BY ANTHONY RAMIREZ ‘16

With a presidential election coming up in November that may include some very controversial candidates, politics is a big subject of conversation at Saint Ignatius. Most seniors will be able to vote in the election, so it is easy to see feuding camps in support Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, and even Donald J. Trump. From calm conversations at lunch to heated debates between the democratic and conservative caucuses, students are really showing a vested interest in the race for the presidency.

This race is different from others in the past because of the way the candidates interact with each other and their immoderate views. I hate to give credit to Donald Trump for anything, but he seems to be primarily responsible for this shake up on the Republican side. He has pulled the Republican party farther right than even the party heads such as Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan desire. Talking to conservatives at Ignatius about Trump has garnered pretty consistent responses. “Traditional republicans want someone who can represent their views, not a extremist and a racist” says Connor Reilly ‘16. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz seem to be more favored by more traditional republicans and by Saint Ignatius students I interviewed.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders has pushed the Democratic party even farther left than usual, claiming to be a “democratic socialist.” “I think all the other politicians don’t care, but Bernie actually cares about the welfare of the nation and the people” says Matthew Walcutt ‘16 echoing the sentiments of many like-minded democratic Ignatians. Though Sanders has a lot of support by young liberals and has even upset Clinton in many state primaries, he is behind in delegate count (especially when taking into account superdelegate support). Hillary Clinton represents the more moderate liberal constituents, though she seems to lack support on our campus. Patrick Gleydura ‘16 stated that “Generally young people seem to be more idealistic and lean farther to the extremes, that’s why Bernie seems like the more appealing candidate.”

Saint Ignatius hosts a good mix of views of social, economic, and political, so choosing a candidate as a “frontrunner” for the entire student body would be a difficult task. Catholic social teaching has a large influence over many students which causes many views to transcend parties lines. I wish all those who are voting the best of luck trying to discern which candidate they should vote for and I hope that everyone takes the time to understand their candidates views before making an informed decision.

BY JACK SEELEY ‘16

Some 40 years ago, the Supreme Court’s decision to provide women the right to have an abortion was established. Since then, the decision has generated considerable opposition that spreads in ever y direction across the US. Each year, the March for Life in D.C. inspires hundreds of thousands to protest outside the nation’s highest court in order to signify their grievances with the Roe v. Wade ruling. These protests extend as far as Saint Ignatius.

Towards the end of ever y Januar y, one would have to be in complete isolation to miss the signs of our school’s own version of the March for Life. Posters line the walls, prayers give reference to abortion, and theology classes visit the chapel, praying to overturn the decision. The commemoration of Roe v. Wade on our campus is one that rivals the intensity of The Holy War or the Chariot Races. There is a seemingly ubiquitous presence of this court case on campus, and it only serves to exemplify the sincerity Ignatians take to an issue such as this.

Yet, the signs I read and the prayers I hear are missing something critical to the conversation. The posters seem to allude to a certain voicelessness these aborted children have. But what is most notably missing and without a voice in the conversation we hold around campus is a group that is just as voiceless as the children: women.

The debate over abortion and reproductive rights transcends the confines of our school. The absence of large numbers of women at Ignatius leaves out an entirely different perspective on abortion. Yet, we instruct our students to confront an issue that requires two perspectives with only one. It’s not just that we don’t teach the other side of abortion, it’s far worse: We pretend that it doesn’t even exist.
The posters around campus do, however, mention women. They preach that abortion is a violation of women. They say that abortion goes against feminism. They teach that women deserve better than the consequences of abortion.

But one must ask, in all of this: Do we really have the right to impose our values on a group of people that constitute 50% of the population? Our campus is undeniably made up of an almost overwhelming number of men. Should we continue to allow our sense of duty to continue perpetuating a culture that puts others into submission?

The impact of Roe v. Wade on our society is likely to be felt for many years to come. All I ask is that Ignatius go about teaching abortion to its students differently; it need not change its message, but rather, its approach. We shouldn’t pretend that our own way of thinking is the only way to think about abortion, or even pregnancy in general. Insisting doctrine upon its students without the proper background or insight may help us to be men of faith, but men without the ability to truly think, or even worse, the ability to listen. If we’re able to gain a capacity to understand the feelings of those around us, maybe Saint Ignatius could create a generation of students with both the principles and perspective to change the world for the better.

BY ROBERT HILBIG ‘16

On January 22, 1973, in the infamous Roe v. Wade court case, the Supreme Court of the United States made the decision that abortion would be legal in all 50 states. Pro-choice advocates, more accurately pro-abortion advocates, argue that the fetus is merely a part of the mother and that the government should not interfere with a mother’s right to do what she wishes with her own body. Prolife advocates argue that the child is a unique and sacred human life and that the killing of any unborn child is the murder of an innocent human being. I believe that being prolife protects the fundamental right of every human being; the right to life.

In essence, the idea of an abortion comes in a situation where the mother has been convinced by herself or others that there are no other options than to end the life of her child. This very idea is ridiculous, as there are always other options. Their concerns for having this child can be medical, social, or other, but abor tion is always wrong. If you choose to end your child’s life because you are afraid of what people will think or because of the situation you are in, then you need to reevaluate your understanding of morality and respect for sacred human life.

Many pro-abortion advocates argue that the child is not a human life and that it is just a part of the mother; like tonsils, an appendix, or wisdom teeth. However, it is scientifically proven that the fetus is a human life and in fact, unique and distinct from the mother. The sperm and the egg both contain human DNA and at the point of conception create a unique and individual human being that has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Once one can accept the certainty that the fetus is indeed a human life then all one needs to do is accept the immorality of taking an innocent life. The government’s job is to protect the innocent and by allowing abortion to be legal it is failing to do its job. Yes, the woman has a right to control her own body but only to a certain extent, hence laws against drugs, suicide, and other self harm. However, abortion does not involve the right of one body but rather the right of two.

A woman can not decide to end her child’s life because she feels the fetus is a part of her or that the fetus is incapable of choosing life or death. Imagine if you were a self-conscious fetus in your mother’s womb and she gave you the option to live or die, what would you choose? Where you are (in the womb or outside the womb) and your ability to voice an opinion should not be the difference in whether you live or die.

“Just because I will never know what it is like to go through pregnancy does not mean I can’t believe that the taking of an innocent human life is immoral and evil.”

One argument pro-abortion advocates tend to lean on is the premise that males can’t give an accurate judgment on abortion because they will never know what it is like to be pregnant. Out of all the arguments for abortion, this one makes the least sense. Are there not millions of women in the United States who are against abor tion? Are there not millions of women in the United States against abortion who have never been pregnant? One’s gender does not dictate whether or not that person can make a moral decision. I, as a male, am fully capable of making a moral decision based on what is right.

Just because I will never know what it is like to go through pregnancy does not mean I can’t believe that the taking of an innocent human life is immoral and evil.

According to www.politifact.com, there areover one million abor tions in the United States ever y year and over 54 million since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. That number is greater than all of the Americans killed in battle since the Revolutionar y War combined! This senseless killing needs to be stopped. Your life is just as sacred and meaningful as the life of an unborn child.