Yale University Holds First-Ever Pro-Life Conference

Yale University Holds First-Ever Pro-Life Conference October 24, 2013


According to a first-person account from LifeNews.com, Yale University recently held it’s first pro life conference. The conference was called Vita et Veritas.

The event was hosted by Choose Life at Yale, the campus pro life group. Speakers included representatives from the American Life League, Feminists for Life, and Secular Pro life.

From LifeNews.com:

This past weekend, CLAY hosted the first pro-life conference at Yale, called “Vita et Veritas” which means “life and truth” in Latin. Vita et Veritas is a conference that seeks to make the pro-life vision intelligible on college campuses. The event took place at the St. Thomas Moore Chapel with speakers who represented different pro-life perspectives on abortion.

Some of the speakers included Clark Forsythe from Americans United for Life; Hardley Arkes, a faculty member of Amherst College, who was the main architect of the bill that became know as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and author of the book Natural Rights and the Right to Choose“; William L. Saunders, Senior VP for Legal Affairs at Americans United for Life; and Matt Bennett, founder and president of the Christian Union. The full list of speakers and their bios can be foundhere.

The conference had an interfaith panel that discussed the importance of cooperation in the pro-life community between religious and secular groups. This panel included Suzy Ismail from the Center for Muslim Life and Secular Pro-Life President Kelsey Hazzard. Ismail said that many Muslims don’t speak out against abortion, despite having pro-life views. She has been told herself to not talk about abortion when she’s spoken at Muslim conferences. Yet she believes that Muslims have a responsibility to speak out on the issue of abortion. Secular Pro-Life President Hazzard says there are 6 million Americans who are non-religious and pro-life. She represents their voice as she seeks to raise awareness.

Sally Winn, Vice President of Feminists for Life, was also a guest speaker. She gave a talk entitled “Refuse to Choose: Reclaiming Feminism,” in which she discussed how she became pregnant while in college and kept her child. Winn acknowledged how hard it was raising a child in college, with little support, no day care for undergraduates, and no changing tables at the university.

She discussed Yale’s basic health plan, which fully covers abortions yet doesn’t cover the costs of most deliveries. She stated that a student could have to pay $400 out of pocket for a delivery even with “Hospitalization/Specialty Coverage.” Those conditions make it much easier for students to abort than give birth to their children.

Winn is advocating the need for universities to improve their resources so mothers on campus will feel the freedom to have children on campus. She told the Yale Daily News, “I think the future is really bright if we focus on what women need[.] … In my daughter’s lifetime it will be more commonplace for pregnant women to be on college campuses.”

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

24 responses to “Yale University Holds First-Ever Pro-Life Conference”

  1. Go Yale. And a question: how many pro-life conferences like this are being held at Catholic universities, I wonder?

  2. I am all for pro-life efforts to provide alternatives to abortion without insisting that it be prohibited by law. Those who want to make it illegal are seen as posing a threat to women’s rights by pro-choice advocates.

  3. This is my initiale anger on the so caled christianity and Pro-life gruops.
    The sheer hypocracy, between fighting for life, and the gapp, to thereas the lifes future is totaly neglected and overlooked.

    To care about the unborn is one thing, to care about the living is exactly the same, to even weghten the issues in, or againt eatch others, is for me, a greater sin or ecuall to killing it before it grows.
    In ancient times, a child was always planned in before hand, and in bad times, they where simply killed, if the food runned out, but always after the grandparents either comitted suicide or was putt alseep by the family at large, all in the name of life, is this evil, that depends entirly on epririences and circumstances of life.

    Never, ever forgett the responcebility we all have regading children, any idiot can make a child, to rise it, requires an entire village.
    If the pro-life people is to have any credibility, intergety and morale left somewhere in there, the focus should be on the child, all the way to responcable addult, and for Men its in the early 30, and since women are generally smarter, and earlyer reaches addulthood, in the midd 20, only then are people addult in my world viue.
    The rest is semantics.


  4. Legalizing abortion implies tacit approval of it by the government. We are a country that approves of mothers allowing their own innocent offspring to be terminated for whatever reason and at whatever stage. What are the residual effects? Lack of dignity and respect for our greatest resource, human life.

  5. The Supreme Court decision just rules that the government can’t take away a woman’s right to an abortion. The government doesn’t force anyone to have one. The government is doing what a government should do. It is the woman having the abortion who is not doing what she should do. In a great country like this, it is her decision. No one is forcing her to carry and bear a child if she chooses not to.

  6. I would agree that Roe v. Wade essentially decriminalized abortion. However, in the years that have followed, we’ve seen a clear movement towards making abortion a positive right–that is, something women are entitled to, and which others are entitled to provide them with. While the government may not be forcing women to have abortions, it is certainly making it an attractive option, and is certainly tying to force others into helping women procure them.

    Additionally, we now have crazy schizophrenic laws because of this so-called right. A “baby” can be a victim of murder at the same fetal stage that she can be aborted, etc., etc.. It is, quite literally, insanity.

  7. I watched a Nova special on YouTube called “The Greatest Miracle” which shows life in the womb. I can see how people can disagree on what stage they would find an abortion to be repulsive. What I can’t see is the insistence that it is unacceptable at any stage. Because those people exist, I refuse to give in to any limitation whatsoever. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

  8. The question isn’t at what stage it is repulsive, the question is at which stage does life begin, and why we allow people to define something so important for themselves. Pro-lifers are the ones who are anti-science? Hardly. It’s the folks committed to to allowing a free-for-all in human-life definition who are superstitious and irrational. We could perform nice, clean, non-repulsive murders of all kinds of people, with no one needing to look–doesn’t make it right.

  9. Life begins when an egg is fertilized. But taking a life at that early stage should not be looked at as all that serious. Not all fertilized eggs turn into fully developed fetuses. Objections to abortion at such an early stage are ideologically driven. Those who envision some sort of ensoulment take exception to any abortion at any time after fertilization. That is the problem.

  10. Ah, so you believe ensoulment, rather than a living body, is the marker? I don’t believe that I’m the one applying an ideological or religious marker, here! Unless, of course, the application of reason and science are now ideological in themselves. . .but I believe only an ideologue would make that argument.

  11. Well, if we put aside all notions of ensoulment then we are left with the ethical question of when, at what stage of development, should we protect a human embryo/fetus.

    Those who say at conception shoot themselves in the foot and no one is interested in trying to reason with them. The best way to deal with such people is to not give them an inch lest they take a mile. If they can get you to set a limit, they can keep pushing to lower that limit as they try to eventually get it to zero. It is best not to give them anything to get up their hopes and embolden them.

  12. Bill, NONE of my reasons for being against abortion are based on ensoulment. I don’t think anyone else’s are, either. In all my years as a pro life person, I have never heard anyone use this. I think you are creating a straw man, and a rather over-used one.

    The reason for not having an abortion is because it is killing a human being. I’ve been over this many time with you, and you simply ignore it. There is no point after conception where you are not dealing with a human being. Laws that define human beings as unworthy of life because of their age or faculties are a horror. This is what every form of discrimination and mass murder is based on.

    There is no group of people you can put a definition around and set outside the boundaries of humanity without also giving the lawmakers who do this the power to kill anyone. If you can do it to any group of people, then, the philosophy is in place to do it at will to all.

    Aside from all the moralities, abortion on demand is bad law.

    Now, as for you. You’ve said here on this blog that you participated in the abortion of your own first child. You can be forgiven for this Bill. Your baby is praying for you from heaven right now. Perhaps it was your baby’s prayer that saved you when you tried to kill yourself.

    But first, you have got to stop denying that what you did was wrong. I know from personal experience how painful this kind of facing up is. I also know that God’s forgiveness is real and that it is greater than any sin any of us can commit.

    You have to admit and face what you did and allow yourself to grieve it. Just ask God and your baby to forgive you Bill.

    And then forgive yourself.

  13. You have to admit and face what you did and allow yourself to grieve it. Just ask God and your baby to forgive you Bill.

    There is only one person whose forgiveness I would give anything to have. It isn’t God and it isn’t a ten week old fetus. It is the young girl who loved me and whom I used for my own gratification and then abandoned. It’s the worst thing I ever did in my life and she is the only one who can forgive me. I hope that she has. I don’t care about the rest. My worldview has been corrected in such a way that I know whose forgiveness I need.

  14. It sounds as if you do need her forgiveness Bill. But your worldview hasn’t been corrected. It’s been twisted. Everyone does evil in their lives. We all do. You need to go to God with these things and stop trying to justify them.

  15. Since it happened over 40 years ago and I have been devout for a good portion of that time, I’ve obviously done what you say I should do. I just see it differently now. I am more focused on what I did to her and much less concerned about offending the intelligence behind all that is and a fetus. And don’t say you don’t think about ensoulment because you have assigned a soul and a personality to a fetus.

  16. Bill, you’re conflating “soul,” “personality,” and “ensoulment” in ways that are unhelpful and unclear. A human body, uynless it is dead, is both body and soul. “Ensoulment” is an unhelpful term, and frankly not one I find must use for–a human being is a human being, period. “Personality” is an entirely different thing altogether, which applies more to the social persona one uses in interactions with others that to an essential sense of self one has.

  17. A human body is not body and soul. It is body, period. That’s where all this pro-life sentiment gets it all wrong.

  18. Even if there is no soul Bill, you are still advocating the killing of a whole class of human beings for no other reason than that they are part of that class of human beings.

  19. Which is less humane? Killing a full grown animal or aborting a partially formed fetus? The truth of the matter is that slaughtering a cow or pig or shooting a deer kills a being that is much more intelligent and susceptible to suffering than a human fetus. The fetus might have more potential than the animal but so what?

  20. Why have you turned towards a false dichotomy, as if that answers the question? Saying that animals are intelligent in no way diminishes the fact that you’re arguing for the killing of a whole class of human beings. It’s just a dodge.

  21. Yes, a whole class of human beings. Those not wanted by their mothers. Sad as that may sound, it is the reality that trumps any and all other realities. If the woman doesn’t want a child, no one should be able to force her to carry it from conception to birth. No one has a right to impose that on a woman.