Render unto Caesar…

As the Mexican legislature starts to consider two bills that would legalize abortion, the Vatican has announced that it is dispatching a leading official to lobby legislators to keep abortion illegal. Is the Church overstepping its bounds by ignoring the needs of women? Or is the Vatican serving a legitimate moral purpose by lobbying for pro-life policies?

The Roman Catholic Church is organizing protests in Mexico City to fight legislation that would legalize abortion during the first three months of pregnancy. Current law only allows abortion in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life. There is nothing wrong with the Church taking these actions. Mexico is about 90 percent Catholic and has a very conservative culture. The Church is against abortion now and has been throughout history. It should not change its stance to align with liberal lawmakers. Since the overwhelming majority of the people are conservative, the laws should reflect that.

– Joyanna Jones is a journalism senior.

The Church does not speak on behalf of all Catholics – according to a 1995 Time/CNN poll, 82 percent of Catholics think abortion should be legal in some circumstances. Making abortion completely illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or if the life or health of the mother is endangered, is callous. This proposal doesn’t recognize legitimate reasons women choose to terminate their pregnancies – the least controversial being domestic violence or sexual assault. Additionally, many Latin American countries do not allow abortions under any circumstances, and the death rate of mothers per 100,000 terminated pregnancies is 100 times higher than in the U.S. The Church’s extreme pro-life stance does not prioritize the lives of pregnant women.

– Allison Dumka is a political science senior.

So long, super seniors

Friday, the Wildcat reported that the UA administration is aiming to improve the six-year graduation rate to 60 percent in the next year and 80 percent by 2012. Who do you think is responsible for ensuring that students graduate on time?

Look, increased graduation rates are important, but the university administration is framing the problem all wrong. Instead of focusing on how to get current students out of here more quickly, we should be concerned with attracting students from the outset who care to graduate in four years – and that means higher admissions standards. Higher standards appeal to better students, and better students are way more likely to do their thing in four (or less). If we really want to raise our graduation rate, we’d do well to exclude students early who’ll take longer, and that means setting our entrance bar a little higher than automatically admitting Arizona students who are in the top 25 percent of their high school class.

– Stan Molever is a philosophy senior.

The university’s efforts to bump up the six-year graduation rate to 60 percent should be lauded. It’s an easy enough proposition, because the current six-year rate stands at about 59 percent. But faculty can only go so far to help students graduate. Sure, the university can do its part to ensure that students don’t drink too much or change their majors every other semester, but the onus should mostly fall on the students themselves. If you’re hung over on a weekday or you’ve never visited an adviser, there’s no one else to blame but you if it takes you more than six years
to graduate.

– David Francis is a pre-business sophomore.