contraception, is evil (sentire ecclesia). But more importantly, you and those who (according to President Mooney were supposed to so anonymously) placed those flags think that one can separate the “good” Planned Parenthood does from the grave, unspeakable evil they do. You cannot. An axe murderer loves his mother and might visit her every Sunday, which is good. That doesn’t relieve his culpability for his grave sin, now does it? And if you’ll examine how Planned Parenthood cuts up its tiny (some not so tiny) victims, you’ll find the metaphor isn’t too hyperbolic.

            You are free to not believe that Bishop Rhoades is the arbiter of what is Catholic and what is not, but St. Mary’s College MUST so believe, if she wishes to call herself a “Catholic” college. And Bishop Rhoades has communicated his extreme displeasure in St. Mary’s implicit endorsement of Planned Parenthood.

            Your last paragraph is the most puzzling thing you’ve written to date. Logic is obviously not something that is taught at St. Mary’s…nor, despite your and the administration’s protestations, is critical thinking. “Society” permits abortion (which is a grave sin) so that somehow relieves Planned Parenthood and its supporters of their sin? Um NO. Unlike the executioner who is ordered by the king to carry out a sentence, nobody is forcing Planned Parenthood, or any doctor, or any hospital, or any clinic, to kill unborn babies. Planned Parenthood willingly carries out abortion “services” as the most significant part of what they do (86% of their non-government grant revenue), under no compulsion from anyone. Why? Because they are all about perpetuating a gravely sinful contraceptive/abortive culture of sexual license, and because abortion is incredibly profitable for them.

            For most women who seek PP abortions, the reason is simply backup birth control – my contraception failed so I need an abortion. Rape is a miniscule part. It’s all about selfishness and convenience. When a man and a woman engage in intercourse, pregnancy is the natural, foreseeable (and God-ordained!) end of that act. Our culture (with a healthy contribution from PP) encourages you and others to think that you/they can engage in that act consequence-free. Planned Parenthood exists to conveniently “remove” that inconvenience from the sacred womb.
            Jenna, I fear that your paradigm is too far removed from the way God calls you to think to even be redeemed. But I will pray for you and the others at St. Mary’s so sadly misled, for your conversion and for your good and holy thinking.

          • Ed Knauf

            Jenna – please tell me – how much more reprehensible would Planned Parenthood have to be for you to not support them? Well let me phrase it another way – specifically what worse things (than killing little babies) does Planned Parenthood have to do to lose your support? Or is your answer that they aren’t reprehensible because they’re merely doing what society asks of them? But surely you must have a line in the sand where if they went over it you couldn’t support them. Where’s that line?

          • Urstpsoshtup

            Her pride has blinded her. She will not answer you with a straight answer because “it’s a complicated issue”.
            Truth is simple.
            Lies are chaotic.

            It’s a wicked web we weave!

          • John Robin

            That was exactly and precisely the answer several students received last week when they met with one of the VP’s in the SMC administration about SMC’s celebration of Planned Parenthood: “It’s a complicated issue”.

            And yet, if you focus on who’s being killed, and who’s doing the killing, it really is not complicated, is it?

          • Urstpsoshtup

            Amen!

          • Ed Knauf

            Jenna – please tell me – how much more reprehensible would Planned Parenthood have to be for you to not support them? Or is your answer that they aren’t reprehensible because they’re merely doing what society asks of them? Well let me phrase it another way – specifically what worse things than killing little babies does Planned Parenthood have to do to lose your support?

          • Laura Winn

            It is sad and disappointing that in 2015 this is not scandalous.

            Simply because something is acceptable to the majority it doesn’t mean that it is morally right. The majority of Germans believed that it was good and right to kill people according to their lineage etc… etc… The majority of Americans apparently don’t give a damn about what happens to the vunerable. As long as it’s not their niece, nephew, grandchild! And in many cases they still don’t care. Everyone goes about their daily tasks. That’s a sad and disappointing fact.

            Every voice does matters. Right is right and it will always matter. Even if it’s the last human being on earth thats saying “the murdering of a child is wrong!”.
            Wrong will always be wrong even if the wrong is tolerated. It’s still wrong. I challenge anyone to deeply and honestly tell me that they wholeheartedly believe to the very core of their marrow, that what occurred to that one child who was being killed and dismembered on video footage ‘doesn’t matter’ simply because there is no outcry.

            As for your other point, Yes, SMC ought to enforce their beliefs. Their actions, or lack there of, speak louder than words. It’s hypocritical to say one thing and do another. Everything should be in accord. If not, then there is no integrity or trust.

            As for planned parenthood being in accord with Christianity…..
            (Hang on to your seat because here comes the slander!
            Jesus Christ is NOT present in the works of planned parenthood! He is NOT, please go wash your mouth out for stating that!
            That really may be the most twisted statement against Christianity that I have ever heard.)

            Anyways, coming from a Biblical view Jesus tells the sinners to go and sin no more. He doesn’t condone hate, murder, lies, adultery, objectification of humans.
            He doesn’t encourage all out sensual pleasure seeking at every moment. He doesn’t excuse it, either. He tells them you are forgiven. Go and sin no more. This forgiveness takes place because the sinner comes to Him as a repentant. They acknowledge the harm that has come to them and or others, from their actions. They are ready to start their healing process.
            Like I stated before, people can say what they want and have a mission statement but until the words of the mission statement are backed by actions they are just words.
            Someone can say, I want to be a great wife and mother….
            Or I want to be a great husband and father…..
            Or I want to be a great student and a productive member of society.
            But until those words are upheld through action and deed, to the greatest extent, it simply will not be reality.

    • Jenna Wilson

      Just because my mom gave birth to me doesn’t mean I agree with, follow, believe, or do everything she says, nor should I. What makes her most proud is that I am independent and can think for myself and, despite that, still talk to her and visit home over the holidays.

      Isn’t this the point of free will? That, despite all of our experiences and questions and thoughts and doubts, we make the conscious decision to continue to have faith? In my opinion, true faith requires these struggles. Now, I am not religious in any sense of the word, but I was raised Catholic and have only attended Catholic schools my entire life (besides pre-school, which was at a Methodist church and school), so I like to think that I have some knowledge of Catholic teachings.

      Regardless, it seems to me that this is a similar situation. Yes, this is indeed a Catholic institution, but perhaps it is in questioning such controversial topics as a community will make us stronger. And if you are of the religious type, you can only have faith that God will somehow help us find the right answer.

      Do note that this display was promoting, if anything, services not regarding contraceptives or abortion, all of which are not frowned upon by the church. Just because these services come from an institution that also handles abortion doesn’t mean that they are tainted in any way.

      PS – President Mooney is awesome and, quite frankly, you have no right or reason to slander her or the rest of our administration for allowing us to learn and discuss even such controversial things as those brought up by this demonstration. This is a college campus, after all; we are here to learn, not just in the classroom, but also how to think responsibly and be a productive member of society, a society that has controversy and religious freedom. We are learning who we are as people, not just as Catholics, although that might be part of it. Of all things that happen on college campuses nationwide and continue with no second thought (underage drinking, sexual assault, etc), being a college and promoting thorough decision making is the one that catches people’s attention…

      • Laura Winn

        Jenna, when you say, “we are here to learn, not just in the classroom, but also how to think responsibly and be a productive member of society, a society that has controversy and religious freedom.” That’s wonderful! That’s wonderful! You should continue growing intellectually, socially and spiritually your entire life. That’s why we are having this discussion. One of the things that we need to learn as a society is to be compassionate. One of the aspects of compassion is to care for those who cannot care for themselves which are children. Children need to be protected from those who harm them physically. If a mother, father, aunt, uncle, teacher, neighbor, etc…were harming a child, it is the responsibility of any adult that is aware of the endangerment to demand and enforce the that abide to stop. We are aware of the abuse that is going on in planned parenthood. As responsible members of society, it is our duty and obligation to step in and demand a stop to the mutilation of developed living babies. In order to do that the perpetrators are not entitled to any recognition on our part. Even if they send us flowers with an apology note.

      • Ed Knauf

        The issue at hand has nothing to do with “questioning such controversial topics.” The issue is whether a Catholic college will allow a public display in support of such an organization, implicitly lending its support to such an organization.
        To follow your rather imperfect metaphor, your mom presumably has certain rules and standards that you must abide by when you’re home – whom she will allow you to publicly identify her with, what sorts of displays she would allow you to put on your lawn and let the world know (implicitly) that she supports. If she is a faithful Catholic, presumably she would not allow you to display on her lawn things/messages that are at odds with her Catholic faith, even while she might welcome your private deliberations on such matters. Well if SMC wishes to be known as a faithful Catholic college, she must similarly not allow messages that are at odds with what it means to be a faithful Catholic.

        • MJ

          “Well if SMC wishes to be known as a faithful Catholic college, she must
          similarly not allow messages that are at odds with what it means to be a
          faithful Catholic.”

          So a college or university must not allow messages that communicate facts? Very interesting…

          • Ed Knauf

            If presenting the “facts” implies an official institutional endorsement of the organization (which it would be difficult to argue that it does not), then yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. “Facts” are not devoid of morality. SMC’s own written standards (which appear to have been violated, President Mooney’s fence-straddling, Bill Clinton-like explanation from this morning notwithstanding) say as much. And, of course, presenting an incomplete set of facts can be extremely misleading, can it not?

          • MJ

            Yes, actually, facts are devoid of morality. Facts are simply that – facts. And yes, incomplete facts are misleading. Which is why this second demonstration of PP’s services was important – to present facts and facts only.

            Truth, however, is not devoid of morality. But facts =/= truth and vice versa. Presenting facts does not even imply an endorsement, unless you think that truth and fact are the same thing. That said, I understand what you’re saying. I just think that logically the two should be separate.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            “Yes, actually, facts are devoid of morality. Facts are simply that – facts. And yes, incomplete facts are misleading. Which is why this second demonstration of PP’s services was important – to present facts and facts only.” MJ, it’s interesting that those are your words.

            The demonstrators didn’t present ALL the facts.
            “Incomplete facts are misleading.” These are your words.

          • Jenna Wilson

            This demonstration was in response to incomplete information presented on campus by an outside group. The intention of the demonstration was to add on to the incomplete information given and present a more complete set of information, which would include the information previously presented.

            Essentially, they showed the other side of the coin than had already been shown. Now we know both sides.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            Where were the flags that represents the abortions?
            I guess 55 million more flags would have been too much.

          • Jenna Wilson

            That wasn’t the point of this demonstration. There was a previous demonstration that gave one account of PP, which was that it provided abortions. This demonstration was giving another account, which was that PP provided services other than abortion. They were not ignoring the fact that abortions are provided by PP, but were adding onto that information that had previously been presented.

            Also, you argue that SMC did not follow Catholic teaching by allow the demonstration without flags representing abortion, but now argue that such flags should’ve been placed to give a full account. You cannot argue for both because there cannot both be no demonstration and a more complete demonstration, by your standards.

          • Urstpsoshtup

            If you have any common sense you would know that asking “Where were the flags?” was a point not an argument.
            Stop chasing your tail. Your starting to sound a little…….

          • Ed Knauf

            The fallacy here is the notion that one can separate the so-called “good” that Planned Parenthood does (which is debatable) and which Feminists United (no doubt spurred on by Professor Davis) wished to celebrate, from the profound evil that they do. One ought not. Many hospitals do heroic life-saving acts, and also kill unborn babies in abortion. One good does not absolve them of the other quite profound evil.

          • NDaniels

            Abortion ends the life of a beloved son or daughter.

  • Laura Winn

    To the people who still stand beside planned parenthood, I invite you to read the link below. Please keep in mind that the people of Germany believed that he was good for Germany. In addition, slave ‘owners’ believed that they had rights to other human beings. Therefore they could do as they liked to them. Just as people now believe that they have a right to do as they will to the other human being within or outside of their body.
    http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/21/us/nazi-scientists-and-ethics-of-today.html

    • Tom Z.

      Did you just compare Planned Parenthood to the way Nazi’s handled human experiments? Try using your brain for once in your life before commenting and drawing an absolutely ludicrous comparison.

      • Laura Winn

        I did. No it’s not ludicrous.
        It’s ludicrous that you would allow children to be dismembered on your watch.

        Keep turning a blind eye. The horrors of the experiments are here and will only progress.
        45 years ago we wouldn’t believe that Americans would stand by as children are born and then dissected in front of us.

        Stand by.

        • Tom Z.

          You view this as a black and white issue, don’t you?
          Let me guess, you are extremely religious and use that to guide, nay, base all of your decisions off. You need to start thinking for yourself and growing up. The real world is much more complicated than “killing a baby is wrong.” Planned Parenthood does so much good for women like yourself and if it wasn’t for organizations like them, it would be difficult for women to have come this far. You are dearly misguided and need to see the situation in a completely different light outside of your religious bubble. Also, do not make claims comparing Planned Parenthood to Nazism, it makes you look stupid, plain and simple.

          • Laura Winn

            Ummm ya, no, it is that simple. You are in agreements with killing a baby? Let me guess you knocked some chic up and drove her to a clinic to get rid of the thing growing inside of her. So now you feel guilty and want to defend your actions.
            Not gonna happen.
            I’m cool with looking stupid, if looking stupid means bringing attention to the realities of our present state of absenteeism in compassion for the vunerable.
            Women coming this far? WTF are you talking about? Women allowing their children to be dissected isn’t progressive.
            And don’t ever tell me that planned parenthood is good for me! You have been emasculated and are a cowardly person. Preying on victims. That’s disgusting.

          • Tom Z.

            Hahaha you sound like a 13 year old girl who just learned what abortion is and now wants to help the adults solve a crisis. Grow up and step outside of the church every once in awhile so you can sound informed when talking about social issues and not just regurgitating nonsense.

          • Laura Winn

            The 13 year old is right.

          • Jenna Wilson

            Temper tantrum aside, no one wants to kill babies. This is not and anti- vs pro-abortion argument. I might be advocating a pro-choice viewpoint, but that in no way applies a pro-abortion viewpoint. This is a controversy about to deal with the fact that unborn babies are being aborted. One side argues that one must preserve the right to life under any circumstances, even when it means infringing upon the mother’s rights, while the other side typically argues that by informing mothers of her options and allowing her to exert her rights to their full capacity, we might be able to preserve the rights of both entities.

            I don’t mean to be rude and I try my hardest not to judge anyone based on their comments in these situations, but if you as a woman do not recognize how far women have come in terms of having rights, then you are downright ignorant. My grandmother was alive before women had rights to vote. There are entire nations that would agree that a man is allowed to beat his wife, and while the system is still flawed, we have support systems set up to protect women from that.

            You take all of this for granted, which is a large part of the problem. You will never be able to understand what rights other women have if you don’t even understand your own rights. Stop thinking about yourself for the moment. You are part of a system, a network of people, each one having their own rights and their own needs. No one said that PP was good for you specifically, only insofar as you are included in the network of women. I do hope that you really are 13-years-old; the thought of an adult verbally lashing out in the midst of such controversy is frightening.

          • Laura Winn

            No, the unborn and now the just born have no rights in your eyes. Even if she is a female.
            No planned parenthood is not good for me or women’s rights. They have done nothing to women safe. They have allowed pedifiles to continue to rape children then abort.
            No one ever said that I don’t realize and apperciate the safety of America.

            Stop misrepresenting me.

          • Jenna Wilson

            You can’t misrepresent me and then ask me not to misrepresent you. I never said that children, unborn and born alike, have no rights. No one has allowed pedophiles to continue to rape children and then abort. There are so many things wrong with that sentence that I don’t even know where to begin…

          • Laura Winn

            You did say that children have no rights.
            The mothers have a right to kill them.
            That is what you said.