The Emporia State Philosophy club sponsored a formal debate on Monday to discuss the topic of abortion.

The debate was organized so that each side of the debate was allowed opening statements, rebuttals to opponents opening statements and a question and answer session between the debaters and the audience.

Leo Arellano, senior social science major and ESU Philosophy Club president, moderated the debate and said that he believed the debate to be a positive thing.

“Normally we hold Socrates’ Café, which is an event where everybody can come in, and it’s sort of like a ‘group hug’ conversation (where) everybody gives their opinion. I wanted to create something that is a little more specialized,” Arellano said.

There were three students participating in the formal portion of the debate. Richard Stephenson, junior chemistry major presented the “pro-choice” side of the debate. Lauren Halstead, junior elementary math education major, and Lauren Brown, sophomore elementary education and Spanish major presented the “pro-life” side of the debate.

Halstead and Brown both said that they were expecting the debate to be more controversial and more heated than it was.

“We prepared for the worst,” Halstead said.

Brown also mentioned that she thought the debate went better than she expected, and that the purpose of the debate was fulfilled.

“I think the exact purpose of this debate was to make people, ourselves included, think about things that we wouldn’t necessarily normally think about, and I think it did just that, and (did it) very well,” Brown said.

Halstead also said that she believed debates in this format were a good thing for the ESU community overall and were something that she would support in the future.

“I think the point of (this debate format) was to keep an open discussion on both sides instead of a head-on battle of conflicts of interest, and I think it worked well this way. I would definitely support future debates in this format,” she said.

Stephenson agreed with Brown and Halstead’s contention that the debate was enjoyable and informative.

“I enjoyed myself. I thought it went well,” Stephenson said.“It seemed to be rational, which is what we wanted to promote—rationality and discourse, and polite disagreement, even over controversial issues.”

Stephenson, who is a member of the ESU Philosophy club, addressed why he felt it was important for debates like this to occur.

“I think it is a lot of fun, and also, it is part of what philosophy should be—exploring questions in a public nature,” he said.

Arellano expressed that he and the Philosophy Club are exploring other topics to hold similar debates on.

‘There are a couple other things in the works, but we’re not really ready to announce them until we have the people completely lined up,” he said.“Largely, it depends on if there are people who are willing to come forward, and who have strong feelings, and are willing to do their homework. But if we can (have more debates) we will.”

Send article as PDF to

Alex Pedersen

There has been a buzz, pardon the pun, around campus recently about a potential new recognized student organization which advocates pro-life legislation and action.

            In the Feb. 18 issue of The Bulletin, Lauren Walbridge wrote a story on Students for Life and their struggle for RSO status. They are hoping to get the three things they need to gain status, which are enough signatures to fill a petition, an advisor and approval from ASG.

            I respect their beliefs and fully support their vying for RSO status and would even agree with giving them allocation money, but I think they are outright wrong. If you believe that abortion is wrong, then don’t get an abortion. But it is arrogant to try to take away free choice based on a religious belief and, in this Midwest hotbed of heaven-hungry activity, we must keep that in mind at all times.

            I understand that being pro-life is typically a religious belief and those are hard to change, but I find it wrong in any situation to justify forcing others to do or not do things based on a belief that they may not share.

            Back to Students for Life, I will give a hearty thumbs-up to any group trying to become an RSO because it increases cohesion in our university. Like-minded people tend to gravitate towards each other anyway, and by allowing them to meet on campus and have a more official, professional setting, it allows students to find more interests that maybe they didn’t know they had, meet new friends and practice group communication skills they will undoubtedly have to use in the future.

            As for funding, that is for ASG to decide. I think that every group should receive equal funding, regardless of their goals. Every student organization, even RSO’s that are based around a hobby, is persuasive in nature: they try to get you to join whatever they are doing, attend their events etc.

            We shouldn’t tell ASG to cut funding from one organization because they have a religious message if we have another that is based on a political view, culture, or hobby. As long as it is for learning purposes, ASG should allocate money to it properly because that’s what the money is there for.

            I can understand the pro-life argument, that it should be a higher power’s choice when, where and how each person should die. That from the moment of conception or heart-beating or whatever you define it as, it is a living creature and should be treated as such.

            But there are many instances that this ideal does not quite work in. Should a woman be allowed to abort a child if she was raped? What if having the child could endanger the mother’s life? What if the child would die in a short amount of time anyway? These are finer points which are not addressed with a simple, “abortion is wrong,” outlook.

            If one argues any of these by saying, “God planned for this child to be in the woman, rape (or what have you) aside,” then it could easily be retorted by proposing that God then planned for the woman to have an abortion. This gets into the free will argument, and, again, I’m not trying to argue religious beliefs in this.

            There is also the outlook that abortion is torturous for the fetus but, given the choice, I would much rather be an aborted fetus and have a few minutes of pain than something that is a socially acceptable tortured creature, such as a veal calf.

            And say pro-life legislation was passed, what would happen? Women won’t stop getting abortions if they choose to have one. How many fatalities would back-alley abortions cause?           What would be the punishment of those caught receiving an illegal abortion?

            The issue raises a lot of questions, but I think that the viewpoint that abortion is downright immoral is far from a proper one for a civilized society to have.

            So, Students for Life, I dig your fight and I wish you the best of luck, but I think you need to separate yourself from your religious ideals for a moment and ponder what this could mean for women and society altogether.

Send article as PDF to

Students for Life, a group of students that support the pro-life movement against abortion, is trying to become a Recognized Student Organization. Junior elementary education major and president of the group Lauren Halstead said her main goal is to spread the word.

“I think my personal goal is just to expand this group and to really get the word out about what abortion is and really promote the fact that it really is a child inside a mother’s womb while she’s pregnant and not just a clump of cells like I hear abortion doctors say over and over,” Halstead said.

There are currently about 13 members in the group. For it to become an RSO, Halstead said they need 21 people to sign a petition, a constitution and an adviser on campus, then they need the approval of Associated Student Government.

Sophomore elementary education and Spanish major Lauren Brown said if ESU Students for Life is an RSO, more students will get involved.

“I think it’s going to make it a lot more accessible for students around campus and it will make it more well-known as well,” Brown said.

At their meeting on Monday, officers were elected, the mission statement was discussed and members planned a movie night featuring the film “Juno,” scheduled for 8 p.m. March 11. Halstead said she hopes to have the event on campus.

“We just planned our movie night with the movie ‘Juno’ because she’s a teenager and it’s kind of controversial in the abortion issue,” Halstead said.

The group has been meeting Monday nights at the Didde Catholic Campus Center, but Halstead said she wants to move to a room somewhere on campus in order to encourage non-Catholic involvement.
“For now, I think we’re going to keep our meetings here but I think we’re gonna get a room on campus so that it becomes more welcoming to people and not just tied down because I know the church can be kind of intimidating sometimes,” Halstead said.

Halstead said that although being pro-life is a big part of being Catholic, people outside of the church believe in the movement too.

“From going to the March for Life in Washington two Januarys in high school, it’s not just Catholics who believe that,” Halstead said. “All around the nation and different faiths, different beliefs, different public standpoints or political standpoints, so I really would like to branch out to other organizations.”

Halstead said she decided to start the group after attending the Fellowship of Catholic University Students (FOCUS) national conference in Orlando, Florida, over winter break. A speaker there, Lila Rose, was 21 and had been working for the pro-life movement since she was about 15 years old.

“I heard her speak and that really kind of inspired me to bring something back on campus,” Halstead said.

Junior elementary education major Taryn Lobmeyer said she joined the group because she is against abortions. She said the people in the group are great.

“They’re fun to hang out with and fun to be around with and they’ll help you through anything,” Lobmeyer said.

Brown said she likes being around others who share her pro-life standpoint and she hopes other people help support them.

“I like being around people who share my beliefs and who share my convictions and who see it as an important issue that needs to be tackled and needs to be dealt with as a society and being able to do what we can as students,” Brown said.

Send article as PDF to

After a weekend of delays, former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius’ nomination for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Obama was confirmed Tuesday.

But last Thursday, in one of her final acts as governor of Kansas, Sebelius vetoed House Substitute for Senate Bill 389, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act.

Originally passed through the Kansas Senate with fewer votes than would be required to override a governor’s veto, the bill would have created tighter restrictions on late-term abortions and provided legal avenues for patients and relatives of patients to bring civil suits against doctors who provided late-term abortions in violation of Kansas law.

The text of the bill requires that women who are about to receive a late-term receive documentation stating the reasons for the abortion and the physician’s approval, and states among other things that “such documentation… shall be provided to the pregnant woman no less than 30 minutes before the abortion is initiated.”

The bill also states that “a cause of action for injunctive relief may be maintained against anyone… who is about to perform an act in violation of this section.”

In a statement last Thursday, Sebelius cited concerns that this portion of the bill could be used to intimidate women who are about to receive an abortion, or to create situations where a woman could be kept from receiving an abortion by a relative or spouse.

But for some Emporia State students, abortion is less about legislation and more about personal morality.

“As a Catholic, I really don’t believe abortion is right,” said Melissa Beck, graduate student in library science. “I really think there probably should be restrictions on late-term abortions, because you’re really ending a life there.”

In cases where the mother’s life is at risk, or when the pregnancy results from a rape, the lines of morality become more blurred, Beck said.

“Usually a woman’s body is pretty good at knowing when a baby is a life-threatening danger, and that’s when a miscarriage will take care of it,” Beck said. “But I guess it would be acceptable to have an abortion if the mother’s life is in danger, and if you get raped, well, who wants that reminder for nine months?”

Other students said they see even fewer circumstances in which an abortion is acceptable.

“My pro-life feelings are really strict, actually,” said Sergio Segura, freshman pre-optometry major. “I just don’t think there’s any excuse for taking the life of innocent kids who have no say in the decision like that, there’s really no circumstances in which a person should be allowed to end an innocent life.”

Segura also said that legislation on abortion should be a state- or locally-decided issue and that the federal government should have no say in the matter.

“I really don’t like the idea of the federal government having a say in the issue,” Segura said. “Each state should be allowed to voice its own decision.”

Other students said they see abortion as an issue of privacy and believe that no government prerogative can match the right of a woman to choose whether or not to keep a pregnancy.

“I hate when people try to force their beliefs on others with regards to abortion,” said Ashley Gillett, freshman secondary English education major. “It is and should be a matter of choice, and no person should hold that power over another one.”

Gillett also said that part of that right to choose includes the right of each state to decide for itself what legislation should exist regarding abortion laws.

Sebelius’ nomination to the cabinet position had been delayed from last Thursday in part because of concerns over campaign contributions she had received from Kansas abortion clinic director George Tiller.

Send article as PDF to