L.I.F.E. Club would like to offer a response to the article criticizing the panel discussion. Regarding the preparation, we had a last-minute cancellation because one panelist had to attend to tragic family matters. We contacted professors from diverse disciplines to fill his spot, but all had previous plans. We will gladly include Pro-choice panelists when individuals are willing to publicly advocate this stance.
L.I.F.E. Club believes that God creates life, and life is precious. Although all panelists were Pro-life, they acknowledged different views in varied circumstances. Perhaps our intentions would have been clarified if titled “An Abortion Discussion from Various Christian Perspectives.” Dean Jordan was open-minded, hence his inclusion in the panel. Each panelist’s view played a vital role in the discussion. Labeling someone a “Bible thumper” was a personal insult, rather than a refutation for his arguments. Furthermore, no Christian can prove that the Bible is a metaphor. Whether metaphorical or not, the value of human life as created by God is clearly communicated throughout Scripture. Accordingly, the first question addressed was, “When does life begin?”
In regards to the panel announcement email: it was not meant to appall anyone; there are countless photos we could have chosen if our purpose was to “horrify” everyone. We intentionally worded the title as a question to get people thinking about how abortion has been referred to as “A Modern Day Holocaust”. We sought to evaluate the truth value of this metaphor, NOT to accuse anyone. We did not blame anyone for perpetuating a Holocaust, nor did we equate anyone to Nazis. Attendees who listened heard that panelists did not relate abortion to a new Holocaust because the Holocaust eradicated innocent lives due to pure evil hatred, while abortion does not typically occur due to a mother’s hatred of her fetus. The email stated that discussion would feature questions such as “What does the Bible say about abortion?” and “When does life really begin?” It encouraged people to ask questions and discuss stances. Given those facts, we do not understand how it “suggested that one viewpoint would automatically dominate the event”. Questions were open-ended so they could be addressed in further detail, which is what happened. We recognize that there are various perspectives related to abortion, but time did not allow for us to discuss each one. We trusted that audience members would question and comment about Pro-choice views when given the opportunity. We did not anticipate everyone to gain a full understanding or acceptance of every issue discussed, but hoped that this would induce future conversation.
Even on a campus that claims to live out Christian ideals, we cannot expect all God’s children to agree upon a “correct response” to contentious topics. Everybody interprets Scripture differently no matter which denomination we identify ourselves with. Incontrovertibly, individuals will not agree with every chapel service but can evaluate their own understanding of Scripture, instead of criticizing everything the speaker said with which they disagreed.
We truly apologize if we offended anyone. Our goal was to promote deep thought about issues which often remain silent in our community. All positions cannot be understood if we are afraid to begin talking, for fear of offending people whose beliefs differ from our own. We think the panel was not a “disappointment,” but rather a time to reflect on our opinions concerning this matter as it relates to our lives as Christians. Panelists believed that we should sympathetically support those who have been affected by abortion. We recognize that though everyone acknowledges different views, as believers, we are united by the Word of God, which declares that love will triumph above all dissension.
