I don't really blame the school. If you go to college for a scholarship, you're expected to compete and perform. That's what they're getting the money for. I think it's rather up to the athlete not to get pregnant.
The trouble is, colleges already discriminate against mothers.
They have "women's centers" staffed by people who don't believe motherhood and studenthood are compatible (despite the single mothers who go back to school so they can support their children on a decent income), and therefore see abortion as the only option for pregnant students.
They do not provide on-campus day care, or housing alternatives for students in dorms who find themselves pregnant mid-year.
This is not about forcing students to be responsible (which one can't legally do with an 18 year old anyway). It is about dealing with a pregnancy after it has already happened, in a way that does not endanger the life of the unborn child.
It's not up to a university or an independent scholarship program to tell an adult woman she isn't allowed to get pregnant, especially when you consider that there are college students at the undergraduate and graduate levels who are married.
This is why I wanted to know how these schools treat other temporarily inability to compete. And it is temporary.
Yeah, it's unfair to expect the university to pony up the dough for somebody who's no longer keeping her end of the bargain. But since pregnancy is an expectable event, there do need to be policies that, if nothing else, put the girl in touch with resources for when her scholarship is given to somebody who will actually be able to compete.
And the folks who say they are prochoice and that abortion is empowering need to be asking how they're building a world where abortion empowers everybody but the woman on the abortion table.
Here's where we coddle irresponsibility to keep people from exercising an option they shouldn't have to begin with.
Scholarshipped athletes are paid to compete. Pregnant women can't compete. Should we pay them to do nothing?
I had a choir scholarship in college (yes, I hang my head in shame, I was that big a dork). If I caught laryngitis and was unable to sing, I would have had my scholarship removed- not punitively, but because I was no longer able to fufill my end of the bargain.
Pregnancy is not like laryngitis. It takes action, effort to get pregnant. You don't get pregnant from not washing your hands or getting sneezed on.
But yet, we should coddle these women so they don't kill their kids (kids they chose to create by their own actions) to avoid the consequences of, once again, their own actions.
I am a proud member of Feminists for Life- and I believe that society should accept that women have babies and should have reasonable accomodations for that biological fact. Women do deserve better than abortion.
But in this case, women are putting their scholarships on the line by having sex- most of them because they have every intention of aborting if they get pregnant. And those that might want to get paid to do nothing have lifers fighting for them- just so they don't murder their own babies. These women weren't forced into getting pregnant. They chose to risk there own scholarships- they weren't forced to choose between their baby or their scholarship. They could have chosen their scholarship by not getting pregnant.
So essentially, by having prolifers champion their cause, they're saying, "Give me a scholarship for free- or the unborn baby gets it!" Seems jacked up to me.
But an athlete who gets his leg broken in a skiing accident, or gets a concussion from riding a motorcycle, or falls down the stairs because he'd been drinking all night, is also out of play due to his own actions. How do we handle those situations? Do they lose the scholarship entirely? Or are they put on the bench until they're able to compete again, and have to put in extra time? I don't know. But I think that pregnancy shouldn't be singled out for "You lose your scholarship" if other temporary inabilities to compete don't lose it.
For many of us, though, pregnancy IS just like an injury, or an illness, because it`s a temporary period of time in which are bodies are incapacitated by physical symptoms, to the point where we are not healthy and simply cannot normally function.
I think everything depends on the circumstances. An athlete who falls down the stairs and breaks his leg because he's been drinking all night SHOULD lose his scholarship if he can`t play. Similarly, I think an athlete who gets pregnant from consensual intercourse and decides to keep her baby should also lose her scholarship, if the pregnancy means she can`t compete -- but what if she got pregnant from a date rape? Then, perhaps, the compassionate answer would be to allow her to keep her scholarship. It all depends on the circumstances of the indivdual`s condition -- and, perhaps, also whether or not the school/sports program in question can afford to be compassionate.
8 comments:
I don't really blame the school. If you go to college for a scholarship, you're expected to compete and perform. That's what they're getting the money for. I think it's rather up to the athlete not to get pregnant.
The trouble is, colleges already discriminate against mothers.
They have "women's centers" staffed by people who don't believe motherhood and studenthood are compatible (despite the single mothers who go back to school so they can support their children on a decent income), and therefore see abortion as the only option for pregnant students.
They do not provide on-campus day care, or housing alternatives for students in dorms who find themselves pregnant mid-year.
This is not about forcing students to be responsible (which one can't legally do with an 18 year old anyway). It is about dealing with a pregnancy after it has already happened, in a way that does not endanger the life of the unborn child.
It's not up to a university or an independent scholarship program to tell an adult woman she isn't allowed to get pregnant, especially when you consider that there are college students at the undergraduate and graduate levels who are married.
This is why I wanted to know how these schools treat other temporarily inability to compete. And it is temporary.
Yeah, it's unfair to expect the university to pony up the dough for somebody who's no longer keeping her end of the bargain. But since pregnancy is an expectable event, there do need to be policies that, if nothing else, put the girl in touch with resources for when her scholarship is given to somebody who will actually be able to compete.
And the folks who say they are prochoice and that abortion is empowering need to be asking how they're building a world where abortion empowers everybody but the woman on the abortion table.
Here's where we coddle irresponsibility to keep people from exercising an option they shouldn't have to begin with.
Scholarshipped athletes are paid to compete. Pregnant women can't compete. Should we pay them to do nothing?
I had a choir scholarship in college (yes, I hang my head in shame, I was that big a dork). If I caught laryngitis and was unable to sing, I would have had my scholarship removed- not punitively, but because I was no longer able to fufill my end of the bargain.
Pregnancy is not like laryngitis. It takes action, effort to get pregnant. You don't get pregnant from not washing your hands or getting sneezed on.
But yet, we should coddle these women so they don't kill their kids (kids they chose to create by their own actions) to avoid the consequences of, once again, their own actions.
I am a proud member of Feminists for Life- and I believe that society should accept that women have babies and should have reasonable accomodations for that biological fact. Women do deserve better than abortion.
But in this case, women are putting their scholarships on the line by having sex- most of them because they have every intention of aborting if they get pregnant. And those that might want to get paid to do nothing have lifers fighting for them- just so they don't murder their own babies. These women weren't forced into getting pregnant. They chose to risk there own scholarships- they weren't forced to choose between their baby or their scholarship. They could have chosen their scholarship by not getting pregnant.
So essentially, by having prolifers champion their cause, they're saying, "Give me a scholarship for free- or the unborn baby gets it!" Seems jacked up to me.
But an athlete who gets his leg broken in a skiing accident, or gets a concussion from riding a motorcycle, or falls down the stairs because he'd been drinking all night, is also out of play due to his own actions. How do we handle those situations? Do they lose the scholarship entirely? Or are they put on the bench until they're able to compete again, and have to put in extra time? I don't know. But I think that pregnancy shouldn't be singled out for "You lose your scholarship" if other temporary inabilities to compete don't lose it.
Suspend the scholarship? I dunno.
So we should "red shirt" pregnant girls?
I just hate to equate a pregnancy with an injury.
For many of us, though, pregnancy IS just like an injury, or an illness, because it`s a temporary period of time in which are bodies are incapacitated by physical symptoms, to the point where we are not healthy and simply cannot normally function.
I think everything depends on the circumstances. An athlete who falls down the stairs and breaks his leg because he's been drinking all night SHOULD lose his scholarship if he can`t play. Similarly, I think an athlete who gets pregnant from consensual intercourse and decides to keep her baby should also lose her scholarship, if the pregnancy means she can`t compete -- but what if she got pregnant from a date rape? Then, perhaps, the compassionate answer would be to allow her to keep her scholarship. It all depends on the circumstances of the indivdual`s condition -- and, perhaps, also whether or not the school/sports program in question can afford to be compassionate.
Jacque, I was a choir geek, too -- but not good enough to get a scholarship out of it. :)
Post a Comment