Mentioning a pro-life club

[Kingfish]

I was vice-president for a pro-life club and I am just wondering if I should put this on my ECs or not. I am pretty proud of what I did with the club, doubled membership and organized a rally. However, I know this is a really touchy subject and I don't want to seem like a hardliner. I hate arguing about it and kind of dropped the whole subject after a year. Here is how I entered it.

My biggest accomplishment as vice-president was actively recruiting seven new members, doubling the size of the club. I also organized and facilitated the club's annual pro-life rally on campus. The rally included speakers, performers, and exhibits and was featured in the school newspaper. While working with the club I learned to value other perspectives and to look at issues from both sides.

I need help quick, I'm going to be submitting in an hour.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[armybound]

It's a quality EC which showed responsibility and leadership.

Expect to get in a debate at an interview, but as long as you can agree to disagree, you should be fine. I don't think they'll reject anyone based on their stances on these types of issues.

others may feel differently, though

 

[Abilene85]

I would mention it. You were so important to the group and you accomplished so much, it would be a shame to leave all that work off your application for fear of being judged by someone pro-choice. Plus, you're proud of it! Health care workers are divided on this issue, and adcoms will realize this.

Also, it is likely touchy subjects like this will come up in your interviews anyway. I was asked what I would do if a 14 year old girl came to me and asked for an abortion...AND she didn't want her parents to know.

 

[chaldobruin]

I was vice-president for a pro-life club and I am just wondering if I should put this on my ECs or not. I am pretty proud of what I did with the club, doubled membership and organized a rally. However, I know this is a really touchy subject and I don't want to seem like a hardliner. I hate arguing about it and kind of dropped the whole subject after a year. Here is how I entered it.

My biggest accomplishment as vice-president was actively recruiting seven new members, doubling the size of the club. I also organized and facilitated the club's annual pro-life rally on campus. The rally included speakers, performers, and exhibits and was featured in the school newspaper. While working with the club I learned to value other perspectives and to look at issues from both sides.

I need help quick, I'm going to be submitting in an hour.

I say you should keep it as one of your EC's on AMCAS. Sounds like you were heavily involved and you exhibited leadership in your role, so it is something to be proud of. Doubtful that you would be discriminated against, especially since most medical schools are conservative at least to my knowledge (though I may be wrong).

 

[trevagandalf]

I think that you put it very well in your description, focusing on your leadership within the club rather than the pro-life discussion itself. I would definetly say that you should include it.

 

[Kingfish]

Thanks guys, I was really on the fence about this one. Much appreciated.

 

[valiteq]

I wouldn't put it on there. Too polarizing of an issue - and most academicians are liberal. The majority won't agree with your stance (unless they are at a religious institution) - so why risk it? Its just one activity, right? If it was pro-choice I would say put it on there. But I had too many interviewers tell me just how terrible the republican party is.

 

[rmorriso]

I wouldn't put it on there. Too polarizing of an issue - and most academicians are liberal. The majority won't agree with your stance (unless they are at a religious institution) - so why risk it? Its just one activity, right? If it was pro-choice I would say put it on there. But I had too many interviewers tell me just how terrible the republican party is.

I ran into the exact opposite in my experience. I had a very active role at my university in gender rights issues and on challenging and changing the definition of consent and accountability in the sexual assault and misconduct policy, generally considered very leftist positions, especially at my conservative catholic university.

One of my interviewers (a woman actually) challenged me on why I would want to challenge it at all... beyond the point of playing devils advocate. I definitely got the feeling she labeled me as a rabble rouser.

Didn't matter in the long run, but I found it somewhat curious.

 

[Dzeteo]

I wouldn't put it on there. Too polarizing of an issue - and most academicians are liberal. The majority won't agree with your stance (unless they are at a religious institution) - so why risk it? Its just one activity, right? If it was pro-choice I would say put it on there. But I had too many interviewers tell me just how terrible the republican party is.

*sighs, gets out soapbox--dusts it off, shrugs and stands on it*

I am what the left wing would call a conservative evangelical Christian, of the most dedicated to my God. And I made this VERY clear in my personal statement. I figured that if no schools wanted me for who I am, then I don't want them. If I tried to hide this part of my life, the 'silent' omission would be resoundingly deafening.

Some interviewers discussed my faith, only as I brought it up to explain why I chose to make certain decisions in my academic career. I was well received; in fact, I was accepted and from a school where the inteviewer was enlightened enough to see that this is AMERICA, where we believe our personal beliefs can enhance our professional conduct. And where we are FREE to believe in keeping unborn babies alive, and FREE to believe in the LORD, and FREE to express our beliefs and convictions. That interviewer is, by his own admission, a secular progressive humanist. He stopped the 'one-hour' interview after less than 15 minutes, closed his notebook and told me how he was going to pitch my acceptance to the adcom. Now there's an AMERICAN: a man on the opposite end of the philosophical and political spectrum that can agree to accept a man opposed to many of his own convictions.

My point is, when we do work that might be thought of as 'controversial' (either conservative or liberal), we should be proud of it if we put our heart and soul into it. It is sad to think that it is clearly OK to put a pro-abortion activity on your app, but probably not OK to put a pro-life issue there. It will be a sad day in AMERICA when we make people on one side of every issue 'afraid' to admit their stance.

Leave it on your application, it will open good discussion for you in interviews and clearly show that you are dedicated to something.

*sighs, jumps off soapbox, and puts it away for another day* 🙄

 

[proclivity]

I was vice-president for a pro-life club and I am just wondering if I should put this on my ECs or not. I am pretty proud of what I did with the club, doubled membership and organized a rally. However, I know this is a really touchy subject and I don't want to seem like a hardliner. I hate arguing about it and kind of dropped the whole subject after a year. Here is how I entered it.

My biggest accomplishment as vice-president was actively recruiting seven new members, doubling the size of the club. I also organized and facilitated the club's annual pro-life rally on campus. The rally included speakers, performers, and exhibits and was featured in the school newspaper. While working with the club I learned to value other perspectives and to look at issues from both sides.

I need help quick, I'm going to be submitting in an hour.

It would be hard not to mention being VP of a club. The point of it being a pro-life club is a matter of choice (no pun intended) about whether you will mention it or not. If you mention anything about Christianity, or nearly any religion for that matter, a good majority of people (including ADCOMs) will assume you are pro-life.

 

[PeacefulJC]

I totally agree with you Dzeteo. I think we should all be free to have our opinions and that people will understand that. I am of the belief that schools want people who have strong convictions and are willing to stand up for it rather then hide them when convenient. Kingfish, are you pro-life because of your religion? Or is it just a personal conviction? If it is because you are Christian, I would say you got to trust in God with your life and that includes getting into medical school and where you will end up. Good luck with the process and have faith!

 

[Dookter]

I don't really have an opinion on whether you should list it or not, but be prepared to talk about it if you do. You might also think about your feeling about your level of participation in abortions as a physician [i.e. would you feel comfortable getting information for a 16 year old who wants an abortion....or would you just tell her you don't even want to go there since it violates your beliefs]. If you're asked about these things, you need a way to respond. I was asked about these things, and I didn't list anything that would make them want to ask me those questions. I know I would personally not list it, but I'm definitely not going to tell you not to list it. There's always that chance that you could get a hard-liner OBGYN for an interviewer that might not appreciate your views as much as you do. People can blow that chance off as much as they want, but it is definitely something to consider. So do what you want and feel is right, but realize that being pro-life isn't some ideological framework that falls outside of medicine that can't influence an interviewer's opinion of you.

 

[Dookter]

in fact, I was accepted and from a school where the inteviewer was enlightened enough to see that this is AMERICA, where we believe our personal beliefs can enhance our professional conduct. And where we are FREE to believe in keeping unborn babies alive, and FREE to believe in the LORD, and FREE to express our beliefs and convictions.

Yep, this is America--where an interviewer is FREE to have a sour taste in his/her mouth after interviewing you and not get that warm, bubbly feeling that makes them tell the ADCOM to accept you. You can say, "Well, if they don't want me, I don't want them" all day long.... but in reality it's just one person, not the whole school. You'll have people like this at every school. You WANT to get into medical schools, not the opposite. You're definitely free to your own opinions, but you have to realize that abortion fit into the medical field, so they have the right to have a stronger opinion of you. I wouldn't be saying any of this if I didn't have all this stuff directly come up at one of my interviews where a strong pro-life answer would not have worked out so well...or at least according to the interviewer.

 

[postbacker]

I was vice-president for a pro-life club and I am just wondering if I should put this on my ECs or not. I am pretty proud of what I did with the club, doubled membership and organized a rally. However, I know this is a really touchy subject and I don't want to seem like a hardliner. I hate arguing about it and kind of dropped the whole subject after a year. Here is how I entered it.

My biggest accomplishment as vice-president was actively recruiting seven new members, doubling the size of the club. I also organized and facilitated the club's annual pro-life rally on campus. The rally included speakers, performers, and exhibits and was featured in the school newspaper. While working with the club I learned to value other perspectives and to look at issues from both sides.

I need help quick, I'm going to be submitting in an hour.

Dude, leave it off the app...no med school adcom is going to be impressed with ANY college club, even if you were an officer or "founder"...it will not help you, and it may "hurt" you...this is a no-brainer...

 

[Dookter]

It is sad to think that it is clearly OK to put a pro-abortion activity on your app, but probably not OK to put a pro-life issue there.

Also, I'm not so sure if this is true. Not everyone will willingly list pro-abortion activities. I definitely lean more pro-life, and I am a little put off when people seem super zealous about abortion stuff.... I'd say falling on either extreme of the issue is risky on an application.


EDIT: And for all you SDN people out there reading this before applying, please remember to take people's opinions with a grain of salt, INCLUDING MINE. Just b/c someone on an internet forum who happens to share your views says, "Of COURSE it's OK to express our views on applications and in interviews" doesn't necessarily mean it's always the smartest thing to do... A little bit of "group think" goes a long way...

 

[postbacker]

Also, I'm not so sure if this is true. Not everyone will willingly list pro-abortion activities. I definitely lean more pro-life, and I am a little put off when people seem super zealous about abortion stuff.... I'd say falling on either extreme of the issue is risky on an application.


EDIT: And for all you SDN people out there reading this before applying, please remember to take people's opinions with a grain of salt, INCLUDING MINE. Just b/c someone on an internet forum who happens to share your views says, "Of COURSE it's OK to express our views on applications and in interviews" doesn't necessarily mean it's always the smartest thing to do... A little bit of "group think" goes a long way...

Dookter has this one right - either extreme is risky - taking controversial or contentious social/political stands on moral and legal issues faced by physicians does not belong on a med school app...

 

[MChitty]

Also, I'm not so sure if this is true. Not everyone will willingly list pro-abortion activities. I definitely lean more pro-life, and I am a little put off when people seem super zealous about abortion stuff.... I'd say falling on either extreme of the issue is risky on an application.


EDIT: And for all you SDN people out there reading this before applying, please remember to take people's opinions with a grain of salt, INCLUDING MINE. Just b/c someone on an internet forum who happens to share your views says, "Of COURSE it's OK to express our views on applications and in interviews" doesn't necessarily mean it's always the smartest thing to do... A little bit of "group think" goes a long way...

Well said! I feel like this is similar to Personal Statements--what one person may love may rub another person the wrong way. I think in an ideal world you'd be able to state your personal opinions all you want without consequences, but in the end ADCOM members are simply human and may judge you, even if it's not fair...

 

[punkindrublic]

For pro-lifers-

If you became an ER doc and a rape victim came in and requested emergency contraception, what would you do? I know there's a lot of debate about this kind of issue recently and I read a story not too long ago where a doctor refused not only the EC, but also any sort of referral because of his personal beliefs.

Stories like this honestly make me sick. I believe that religion makes society a much better place, but I believe that as a physician you have no right to make moral or ethical decisions for your patients. I basically feel it is indistinguisable from a conflict of interest: your best interest lies in observing your faith, which may differ greatly from the best interest of the patient. Seems to me that doctors with these beliefs should recuse themselves from becoming involved with an emergency patient who may request contraceptive services they disagree with, and if they doctor is involved in primary care or OB/GYN, they should make their beliefs known to their patients (which I know more and more doctors are starting to do, generally with no detriment to their business).

 

[Haemulon]

I think that one should weigh carefully how much emphasis should be given in an application to any particularly polarizing issue. There is no right or wrong answer here, so just make sure that you think ahead to how you will address possible challenges or questions about it later on. Keep in mind that the more you emphasize or make a big deal about any particular experience or opinion, the more likely the Adcom is to focus on that aspect of your application in its evaluation of you. Discussing controversial topics and strong beliefs about issues may be more on the risky side (potentially alienating your reviewer or stigmatizing your image). Conversely, a completely risk-free and unopinionated application may be bland and otherwise uninspiring. It is a balance.

The bottom line is that if you don't want them to make a big deal about it (ie view it as just another another club/leadership experience/community involvement) then make sure you write about it that way and keep it brief. If you want your spirituality or position on an issue to be a main or strong emphasis, then you could expand your thoughts and write about it accordingly. Or if you want to be completely risk averse, you could leave it out all together and substitute other experiences. Its really all about how your want to be viewed as a candidate and what best represents you or the image that you want to portray.

 

[deleted103644]

By necessity, a lot of medical professionals will have a rather negative view of pro-lifers. (The fact that you will see them protesting outside of most major hospitals with pictures of dead embryos on a weekly basis doesn't help.) Your interviewer could very easily have a very negative response to this being on your application and although they will certainly try to keep their opinion of you objective, it could definitely have an impact on their overall assessment.

Not to start a flame war, but if you do decide to practice medicine, you should understand that your religious beliefs will have to come second to the best interests of your patients. Hopefully, there will never be a contradiction between the two, but if there is you should reconsider medicine if you cannot put your patient's interests ahead of your religious convictions. While you don't need to perform any procedures or prescribe any medications you would be uncomfortable with, I don't see how doctors could consider themselves ethical if they do not tell their patients all the possible options and refer them to other physicians for things they feel that they themselves cannot do.

 

[deleted103644]

My point is, when we do work that might be thought of as 'controversial' (either conservative or liberal), we should be proud of it if we put our heart and soul into it. It is sad to think that it is clearly OK to put a pro-abortion activity on your app, but probably not OK to put a pro-life issue there. It will be a sad day in AMERICA when we make people on one side of every issue 'afraid' to admit their stance.

Leave it on your application, it will open good discussion for you in interviews and clearly show that you are dedicated to something.

*sighs, jumps off soapbox, and puts it away for another day* 🙄

I think doctors are allowed to be a little bit hostile to - or at least suspicious of - pro-lifers, considering how hostile some pro-lifers are to doctors (think home-grown terrorism and hit lists). Feel free to insert a quote from "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" here.

 

[Steiner]

If you would prefer to attend a Catholic or Jesuit school, Creighton, Loyola, etc..., definitely include it.

 

[Catdoctor]

of including:

Pros: 1. It shows that you are a capable leader and have brought changes to your school (especially helpful if you have no other leadership experience), 2. You stand for something and are not afraid to express it even though you know its not the norm in your profession, 3. If you are applying to a religious school, it will coincide with their beliefs, 4. If you can eloquently respond to any arguments that arise from this in interviews, you get plus points

Cons: 1. Interviewers and adcoms are only people, and they may subconsciously use this against you (most of them will be pro-choice, and they've had bad experience with pro-lifers), 2. Since adcoms weigh clinical/research experiences higher than clubs, and you have enough of those, listing this won't add that much more, 3. There is always a level of risk.


So it comes down to individual schools and individual adcoms. Some may see this as a plus and some may hold it against you. There's little you can do to control that, just be prepared to defend it in interviews if you choose to include it. Just ask yourself if its worth the risk.

 

[voirlesetoiles]

Dude, leave it off the app...no med school adcom is going to be impressed with ANY college club, even if you were an officer or "founder"...it will not help you, and it may "hurt" you...this is a no-brainer...

I think, on the contrary, that AdComs are impressed by leadership activities in college clubs.

But in this case, leave it out... why put anything that might offend someone on your application? The process is tough enough as it is, if there is any sense of doubt for you in putting this down as an EC... then don't do it.

 

[sirus_virus]

Just remember 3/4 of the schools out there are liberal.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I was vice-president for a pro-life club and I am just wondering if I should put this on my ECs or not. I am pretty proud of what I did with the club, doubled membership and organized a rally. However, I know this is a really touchy subject and I don't want to seem like a hardliner. I hate arguing about it and kind of dropped the whole subject after a year. Here is how I entered it.

My biggest accomplishment as vice-president was actively recruiting seven new members, doubling the size of the club. I also organized and facilitated the club's annual pro-life rally on campus. The rally included speakers, performers, and exhibits and was featured in the school newspaper. While working with the club I learned to value other perspectives and to look at issues from both sides.
I need help quick, I'm going to be submitting in an hour.

👍 And this should take care of all those who are suggesting against it because interviewers may disagree. It's ok to disagree as long as you come across as open-minded.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

*sighs, gets out soapbox--dusts it off, shrugs and stands on it*

I am what the left wing would call a conservative evangelical Christian, of the most dedicated to my God. And I made this VERY clear in my personal statement. I figured that if no schools wanted me for who I am, then I don't want them. If I tried to hide this part of my life, the 'silent' omission would be resoundingly deafening.

Some interviewers discussed my faith, only as I brought it up to explain why I chose to make certain decisions in my academic career. I was well received; in fact, I was accepted and from a school where the inteviewer was enlightened enough to see that this is AMERICA, where we believe our personal beliefs can enhance our professional conduct. And where we are FREE to believe in keeping unborn babies alive, and FREE to believe in the LORD, and FREE to express our beliefs and convictions. That interviewer is, by his own admission, a secular progressive humanist. He stopped the 'one-hour' interview after less than 15 minutes, closed his notebook and told me how he was going to pitch my acceptance to the adcom. Now there's an AMERICAN: a man on the opposite end of the philosophical and political spectrum that can agree to accept a man opposed to many of his own convictions.

My point is, when we do work that might be thought of as 'controversial' (either conservative or liberal), we should be proud of it if we put our heart and soul into it. It is sad to think that it is clearly OK to put a pro-abortion activity on your app, but probably not OK to put a pro-life issue there. It will be a sad day in AMERICA when we make people on one side of every issue 'afraid' to admit their stance.

Leave it on your application, it will open good discussion for you in interviews and clearly show that you are dedicated to something.

*sighs, jumps off soapbox, and puts it away for another day* 🙄

I totally agree and applaud your post and your perspective. All the best and God bless you.

 

[deleted103644]

To quote the janitor: "Who is this God everyone fears?"

 

[rmorriso]

To quote the janitor: "Who is this God everyone fears?"

"What is it with steel wool? Is it steel? Or is it wool?"

 

[ssquared]

My point is, when we do work that might be thought of as 'controversial' (either conservative or liberal), we should be proud of it if we put our heart and soul into it. It is sad to think that it is clearly OK to put a pro-abortion activity on your app, but probably not OK to put a pro-life issue there. It will be a sad day in AMERICA when we make people on one side of every issue 'afraid' to admit their stance.

Even though I am the polar opposite of you, I did agree with your argument up until this point. Aside from the semantics of saying "pro-abortion" (NOBODY is pro-abortion, we are pro-having your own individual choice on the issue), the reality is that in the medical field, saying that you are pro-choice is much less of an issue than somebody who is not. If you're pro-choice, then you see no problem in performing procedures and dispensing medications; a pro-lifer, though, may hesitate and prioritize their own beliefs over what the patient wants/needs. The conflict of interest just don't come up with people who don't have any reservations about procedures or medications. So yes, maybe it's a bit sad that you have to squash down your own personal views, but the medical field is about other people, not yourself.

And one other thing: if you're putting your heart and soul into something such as being pro-life, what happens when you're presented with a patient who wants an abortion? Do you think it's ok to sideline your own beliefs? Do you think it's ok to suggest that they look into religion? Or do you just go into a specialty where it won't be an issue?

 

[deleted103644]

Lawyers protect their client's 'best interests'. Physicians protect life, regardless if the life they're protecting is the life of someone who has specifically contracted as their patient. The whole point of a pro-life religious belief is that you believe that an abortion kills a child, which would mean that you could not, as a pro-life doctor, perform an abortion, and for that matter you would need to at least try to convince a patient not to recieve one. The only exception to this rule would be when the mother's life is in danger, because the only thing that is worth sacrificing a life for is another life.

Abortion does go against the origional Hypocratic Oath, after all. So does euthenasia, by the way.

What about lethal injection (as far as the Hypocratic Oath is concerned)? Or war if you want to be more general?

Is the reason the religious right is so opposed to masturbation and contraception is that it's the equivalent of genocide? (oh those poor defenseless sperm!) Should women mourn the passing of every unfertilized ovum (instead of just getting cranky)? Why decide the moment that life begins is when the egg is fertilized, or implanted, or the embryo's heart starts beating, or the nervous system starts to function, or emerges from the womb, or starts talking, or graduates college? (Sorry son, that D in English just isn't good enough, we're going to have to have a 90th trimester abortion.) The real problem that gets lost in the debate is the question of the soul - is there some discrete instant when we get a soul and is that what makes us human? Or are we the same organic matter as every other animal and plant on the planet, just with an illusion of consciousness formed by electrical and chemical synapses? If another organism is shown to have consciousness, does that make it human? Think for yourselves dammit, these are interesting questions and shouldn't be relegated to talking points and political pundits.

 

[deleted103644]

(NOBODY is pro-abortion, we are pro-having your own individual choice on the issue)

That's not a point worth arguing. Both sides chose their names for the other as a means to frame the issue to their advantage. What's a more positive term, "pro-life" or "anti-abortion"? "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion"? Which sides use which terms do you think? Individual people in each movement might not think about which term they are using, but I guarantee you some highly paid consultants were responsible for all of them. Word choice is powerful and rarely accidental in politics.

 

[MChitty]

That's not a point worth arguing. Both sides chose their names for the other as a means to frame the issue to their advantage. What's a more positive term, "pro-life" or "anti-abortion"? "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion"? Which sides use which terms do you think? Individual people in each movement might not think about which term they are using, but I guarantee you some highly paid consultants were responsible for all of them. Word choice is powerful and rarely accidental in politics.

I agree with you to a point, but saying you're pro-abortion is different than being pro-choice. I know many people that would never have an abortion themselves, but feel that it is a personal choice. These people classify themselves as pro-choice, but I really doubt they like abortions...

 

[armybound]

This thread has totally gotten off track.

I hope you do use it, OP. It's a quality EC, and you shouldn't be afraid that an adcomm will disagree with your stance.

 

[deleted103644]

I agree with you to a point, but saying you're pro-abortion is different than being pro-choice. I know many people that would never have an abortion themselves, but feel that it is a personal choice. These people classify themselves as pro-choice, but I really doubt they like abortions...

Of course. You would have to be very twisted to be "pro-abortion", but most "pro-life" aka "anti-abortion" people consider "pro-choice" aka "pro-abortion" people to be very twisted. It's an intentional misstatement to gain moral superiority, but not an argument you can win with them (as if you could ever win an ideological argument).

 

[ssquared]

That's not a point worth arguing. Both sides chose their names for the other as a means to frame the issue to their advantage. What's a more positive term, "pro-life" or "anti-abortion"? "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion"? Which sides use which terms do you think? Individual people in each movement might not think about which term they are using, but I guarantee you some highly paid consultants were responsible for all of them. Word choice is powerful and rarely accidental in politics.

You're right about the whole talking points thing. It's the same as "teach the controversy." I just get annoyed at people who look down at others from their moral high horse and say that since I'm not pro-life, well, obviously I'm all for killing babies. 🙄

and to the OP: go ahead and put it in your app, but be prepared to defend yourself. I would certainly practice any interview answers you might have.

 

[Kingfish]

Wow, goes to show just how controversial this topic is to people. Thanks for all the opinions, I submitted this morning and decided to leave it for a few reasons:

1. I do not want to start editing out parts of my life. Once I begin doing that, I know I am headed down the wrong path.

2. I did not mention it in my personal statement. Its just an activity that I was involved in. I changed the wording a bit to de-emphasize it (Instead of pro-life rally, I just described it as a rally). I am okay with this because, while it was important to me back then, I do not take the issue seriously anymore and don't want it to look like I walk around evangilizing.

3. I hope it comes up in the interview. I was heavily involved in the debate and it really did "allow me to see issues from both sides". I realized that pro-choicers are not bad people, they just honestly don't see a fetus as a life. When you take away life from the definition of a fetus what they are doing is something I actually very strongly agree with, protecting their rights. I also realized that issues like topics like these are so personal, its best to just leave people to their own conclusions or wait for them to come to you. I did more for the cause volunteering at a crises pregnancy center for a few months than all of my efforts in the club.

We'll see how it goes.

 

[smeagol]

If you haven't submitted it already here are my thoughts:

Include it only if you've dedicated a good sum of hours to it. Some club leaders don't end up doing much at all but this may not apply to you.

You might want to even consider calling it something else. For example, you could say: 'Founded a club that promoted the wellbeing of would-be children.' 😀

I'd also be VERY prepared about discussing it in your interviews. A lot of people tell you that there's often "no right or wrong answer." Personally, I hate this unprincipled skepticism. It brings about the doom of many otherwise interesting arguments because people just give up and stop seeking the answers.

Know the debate inside and out, the initial premises and assumptions of each, and do not talk about your position in an arrogant tone. Be very considerate of the other side of the debate when giving your stance/view on a particular premise. Let the interviewer know you've considered the alternative position but have ultimately found your own to be more favorable.

 

[armybound]

Wow, goes to show just how controversial this topic is to people. Thanks for all the opinions, I submitted this morning and decided to leave it for a few reasons:

1. I do not want to start editing out parts of my life. Once I begin doing that, I know I am headed down the wrong path.

2. I did not mention it in my personal statement. Its just an activity that I was involved in. I changed the wording a bit to de-emphasize it (Instead of pro-life rally, I just described it as a rally). I am okay with this because, while it was important to me back then, I do not take the issue seriously anymore and don't want it to look like I walk around evangilizing.

3. I hope it comes up in the interview. I was heavily involved in the debate and it really did "allow me to see issues from both sides". I realized that pro-choicers are not bad people, they just honestly don't see a fetus as a life. When you take away life from the definition of a fetus what they are doing is something I actually very strongly agree with, protecting their rights. I also realized that issues like topics like these are so personal, its best to just leave people to their own conclusions or wait for them to come to you. I did more for the cause volunteering at a crises pregnancy center for a few months than all of my efforts in the club.

We'll see how it goes.

good for you, you should have kept it in there.

 

[MChitty]

Wow, goes to show just how controversial this topic is to people. Thanks for all the opinions, I submitted this morning and decided to leave it for a few reasons:

1. I do not want to start editing out parts of my life. Once I begin doing that, I know I am headed down the wrong path.

2. I did not mention it in my personal statement. Its just an activity that I was involved in. I changed the wording a bit to de-emphasize it (Instead of pro-life rally, I just described it as a rally). I am okay with this because, while it was important to me back then, I do not take the issue seriously anymore and don't want it to look like I walk around evangilizing.

3. I hope it comes up in the interview. I was heavily involved in the debate and it really did "allow me to see issues from both sides". I realized that pro-choicers are not bad people, they just honestly don't see a fetus as a life. When you take away life from the definition of a fetus what they are doing is something I actually very strongly agree with, protecting their rights. I also realized that issues like topics like these are so personal, its best to just leave people to their own conclusions or wait for them to come to you. I did more for the cause volunteering at a crises pregnancy center for a few months than all of my efforts in the club.

We'll see how it goes.

From your post, it seems like you have a well thought out argument that you can present in your interviews. I think it's good that you kept it in...

 

[glamqueen]

I'm also glad you kept it in there, and what a great opportunity you had in college to get to know both issues. If it does come up in your interview, it sounds like you are well-prepared on info about both sides to discuss it. Best of luck.

 

[rmorriso]

I was heavily involved in the debate and it really did "allow me to see issues from both sides". I realized that pro-choicers are not bad people, they just honestly don't see a fetus as a life. When you take away life from the definition of a fetus what they are doing is something I actually very strongly agree with, protecting their rights. I also realized that issues like topics like these are so personal, its best to just leave people to their own conclusions

You're the type of person I actually enjoy having these sort of discussions with. With polarizing issues, I normally get disgusted with the rhetoric due to the boneheaded conceited attitude proponents of both sides take.

 

[ImmunoNut]

While I'm VERY pro-choice, if I were an ADCOM (I know I'm far from it!) i wouldn't have a single problem with your activity. You have a right to believe whatever you want and the fact that you took the initiative to go out and really work for something you believe in shows a lot about your character. You should probably be prepared for some questions about pro-life/pro-choice situations in your interviews if you do put it in there, though.

 

[DocH0lliday]

I've got a better suggestion:

Why don't you spend a couple of years getting psychiatric help to address your unreasonable fixation with the reproductive lives of women you don't know or care about.

Then, perhaps you can ask your therapist to address your pathological selfishness, and find out why it is you think you are entitled to forcing your morals (and highly debatable morals, for that matter) on to others.

Once you have your cap twisted on straight, have learned that your opinions are simply your opinions, have learned to respect the people around you as well as their views, and have learned to mind your own damn business, then I'd suggest applying.

 

[DocH0lliday]

By necessity, a lot of medical professionals will have a rather negative view of pro-lifers. (The fact that you will see them protesting outside of most major hospitals with pictures of dead embryos on a weekly basis doesn't help.) Your interviewer could very easily have a very negative response to this being on your application and although they will certainly try to keep their opinion of you objective, it could definitely have an impact on their overall assessment.

Not to start a flame war, but if you do decide to practice medicine, you should understand that your religious beliefs will have to come second to the best interests of your patients. Hopefully, there will never be a contradiction between the two, but if there is you should reconsider medicine if you cannot put your patient's interests ahead of your religious convictions. While you don't need to perform any procedures or prescribe any medications you would be uncomfortable with, I don't see how doctors could consider themselves ethical if they do not tell their patients all the possible options and refer them to other physicians for things they feel that they themselves cannot do.

Therein lies the problem with his "pro-life" (i.e. anti-choice) mentality. They are incapable of separating their personal beliefs from reality (reality, which may some day be their patient's best interest). Look at these "crisis pregnancy centers", for example. What they do first, foremost, and categorically is convince women to keep their pregnancies...even when most reasonable people would consider the woman better off ending the pregnancy. That isn't help. It's moral brainwashing masquerading as health care. An admissions committee member would be an absolute fool to believe that someone who is "pro life" (and adamantly pro-life as this dirtbag is) could possibly give a woman objective medical advice. After all, what is it that anti-choicers want? They have two objectives: 1. to prevent women from having abortions, and 2. to convince people that abortions are wrong. Make absolutely no mistake about it, objective #1 is far more important to them than objective #2.