Occasionally we discuss pieces in student newspapers that reflect the evolving views on our campus toward free speech. One such editorial appeared last week in the Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) student newspaper The Observer. The Observer editorial board wrote that the recognition of a pro-life student group presents an unacceptable risk to the student body. The editorial, which due criticism from sites like Campus Reform, is legitimately a concern over the rising anti-free speech movement taking hold on our campus.
The editorial objected to the university recognizing a group for pro-life students called Case for Life, which seeks to “protect and promote respect for all life from conception to natural death” through education, outreach, and volunteering at local pregnancy centers. The editors denounced the failure of the University to “protect” the student body. The newspaper claims that “protesting outside of an abortion clinic is inherently violent.” It adds:
There are several problems with what this organization represents and does. Hence, it is apparent that they pose a threat to the student body and anyone who chooses to have an abortion, and it is the university’s responsibility to prevent harm to our community. They failed and have been failing for quite some time now.
It is not just that students have to worry about laws that impose on their bodily autonomy, but they also have to worry about being in an environment that is supposed to be safe but isn’t.
The students equate students with opposing views as a harmful threat to the student body as a whole. They further dismiss the notion that it is an assault on free speech to base funding on whether the editors or even the majority of the students agree with the views of a given student group. It would effectively eliminate groups with minority views and values. Yet the editors insist:
“Invoking the First Amendment to reject recognition is a weak argument; not allocating funding does not equate to banning Case for Life from campus. If anything, allocation of funding through students’ tuition leaves students voiceless, unable to fight back against an organization that infringes upon at least half of the students’ right to reproductive privacy.”
It is an utterly ridiculous argument. Of course, this is a content-based denial of free speech. Otherwise, schools could deny resources and access to groups with dissenting or minority views. The editors are declaring the very act of protesting to be violence and the expression of their views as a threat to the student body.”
Lingering within these lines is the emerging view of free speech as harmful. They are not alone. CNN’s media expert Brian Stelter has called for censorship as “a harm reduction model.” Stelter mocked those who have raised concerns over censorship and assured CNN’s viewers that there is nothing to fear from campaigns to censor and ban speakers. In addition, he appeared to defend campaigns to have Fox News dropped from cable carriers.
Others have sought to embrace censorship by declaring the speech of others as harmful. This includes New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who insisted that “cable providers should be asked why they distribute channels that peddle lies.” Washington Post columnist and CNN analyst Max Boot also wrote that cable providers should “step in and kick Fox News off.” He added that it may be necessary to also block Newsmax and One America News Network. (For the record, I am a legal analyst on Fox News).
The saddest aspect of this anti-free speech movement is to see students embrace it. Students were once the champions of free speech. Yet we have a rising generation of censors. Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech.
Once faculty and students succeed in treating speech as harmful or violence, free speech becomes a privilege controlled by whatever the majority says it is. With journalism professors, writers, faculty, and students all arguing for censorship, free speech itself is being cast as a danger rather than the defining right of our society.
“…protesting outside of an abortion clinic is inherently violent.”
– The Observer
____________
Abortion is inherently violent homicide.
______________________________
“…A NEW INDIVIDUAL IS INITIATED.”
“…THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW INDIVIDUAL IS INITIATED.”
_________________________________________________
– A zygote is a human being.
– Homicide is the killing of a human being by another human being.
– Abortion is homicide; abortion is murder.
_________________________________
Fertilization
Fertilization is the fusing of the gametes, that is a sperm cell and an ovum (egg cell), to form a zygote. At this point, the zygote is genetically distinct from either of its parents.
– Wiki
_____
fertilization noun
fer·til·i·za·tion | \ ˌfər-tə-lə-ˈzā-shən
Definition of fertilization
b (2) : the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated
– Merriam-Webster
_______________
homicide noun
ho·mi·cide | \ ˈhä-mə-ˌsīd
Definition of homicide
1 : a person who kills another
2 : a killing of one human being by another
– Merriam-Webster
There is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion. And, of course, there is Her Choice.
The American pro-life philosophy and movement is neither retributive nor punitive. The goal is zero excess deaths and collateral damage. Women retain the right to self-defense. Privacy only confers special privilege in the manner of demos-cracy is aborted in darkness.
“Others have sought to embrace censorship by declaring the speech of others as harmful. This includes New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who insisted that “cable providers should be asked why they distribute channels that peddle lies.”
Why then shouldn’t internet providers censor sites like the New York Times? You can’t seriously tell me they don’t peddle lies?
Students embracing an anti-free speech movement indicates that they have not been taught how to think or reason. This is an indictment on the quality of education at universities across the United States. Students are being brainwashed, not trained in higher reasoning. They view opposing viewpoints as “violence.” They are threatened by disagreement, yet they believe their own views unassailable. The very idea of having to defend those views in a calm and rational debate would trigger hysteria.
It is now dangerous for an invited conservative to speak on most college campuses. Mild mannered, non violent, reasonable people like Ben Shapiro require body guards, just to get him past the violent mob of group think students.
Hi Karen,
I’m the same Anonymous who responded to you previously about abortion (not sure if you saw my last response: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/08/the-light-is-better-here-garland-pledges-to-protect-abortion-clinics-from-attack/comment-page-1/#comment-2120898 ) in an attempt to have a sincere discussion despite our views about abortion being different.
I’m a liberal Democrat. I’ll repeat what I said yesterday in a different column:
I generally agree with Justice Brandeis that when it comes to 1st Amendment speech rights, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” To be clear: he is talking about government restrictions on speech. He would not claim that private companies must be forced to carry speech that conflicts with their terms; indeed, he would note that such a requirement would abridge the companies own 1st Amendment rights.
One of the challenges these days is that technology makes it increasingly easy to privately block speech one doesn’t want to hear, even when it’s “the processes of education” that can counter “falsehood and fallacies.” Seems to me that the only counter to such private choices is for parents, educators, employers, … to emphasize the importance of good faith exchanges with those who have different ideas than we do.
I’m concerned about the extent to which people on the left, right, and middle try to shut down speech they object to, especially when they turn to threats and violence to do so. I’m concerned that this sometimes occurs at places like universities, which should be devoted to helping students learn to (1) develop good arguments to counter falsehood and fallacies, and (2) refrain from responding to provocation with threats or violence.
Anonymous, if you are a true Liberal, you are part of a vanishing breed. Today, many people who identify themselves as Liberal are rather Illiberal. However, it sounds as if you genuinely believe in free speech, one of the most basic of liberties. I wish there were more people like you.
While I agree that anyone of any party can react vehemently against speech with which they disagree, currently, it is the Left that has near total control of speech. Universities in the US are nearly all politicized far Left, and they nearly all censor conservative speech. Hollywood blacklists conservatives. Big Tech censors conservatives and promotes Democrat propaganda. Democrats have politicized the public school system, inserting sheer propaganda into curriculum at an alarming rate. Most media now actively tries to get Democrats elected as their core mission. It’s no longer about the news, but rather the spin. Many large corporations have gone woke, harassing their own employees.
Universities may no longer be called institutions of higher learning. They simply train students how to parrot talking points. Those students become flustered, upset, and angry when asked to defend or discuss those positions.
The times when people could have interesting, stimulating conversations about their political views seems long over.
The irony of it all is that both sides believe they are working to prevent tyranny, oppression, and racism. It takes an open mind to acknowledge that it’s the far Left that is the force behind oppression, the erosion of individual rights, racism, and tyranny.
A true conservative believes in limited government involvement and strong individual rights, although they do have opinions about which actions bring about success or failure in life. That was one of the original aspects of Liberalism.
We are watching personal freedom slip through our fingers. We were born blessed, with more freedom and prosperity than most people in the world dream of. But we did not value what we had, because it was given to us. We took it for granted.
“The irony of it all is that both sides believe they are working to prevent tyranny, oppression, and racism. It takes an open mind to acknowledge that it’s the far Left that is the force behind oppression, the erosion of individual rights, racism, and tyranny.”
Both the left and the right sometimes do this. I don’t think that the left has done this more than the right, and I think that it takes an open mind to recognize the bad acts — what you refer to by “oppression, the erosion of individual rights, racism, and tyranny” — by one’s own side.
Start with those things that Biden is now doing, especially the ones he previously said were unconstitutional. He even did that after SCOTUS ruled against him.
You cannot do a head to head matchup because such a match-up turns your word games upside down.
“. . . an environment that is supposed to be safe but isn’t.”
“Safe” from what?
From ideas and arguments that make them feel uncomfortable.
That is not the “life of the mind.” And *that* is the fundamental tragedy of academia: Emotions — the emotions of terrified children — elevated over reason.
(And I vehemently disagree with Case for Life’s ideology.)
Totalitarian, despotic movements always have their excuses for opposing individual rights and freedoms. They want the right to say whatever they want, but they don’t want you to have the same right.
Almost all of the Democrats that I know are in some sort of deep denial. They don’t see, or won’t acknowledge, the indisputable trend in their party against free speech, individual rights and freedoms, and this craze for castrating boys.
My gender has been reduced to an indefinable feeling that a man could have at any given time of day. Is gender based on genetics? No. Is it based on genitalia? No. Dress or speech? No? Then what? Just a feeling. What kind of feeling? I don’t know, but it is mutable, fluid. There’s simultaneously a patriarchy, but a man could feel like he’s a woman on any given day, indeed, for just minutes a day. During that time, he must be addressed as she, ze, they, or any of 75 different pronouns, and he will be given access to women’s spaces like battered women’s shelters, showers, changing rooms, bathrooms, and even their sports. Biological women had better “keep sweet” and silent. If they complain, they will be harshly punished. If you’re a mother, and you object to your children being taught that her gender is a state of mind, she’d better watch out. The teachers and administrators might gang up and dox her, try to get her fired, or even sue her.
There are proven steps that are statistically likely to lead to equal to or greater than a middle class lifestyle. Stay in school, study, be punctual, be responsible, stay out of trouble, don’t commit crimes, don’t have children out of wedlock, provide for your children, graduate high school, and get a job. Easy.
The reverse choices are statistically likely to lead to poverty, prison, and/or an early death.
Yet the Left has named the former “whiteness” and the latter “black culture”, to the insult of successful black Americans. It’s failure culture, not black culture, and it leads to failure to anyone of any race who walks that path.
This has echos of the Red Army, who destroyed so much Chinese culture, art, and tradition. Or the Cambodian holocaust, in which anyone identified with learning, or even who wore glasses, was murdered.
This is about power, not morality.
Regarding feelings vs reality:
They will keep this insanity up until a woman is crippled or killed and maybe not stop even then. Scroll down to the photo of this guy in the military.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/transgender-fighter-beats-crap-female-opponent-wins-mma-debut
Abortionists are anti-science which is why they oppose physicians performing ultrasounds on pregnant women. Doing so will show the expectant mother the life within her womb.
A North Carolina law requiring physicians to perform an ultrasound, display the sonogram, and describe the fetus to women seeking abortions has been struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Because the intent of these directives is ideological in nature, rather than medically necessary or required for informed consent, they represent compelled speech and are thus in violation of the First Amendment, the court held.
https://reason.com/2014/12/22/requiring-ultrasound-before-abortion-vio/
“Abortionists are anti-science”
What do you mean by “abortionists”?
If you mean the doctors who induce (with medication) or perform (surgically) abortion, it would be an odd claim to call doctors “anti-science.”
If you mean people who are pro-choice, like me, then it’s a misnomer, and just as it’s counterproductive for the students in the column to call peaceful protest “violence,” it’s counterproductive for you to refer to people who support abortion being legal in some circumstances “abortionists.”
Or maybe you mean something else. It would help if you clarified your meaning.
I am pro-choice. As I told Karen in a different column, I’m inclined to think that abortion should be legal without restriction before the fetus develops a brain with a frontal cortex and the kind of brain waves that correspond to a capacity to think, learn, develop memories, … (for me, it is our thinking, learning, remembering, … brain that is the essence of our personhood, which is why I’m comfortable with doctors killing a living body with a beating heart by cutting organs out after brain death — for me, that person has already died). After that, I’d restrict abortion to situations where the pregnancy seriously endangers a woman’s life or health, or if the fetus has a serious medical problem that makes it unable to live after birth, and perhaps some situations with a multiple pregnancy where one fetus is endangering another if it’s possible to do a selective abortion.
But I am not pr-abortion. I have never encouraged anyone to have an abortion, and if no woman ever chose to have one, that would be fine with me.
I am also not anti-science. I’ve studied quite a bit of science, and I greatly value it.
“which is why they oppose physicians performing ultrasounds on pregnant women. Doing so will show the expectant mother the life within her womb.”
I disagree. A pregnant woman already knows that an embryo is alive. She doesn’t need an ultrasound for that. In fact, all educated people know that embryos are alive (unless they die, as often happens even in the absence of abortion).
I object to forced ultrasounds for the same reason that the 4th Circuit struck down the law you refer to: “this compelled speech provision violates the First Amendment.”
Jonathan: The CWRU student newspaper opposes recognition of an anti-abortion student group, “Case for Life”, because “protesting outside an abortion clinic is inherently violent”. You equate this position as a denial of the “free speech” rights of those who oppose abortion. It is a little more complicated. I would assume “Case for Life” supports the new Texas law that denies women an important constitutional right. Isn’t that also a “free speech” right–the right of a woman to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy? Another issue is whether students should have a say in how their tuition fees should be used. Should they be compelled to endorse a group with whom they fundamentally disagree? The final issue is whether the student newspaper is correct in its assessment that anti-abortion groups are “inherently violent”? The record is pretty clear. Over many years doctors and other health care providers who provide pregnancy related services have been the targets of anti-abortion violence. Since 1993 11 people have been killed in attacks on abortion clinics. Recall in 2009 Dr. George Tiller was murdered by Scott Roeder while the doctor was standing in the foyer of his church. Remember Eric Rudolph? Besides bombing the 1996 Atlanta Olympics Rudolph set off a bomb outside a Birmingham clinic in 1998 killing a security guard and badly injuring a nurse. Rudolph claimed violence against abortion providers was a “moral duty”. Given the history of violence by those opposed to abortion if I were a CWRU student I think I should have a say in how my tuition money is used..
There is another important “free speech” issue you have chosen to ignore–because it doesn’t fit your paradigm of defending conservatives. John Wallis, a teacher, was barely into the school year at Missouri’s Neosho Junior High when he was called into a meeting with school administrators and threatened with termination if he didn’t remove a gay pride flag in his classroom that read: “In this Classroom EVERYONE is Welcome”. Wallis’ students welcomed the flag because it made gay students feel more comfortable. But one parent complained to the school that the flag “would potentially teach their children to be gay”. It’s hard to believe that in this day when there is general acceptance of homosexuality some parents could be so woefully ignorant about gender identity. Children can’t be “taught” to be gay. Anyway, Wallis resigned rather than being fired. Don’t you think the plight of John Wallis is equally a “free speech” issue that should be discussed? I guess not.
Please cite support for your position that killing a baby is a “constitutional” right!
Read the relevant Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
There is no constitutional provision on abortion. The Left have fabricated the lie as their article of faith in their woke religion. Kill, kill, kill is their hymn.
Judge Amul Thapar of US Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, in “Memphis Center for Reproductive Health v. Slatery”:
No one, including the Roe majority, contends that such a right exists in the text of the Articles of the Constitution. Instead, jurists and commentators point to the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment. But you won’t find the word “abortion” (or any equivalent) there either. Indeed, many thoughtful legal scholars, including those who support abortion as a policy matter, have expressed skepticism of or outright hostility to the idea that the Constitution explicitly provides a right to abortion. The text does not bear it out.
… almost every state and territory had in fact passed laws limiting or prohibiting abortion by the end of the nineteenth century. By contrast, the Roe majority did not provide a single example of a state that legally guaranteed an affirmative right to abortion at either the time of the Founding or during the Reconstruction Era. That silence is not just deafening. It should end the debate.
… Justice Holmes once remarked that “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” The argument that the Constitution contains a right to abortion has neither. As shown above, the historical evidence is clear. The Constitution leaves decisions like this to the states. The state legislatures can do what we can’t: listen to the community, create fact-specific rules with appropriate exceptions, gather more evidence, and update their laws if things don’t work properly. And if the public is unhappy, it can fight back at the ballot box. The courts should return this choice to the American people—where it belongs.
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0215p-06.pdf
Estovir:
As cogent a decision as you’ll ever read — and beyond the intellectual candlepower of any blinder wearing pro-abortionist. Like Jefferson, I shudder to think there is a just God.
“There is no constitutional provision on abortion.”
There is no constitutional clause on abortion, nor does the word appear, but multiple amendments protect our privacy as an unenumerated right, and the Court has determined that our right to privacy also creates a right to medical procedures, including abortion.
“The Left have fabricated the lie as their article of faith in their woke religion. Kill, kill, kill is their hymn.”
You’ve said that you’re Catholic, yet you clearly don’t take the commandment against lying very seriously.
One can utilize word games to create whatever scenario one wants, but that doesn’t mean that what you have created is wise or smart. In your case the word games lead to pure foolishness that you are unable to defend without false links, false statements and more word games.
Abortion has always been a state issue and should have remained so. It is not up to the federal government to determine when it is permissible to kill a child.
That would still leave the question of abortion open, but only at the state level. The federal government would then be free to do what it is supposed to do.
This problem that has cost so much national difficulty was created by a court that decided to be legislators instead of judges.
Groupthink is unchallenged thinking. If a person puts forth an argument that is based in truth then it will withstand scrutiny.
We are a couple of steps shy of Jonestown. This is cult behavior and mind control tactics. Kool-aid anyone?
People like Kristoff and Boot have very short memories. Apart from the fact their own columns are full of lies, it wasn’t too long ago when the NYTimes and WaPo were the biggest peddlers of “WMDs” that rationalized bombing a nation that never attacked or threatened us. Would Kristoff and Boot be OK with censoring the news media for its egregious lies? Oh, I forgot, according to the dominant liberal narrative, only conservatives lie. How convenient. Wonder how many of the pro-censor flunkies will change their tune after the 2022 election?
Listen, I fully support the right to early term abortion, but the ones that promote killing children are calling a point of view violent? That’s a good one. Do these kids even know how it works?
Beyond a certain stage of pregnancy, a doctor has to kill the by then formed *baby*, not just remove it. It is no longer a cluster of cells but rather a visibly clear tiny being (the cells are alive prior too, but not in the fully firmed human sense). Perhaps they should watch video of the procedure in their ‘health’ or ‘science’ classes?
Part of me fears the kids in question are so trained to be beyond compassion and critical thought it wouldn’t matter. Would it help if I asked these children to imagine murdering Baby Yoda? Would that sufficiently ‘trigger’ them?
James, Well said!
More than imagining murdering baby Yoda, perhaps they should volunteer in a clinic and assist in counting the body parts after a late-term abortion to make sure all parts are there. We live in a “clean” world where the unpleasant things in life are removed from view or discussion. When my folks were young, it was their job to catch the Sunday dinner, cut off its head, pluck the feathers and do the preparation. It was just their reality. Now, you just pull up to a drive up window, order, and voilà it magically appears. When grandpa is getting too sick, just shelve him in a nursing home, and when it comes to the dying process, “Let’s not talk about it.”
Styrofoam and plastic. We’ve become (as a general rule) removed from the realities of this world. At what point is a person’s conscience so seared that they will simply say, “Grandmother is too sick to take care of herself and she is a burden on our medical system. It’s time to put her down?”
Who gets to decide the bright line standards?
“The saddest aspect of this anti-free speech movement is to see students embrace it. Students were once the champions of free speech. Yet we have a rising generation of censors. Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech.”
*************************************
Not students, JT — Democrats! It’s like saying tyranny is caused by mustaches since Hitler, Castro and Stalin all sported one. Sooner or later you’ve got to realize the threat to freedom from this political party is existential.
We need a nationwide ItShay List of bad colleges and universities. An online website would be the best. Call it “ItShay Colleges in America”. Y’all know piglatin don’t ya? ItSha means Shi_.
The abortionists want to kill babies.
But that is not enough; they want us to cheer them on.
Abortion is an ugly thing. It is also here to stay. Unfortunately, the abortionists refuse to stay in the shadows; they want to celebrate mothers choosing to kill their children.
Check out the following blog post, also read through the comments.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2021/09/03/yet-another-texas-abortion-law-freakout-friday-comment-of-the-day/
Also check out this blog post…
Thoughts On What An Ethical Solution To The Abortion Ethics Conflict Might Look Like, Part I: 25 Stipulations LINK: https://ethicsalarms.com/2021/09/06/thoughts-on-what-an-ethical-solution-to-the-abortion-ethics-conflict-might-look-like-part-i-25-stipulations/
Collage students and they are almost illiterate. What you posted, is cotton candy. It looks substantial, but disappears into nothingness when pressed.
Words have meanings. I just assumed by the time you made it to collage, you have a substantial vocabulary and the ability to use words to convey ideas. This is mindless mush. Meaningless. The only value is using the words as a metric to measure knowledge. I come up with zero, on the knowledge meter.
(a lot like commenters. They just spew out what others have said, not understanding any of it. )
iowan2 wrote, “Collage students and they are almost illiterate.”
I found ironic humor in that statement.
Also; it’s not very easy to figure out what iowan2’s position on the blog post is when the only thing iowan2 is doing is spewing ad hominems and not actually addressing the topic.
Steve the topic is freedom of speech v censorship.
The students written position is meaningless. I is founded on nothing but a raw disagreement of policy. No substance to their position. No substantive reason to censor. According to their written position.
What I did was gauge their statement to their goal. Nothing there.
By the time a person attains college. A simple written statement supporting your position should be the bare minimum. Their statetment never gets close.
If identifying the shortfalls of their position is ad hominems, you need a better dictionary.
I think it’s interesting that iowan2 seems to think that that quote from the student is “meaningless” and iowan2 clearly doesn’t fully understand what the term “ad hominem” actually means, so it’s time for me to apply Hanlon’s Razor which states “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.
Lastly iowan2 here is something for you to consider in the future; it’s better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you’re a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
This conversation has been intellectually enlightening.
A weak effort at deflection. Ignores the basis of the post. (students claiming eminent harm, better never identifying that harm)
And the woeful state of educaition, that this students exhibit.
Sorry I hurt your feelings Steve, lashing out is a normal response. but this is adult time, so maybe you should play elsewhere.
iowan2 wrote, “A weak effort at deflection.”
I agree; your foolish deflection, your clear lack of understanding of the meaning of terms, and your lacking in English spelling, grammar and general writing communication skills was “weak” to say the least.
iowan2 wrote, “Ignores the basis of the post. (students claiming eminent harm, better never identifying that harm)”
That’s pure projection. Again iowan2; it’s better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you’re a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
iowan2 wrote, “And the woeful state of education, that this students exhibit.”
Our education system is definitely a bit out of whack and after reading what you’ve written in this little sub-thread, this statement coming from you is ironic humor. You too are a representative of what’s gone wrong with our education system.
iowan2 wrote, “Sorry I hurt your feelings Steve, lashing out is a normal response.”
You’re giving yourself way too much credit iowan2, you never hurt my feelings but if delusional thinking helps you sleep at night you go for it. I simply stated what I observed, but it’s really clear that I replied in a way that you can’t intelligently respond to. Sobeit.
iowan2 wrote, “…but this is adult time, so maybe you should play elsewhere.”
You’re communicating like you’re in 7th or 8th grade. Grow up.
We’re done.
I know when we don’t have kids actively involved our attention on such matters wanes, but your statement has been accurate for years now. Very few cared.
“I just assumed by the time you made it to collage…” Here I was expecting an entertaining metaphor along the lines of “a technique of composing a work of art by pasting on a single surface an assemblage of diverse elements or fragments in unlikely or unexpected juxtaposition”. but I was disappointed to see that it was just a typo..
forceOfHabit wrote, “I was disappointed to see that it was just a typo”
Probably not a typo, the “A” and the “E” keys may be close to each other but not next to each other lending to the justification of calling it a typo. The author is actually showing multiple signs of being a bit illiterate (thus my “ironic humor” comment above); misspellings, really poor grammar and very bad writing communication skills.
The author did get the general idea of their displeasure across with their ad hominems but as for presenting an intelligent argument that was a complete failure.
If they participate in violence then the University can revoke their charter. Maybe the University should look at the Editorial board for inciting violence against other students and stop funding that group. Oh right, that pesky 1st Amendment thing
This is pure unadulterated delusional gaslighting.
The person that wrote that is a liar.
@justice Holmes
If pro lifers (and others with overlapping beliefs) are so awful, wouldn’t you want to separate from them? No, you want to marginalize, doxx and destroy them.
I want a divorce and that’s coming.
antonio
But BLM and the Brave, Masked, Wonderful, Warriors of Antifa (TM) are not inherently violent!
We would already have the multicultural utopia (and defeated covid) if not for the ‘wreckers and saboteurs’.
antonio
So called “pro lifers” are anything but. They are anti women and are willing to strip women of their constitutional right to be secure in their person and to have an attack on their rights to be reviewed by the courts. They pass legislation that deputizes the mob and places a bounty on the head of every woman. Are they violent? Some are and have killed people…born people! They encourage violence without doubt.
Allocation of funds to this group is a decision for the university. The group has many other ways to get is nasty message out. It’s easy for those who don’t have to bear the brunt of the accusations and demonization to pew pew what this group does but I suggest that you walk a mild in a female student’s shoes. You might get a clue.
Holmes lays out the lefts position very well.
unable to enter the battle field of ideas, they seek to handicap or eliminate the other side of the debate.
Justice Holmes is an idiot and unfit to dispense any sort of justice. Ignorance is alive and well in the academy.
Justice Holmes,
You want to protect and support these abortion activists so they can continue to shirk their personal responsibilities and exterminate “unwanted” defenseless human beings at will, but yet you want to shut down those that choose to defend the life of a completely helpless human being by protesting, you know exercising their free speech? You’re welcome to your opinion “Justice” even when that opinion is immoral.
Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion = Death
Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion = Life
What ever happened to inalienable human right to life?
Is the moniker “Justice Holmes” and intentional oxymoron?
You likely know, but Holmes is a longtime troll, and it has never been verified that they even so much as clerked for a judge or brought a judge a latte, let alone served as one.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Of all zygotes that form, over half die prior to implantation or in miscarriage, killed by this Creator. Why are you so certain that they have an inalienable right to life?
Anonymous wrote, “Why are you so certain that they have an inalienable right to life?”
Spoken like a true abortion activist internet troll who’s core character has been purged of self evident morality and replaced it with unethical rationalizations.
It’s self evident Anonymous; human beings have an inalienable right to life even if they’re an ignorant internet troll like you.
He likes to bang his drum and pretend to be medically informed. For example, all individuals with Diabetes Type I & II are non-viable unless if supplied exogenous insulin, glucose lowering or insulin sensitizing agents. Likewise, individuals with heart failure, renal failure, pulmonary fibrosis, cancers, infections of any type, and every medical malady under the sun, mean certain death, i.e. they are non-viable (not able to live). However, due to compassionate, religious, other-directed care, we intervene to keep them alive.
The human body is fascinating at the molecular level but it is just as fragile at the macro level, from the morbidly obese to the wondrous fertilization of the ovum by a sperm.
I’m not a troll. I am a moral person who has different views than you do.
“It’s self evident Anonymous; human beings have an inalienable right to life”
It’s not self-evident. It’s something that some people believe and other people do not believe. It’s not even self-evident that a human zygote is a human being rather than specialized human cells that might later develop into a human being.
You believe it, and I’d like to have a good faith discussion with you about it (e.g., both of us are trying to understand the other’s point of view, both of us refrain from insults and false claims).
Again: why do you believe that zygotes have a right to life? Do they have any other rights?
Anonymous wrote, “I am a moral person who has different views than you do.”
Anonymous wrote, “It’s not self-evident.”
Maybe you don’t/can’t understand this but your two statements are morally conflicted with each other. You cannot be a moral person and not understand that human beings have an inalienable right to life, period, end of argument.
You choosing to drag the goalpost around the field by bringing in the term zygote, which I am not talking about, is trolling whether you like it or not. I choose to ignore your goalpost dragging deflection.
Anonymous wrote, “I’d like to have a good faith discussion with you about it (e.g., both of us are trying to understand the other’s point of view”
Well then, let’s have at it Anonymous!
For the record; I have stated the equivalent to this right here on this website and none of the “Anonymous” monikers chose to argue with me – including you – why is that Anonymous?
The ending of the blockquote failed, the last paragraph is NOT part of the blockquote.
“You cannot be a moral person and not understand that human beings have an inalienable right to life, period, end of argument.”
I disagree. That strikes me as a No True Scotsman fallacy.
First, the claim “human beings have an inalienable right to life” leaves undefined how we determine what is/isn’t a human being. There are areas where we likely agree (e.g., I believe we are both human beings and that an unfertilized egg is not a human being, and I bet you do too, but please correct me if not), and areas where we may not agree (e.g., I do not think that a fertilized human egg is a human being, and I don’t make assumptions either way about what you believe there, though you do say that it’s not what you’re talking about; at the other end, if a human body with a beating heart is kept alive on life support after brain death, the person is legally dead and I’m also inclined to say that the human being is no longer alive, and I don’t make assumptions about your beliefs there either). You say “My personal viewpoint is a bit different,” and it would help if you said something about what *you* mean by “human being.” Also, do you use “human being” interchangeably with “person,” or are there some differences for you?
Second, moral people can have different views about whether any inalienable (natural) rights exist, not just for the right to life but more generally. Since you believe that there’s an inalienable right to life, what is your stance on the death penalty? on giving qualified immunity to police who kill not in self-defense? on killing in self-defense? If you say more, it will help me understand what you mean by a “right to life.”
“You choosing to drag the goalpost around the field by bringing in the term zygote, which I am not talking about, is trolling whether you like it or not.”
Some people claim that a human zygote is a human being. Apparently you’re not one of them. It wasn’t my intent to move the goalpost, only to acknowledge that some people think they have a right to life. Again, this depends on what people mean by “human being,” and it would help if you say when human beingness starts and ends for you. I’m not sure whether I use “human being” differently than “person.” I’m inclined to think that both begin when the fetus develops a brain with a frontal cortex and the kind of brain waves that correspond to a capacity to think, learn, develop memories, … (for me, it is our thinking, learning, remembering, … brain that is the essence of our personhood, which is why I’m comfortable with doctors killing a living body with a beating heart by cutting organs out after brain death — for me, that person has already died) and ends when those frontal cortex brain waves permanently end. But I’m open to changing my mind if someone presents me with a compelling reason to shift my opinion.
“none of the “Anonymous” monikers chose to argue with me – including you – why is that Anonymous?”
I can only speak for myself: I never saw that comment of yours until now. I don’t get email notifications about comments here. Having now read it, I think it would involve a long discussion. Maybe I’ll respond there later, depending on how things go here.
In terms of the part that you repeated here: there is no scientific agreement about “when a human being becomes a human being (as in being alive).” There’s a good article by developmental biologist Scott Gilbert that addresses this:
Gilbert, S. F. 2002. Genetic determinism: The battle between scientific data and social image in contemporary developmental biology. In On Human Nature. Anthropological, Biological, and Philosophical Foundations. (Grunwald, A., Gutmann, M., and Neumann-Held, E. M., eds.) Springer-Verlag, NY. Pp. 121 – 140
Unfortunately, I haven’t found an online copy. But here’s a related article that may be of interest:
Gilbert, S. F. 2008. When “personhood” begins in the embryo: avoiding a syllabus of errors. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 84: 164 – 173.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121115062833/http://scijust.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Gilbert-personhood-paper-for-111312.pdf
Re: “when the detectable heartbeat of a living human being stops they are considered to be dead so why shouldn’t the starting of a detectable fetal human being heartbeat be considered the beginning of a human life – medically speaking?”
If you look at human cardiogenesis (the development of the heart), you’ll find that heart cells develop and start to pulse in synchrony before there is a heart — a multichambered organ that pumps blood. People can reasonably disagree about whether heart cells pulsing synchronously is a “heartbeat,” when there is no heart itself. This may strike some as pedantic, but these are the kinds of details that need to be worked through in a good faith scientific discussion. In fact, it’s even more complex, because if you look at our actual laws, they refer to “irreversible
cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions,” not just the loss of a heartbeat.
Also, there are two accepted legal definitions of death, one about cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, and another about brain death. It is legal to cut organs out of a human body with a beating heart after brain death, as the person is already legally dead.
I’ve tried to respond in good faith, and hope you will as well.
Since your comment was so long, I chose to reply in [bold and in brackets] within the text of your comment.
“You cannot be a moral person and not understand that human beings have an inalienable right to life, period, end of argument.”
I disagree. That strikes me as a No True Scotsman fallacy. [Nonsense: it’s self evident. Only unethical rationalizations shift this kind of thinking. It’s up to you to self reflect on that and here’s a link to a list of rationalizations that may be helpful LINK]
First, the claim “human beings have an inalienable right to life” leaves undefined how we determine what is/isn’t a human being. [I think I’ve either stated that or implied that a number of times] There are areas where we likely agree (e.g., I believe we are both human beings and that an unfertilized egg is not a human being, and I bet you do too, [I agree] but please correct me if not), and areas where we may not agree (e.g., I do not think that a fertilized human egg is a human being, [I agree] and I don’t make assumptions either way about what you believe there, though you do say that it’s not what you’re talking about; at the other end, if a human body with a beating heart is kept alive on life support after brain death, the person is legally dead and I’m also inclined to say that the human being is no longer alive, and I don’t make assumptions about your beliefs there either). You say “My personal viewpoint is a bit different,” and it would help if you said something about what *you* mean by “human being.” [That is what I firmly believe SCOTUS needs to rule on and it needs to be based on medical science] Also, do you use “human being” interchangeably with “person,” or are there some differences for you?[I use human being because that is the correct scientific term. People tend to use the word person (a philosophical term) because it’s easily b.a.s.t.a.r.d.i.z.e.d. into something that avoids science, I’ve seen it hundreds of times.]
Second, moral people can have different views about whether any inalienable (natural) rights exist, not just for the right to life but more generally. [The only right I’m talkign about is the inalienable right to life.] Since you believe that there’s an inalienable right to life, what is your stance on the death penalty? [As long as due process of law has taken place I think the death penalty is reasonably acceptable.] on giving qualified immunity to police who kill not in self-defense? [In my opinion, qualified immunity should not be automatically assumed and the case closed, it’s all about innocent until proven guilty and that is the actual intent of qualified immunity. There is a terrible anti-rights movement in the court of public opinion that is leaning heavily towards guilty until proven innocent, it’s anti-American. Police have rights too.] on killing in self-defense? [If a person violently attacks another then the attackee has the inalienable human right to protect themself with any force required to end the attack up to and including deadly force.] If you say more, it will help me understand what you mean by a “right to life.”
[Be forewarned; if you jump to to the routine pro-choice argument that I’m being hypocritical if I approve of capital punishment and disprove of abortion then our conversation is over. I will not engage in such blatantly unequivalent nonsense.]
“You choosing to drag the goalpost around the field by bringing in the term zygote, which I am not talking about, is trolling whether you like it or not.”
Some people claim that a human zygote is a human being. Apparently you’re not one of them. [Since I haven’t stated that, it’s a fair assumption that I’m not one of them.] It wasn’t my intent to move the goalpost, only to acknowledge that some people think they have a right to life. [It’s clear that my perception was otherwise, but I’ll accept your statement.] Again, this depends on what people mean by “human being,” and it would help if you say when human beingness starts and ends for you. [That’s what I want SCOTUS to rule on based on medical science.] I’m not sure whether I use “human being” differently than “person.” I’m inclined to think that both begin when the fetus develops a brain with a frontal cortex and the kind of brain waves that correspond to a capacity to think, learn, develop memories, [our views on this differ.] … (for me, it is our thinking, learning, remembering, … brain that is the essence of our personhood, [Personhood is a slippery slope term that slides down a rabbit hole of immorality. Personhood is literally defined as the quality or condition of being an individual person. That definition can be extrapolated out to justify absurd levels of immorality. Stick to human beings, it’s the universally acceptable scientific term.] which is why I’m comfortable with doctors killing a living body with a beating heart by cutting organs out after brain death — for me, that person has already died) and ends when those frontal cortex brain waves permanently end. [To be declared brain-dead, a person must have irreversibly lost function in all parts of his or her brain. Doctors make that call by performing neurological exams to search for electrical brain activity, or blood circulation to the brain, as well as a test to see if the patient attempts to breathe when the ventilator is turned off this is specifically done to test the Medulla Oblongata which is controlling autonomic activities, such as heartbeat and respiration. I just went through this recently with someone that died and this last one is VERY important. If the patient cannot breathe when the ventilator is turned off and all other brain function has stopped then the heart WILL stop due to the lack of oxygen because the person won’t be able to breathe and provide the heart oxygen; therefore, the person is essentially dead at that point in time. But again, this surrounds the heartbeat not the function of the frontal cortex of the brain as you stated – you are wrong on that point.] But I’m open to changing my mind if someone presents me with a compelling reason to shift my opinion. [I think your opinion on that is just a little bit uneducated, I hope my explanation inspires you to think about this a little more.]
“none of the “Anonymous” monikers chose to argue with me – including you – why is that Anonymous?”
I can only speak for myself: I never saw that comment of yours until now. [Okay] I don’t get email notifications about comments here. [Okay] Having now read it, I think it would involve a long discussion. [Most of it is common sense which usually doesn’t require much discussion.] Maybe I’ll respond there later, depending on how things go here. [You choice.]
In terms of the part that you repeated here: there is no scientific agreement about “when a human being becomes a human being (as in being alive).” [That’s EXACTLY what needs to be done to put this societal division built around abortion behind us. ]There’s a good article by developmental biologist Scott Gilbert that addresses this:
Gilbert, S. F. 2002. Genetic determinism: The battle between scientific data and social image in contemporary developmental biology. In On Human Nature. Anthropological, Biological, and Philosophical Foundations. (Grunwald, A., Gutmann, M., and Neumann-Held, E. M., eds.) Springer-Verlag, NY. Pp. 121 – 140
Unfortunately, I haven’t found an online copy. But here’s a related article that may be of interest:
Gilbert, S. F. 2008. When “personhood” begins in the embryo: avoiding a syllabus of errors. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 84: 164 – 173.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121115062833/http://scijust.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Gilbert-personhood-paper-for-111312.pdf
[I’ll read that sometime soon. May or may not choose to comment on it.]
Re: “when the detectable heartbeat of a living human being stops they are considered to be dead so why shouldn’t the starting of a detectable fetal human being heartbeat be considered the beginning of a human life – medically speaking?”
If you look at human cardiogenesis (the development of the heart), you’ll find that heart cells develop and start to pulse in synchrony before there is a heart — a multichambered organ that pumps blood. People can reasonably disagree about whether heart cells pulsing synchronously is a “heartbeat,” when there is no heart itself. This may strike some as pedantic, but these are the kinds of details that need to be worked through in a good faith scientific discussion. [That’s exactly why I say SCOTUS need to make a ruling based on medical science.] In fact, it’s even more complex, because if you look at our actual laws, they refer to “irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions,” not just the loss of a heartbeat. [I think I covered this one above]
Also, there are two accepted legal definitions of death, one about cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, and another about brain death. [Brain death is directly related to the cessation of anything that can control the circulatory and respiratory functions of the body and that control is the Medulla Oblongata, when the Medulla Oblongata is dead the rest of the body shuts down because the respiratory function cannot supply oxygen to the rest of the body..] It is legal to cut organs out of a human body with a beating heart after brain death, as the person is already legally dead. [Only if the Medulla Oblongata is dead and the basic functions of the body are kept active by purely mechanical means. I question what a doctor uses as the actual Time Of Death TOD when the brain has completely died and they keep the body alive for the purpose of harvesting organs, I cannot find anything that tells me what they use as a TOD]
I’ve tried to respond in good faith, and hope you will as well. [I appreciate the effort you put into this.]
[Feel free to copy and paste any section of this for a reply, but do quote me so I’m aware of what you are talking about.]
There are a few typos and keys not completely depressed like “you” instead of “your” and “need” instead of “needs”, etc. You’ll get the idea.
Steve,
Thanks for taking time to respond. I feel like we’re making a little headway, and I always appreciate that a sincere discussion will push me to try to further clarify my own beliefs.
“it’s self evident.”
I disagree. If “human being” is left undefined, then whether one agrees that “human beings have an inalienable right to life” may depend on which definition is used. In addition, you’ve said that “As long as due process of law has taken place I think the death penalty is reasonably acceptable,” which means that the right to life can be taken away in certain circumstances and so isn’t completely inalienable. I doubt that we’re going to agree on this and suggest that we drop it for the time being, though if you feel strongly, I’m willing to continue discussing it.
For the sake of argument, let’s say I agree that “human beings have an inalienable right to life.” That still doesn’t resolve the issue of whether the pregnant woman can legally be forced to continue the pregnancy. In general, our legal system doesn’t force one person to save another’s life. Suppose your bone marrow could save someone with leukemia: should the government be able to force you to donate your bone marrow? (This procedure only takes some of your marrow. The government cannot currently force you.) Suppose someone just needs blood to save their life and you’re a local blood match: should the government be able to force you to donate blood? (The government cannot currently force you.) I recognize that the situations aren’t analogous in the sense that the pregnant woman is the only person who can save an embryo’s life, and unless she was raped, she took the risk of getting pregnant, but it still matters whether the government should be able to force her to donate the use of her body for 9 months.
“I use human being because that is the correct scientific term. People tend to use the word person (a philosophical term) …”
Scientists do use the phrase “human being.” But they don’t tend to define it more than “a human being, or human, is an individual in the genus H0mo.” Scientists might well disagree about when an embryo or fetus becomes an individual, or if that doesn’t occur until birth. It’s literally inside a woman, getting oxygen via her respiratory and circulatory systems, nutrition via her gastrointestinal and circulatory systems, etc. The discussion might involve when a growing fetus becomes an organism in its own right, and that might be when it’s capable of organismal homeostasis, which at its earliest is viability, or it might not be until actually starts to maintain organismal homeostasis, which is at birth.
I realized that I don’t use “human being” and “person” interchangeably, in part because “person” has a legal meaning, and “human being” does not. For example, the Constitution requires an actual enumeration of all persons, and that enumeration has never included embryos and fetuses. In terms of “human being” as a scientific term, there might also be a difference. For example, I’d say that once they’re born conjoined twins are two people, but they’re also a single biological organism, so perhaps I’d say that even though they’re two people, they’re one human being. I’ll have to think more about what the differences are for me between “person” and “human being,” even though I understand that you want to focus only on the latter.
I don’t think SCOTUS is really in a position to rule on when a “human being” comes into existence if scientists themselves don’t agree, and SCOTUS can’t ignore personhood given the extent to which our laws are written in terms of “persons” rather than “human beings.”
In terms of what I said about the frontal cortex, I was talking about my personal beliefs, not about the legal definition. For me, if the frontal cortex is dead and the person is irreversibly comatose, I consider the person to have died, even if the person is still legally alive because the brainstem is alive. I do understand the distinction you’re making about the medulla oblongata, and I appreciate your having taken time to address that in case it was something I didn’t understand.
“I question what a doctor uses as the actual Time Of Death TOD when the brain has completely died and they keep the body alive for the purpose of harvesting organs, I cannot find anything that tells me what they use as a TOD”
Time of death isn’t even clear when asystole has occurred, since doctors may try to resuscitate the person and sometimes can. But if not, TOD is effectively the time when the doctor decides that further effort to resuscitate is futile.
Anonymous wrote, “Thanks for taking time to respond. I feel like we’re making a little headway, and I always appreciate that a sincere discussion will push me to try to further clarify my own beliefs.”
It’s been a pretty good back and forth discussion and I think we’re clear on what the other one is thinking and in that way it was productive even if we continue to disagree on specific points.
Side Note: I do wish your moniker was different so I didn’t confuse you with other commenters using the same “Anonymous” monikers. I have absolutely no problem with maintaining complete anonymity but the blog not forcing a completely unique moniker for each individual commenting on the blog is a huge problem when there are literal duplicates. I’m not even sure how many different people are using the moniker “Anonymous”.
Steve,
Re: “Most of it is common sense which usually doesn’t require much discussion,” I think some (not all) of what you call “common sense” is a matter of opinion where people’s opinions can vary quite a bit.
I’ll respond to just one statement, since we were discussing science yesterday:
“GIVEN 1:
“Biologically speaking; sexual intercourse is the beginning of the human reproductive process and breeding human beings is the sole biological purpose.”
I doubt that biologists would agree with you.
First, the human reproductive process is a cycle. Like other cycles, there is no clear beginning. Here is an imagine of this cycle: http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/sjasper/images/13.4.gif One could just as easily say that the production of eggs and sperm is the beginning of the cycle, for example.
Second, in many species, including humans, reproduction is not the sole biological purpose of sex. In some species, it also promotes pair bonding, which can be important in raising young. This is one reason that humans and some other mammals do not limit sex to the period when the female is in estrus.
Anonymous wrote, “I doubt that biologists would agree with you.”
Doubt it all you want.
Anonymous wrote, “First, the human reproductive process is a cycle. Like other cycles, there is no clear beginning. Here is an imagine of this cycle: http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/sjasper/images/13.4.gif One could just as easily say that the production of eggs and sperm is the beginning of the cycle, for example.”
Short of test-tube feralization or artificial insemination the human reproductive cycle cannot begin without sexual intercourse, that’s a biological fact so just accept it.
Anonymous wrote, “Second, in many species, including humans, reproduction is not the sole biological purpose of sex. In some species, it also promotes pair bonding, which can be important in raising young. This is one reason that humans and some other mammals do not limit sex to the period when the female is in estrus.”
What you are talking about here is psychological processes not biological processes.
Stupid automatic spell checker, not “feralization” but “fertilization”.
“Stupid automatic spell checker, not “feralization” but “fertilization”.”
It’s OK, I understood. Literate readers can generally recognize typos and tell what word was meant. That said, I also understand the desire to correct one’s typos, and I sometimes correct mine too.
“Short of test-tube [fertilization] or artificial insemination the human reproductive cycle cannot begin without sexual intercourse, that’s a biological fact so just accept it.”
No, worded that way, it’s not a biological fact.
It’s a biological fact that “Short of test-tube fertilization or artificial insemination the human reproductive cycle cannot continue without sexual intercourse,” but saying that the “cycle cannot begin without sexual intercourse” assumes that intercourse is THE beginning (or a precursor to THE beginning), a logical error called begging the question.
It’s also a biological fact that the human reproductive cycle cannot continue without production of gametes (sperm and unfertilized eggs), but gamete production isn’t THE beginning either.
The beginning of the human reproductive cycle occurred when the genus first evolved (and even that beginning is fuzzy rather than well-defined) and has been continuous since then. That’s a biological fact.
“What you are talking about here is psychological processes not biological processes.”
The development of a mind that has psychological processes is part of the biological process, not separate from it. This kind of bonding has been evolutionarily selected for, as it helps the species survive.
In an effort to not leave you hanging…
I think we’re at that point we’re talking past each other and it’s probably best to simply agree to disagree and move on without reading into it, that’s what I’m doing now.
Thanks for the conversation, I do appreciate it.
Catch you later.
Steve,
I often agree to disagree about matters of opinion, values, etc., including some of the things you listed as responsibilities. But I seldom agree to disagree about factual matters. I prefer to resolve factual matters, and I think it’s a bad sign when people can’t agree on basic facts. For example, it’s a biological fact that gamete production is part of the human reproductive cycle and precedes intercourse.
But if you prefer to end things here, of course that’s your prerogative. If you plan to continue making this argument with others, I hope that you’ll revise the wording of your Given #1 going forward, since it’s biologically inaccurate as currently worded.
Sorry, that should have been “image,” not “imagine.”
I provided this link in my comment above but I think people might have missed the way I included it, so here it is again as a stand-alone link.
Imagine If You Will…
Hey Holmes, has any BLM or ANTIFA mobs resulted in deaths of innocents? How is it that only pro-life activists receive your opprobrium? Pro-life goons that attack people should be arrested and put in prison…just like BLM and ANTIFA goons. Of course leftists like Holmes will never attack a lefty VIOLENT mob.
Justice Holmes…You may be right on all counts, but that’s not the issue. Unless there’s a “purity test” for all college groups, even the ones you don’t like are eligible for funding. All students pay fees, and the funding for college groups comes out of student fees. I have seen protests at abortion clinics. Some have been violent, but many have been peaceful. Whatever violence happens at these clinics is a matter for the local police. You cannot deprive a student group of funds based on your interpretation of its mission or an anticipation of its activism. No matter how vile its views.
No, (in)justice Holmes, the group does not have many other ways because their constitutional right to free speech and free association are being infringed upon. Furthermore, I don’t recall the Roe court limiting the right to privacy it pronounced in its tortured opinion was solely for pregnant women. The “my body, my choice” thing seems to have gone out the window on January 20, 2021 for anything other than abortion. You vil have ziss injection!
Woman Pro Lifer here. I love myself and I love life. I was smart enough to make sure I did not get pregnant before I was ready. I took PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY which is sadly missing these days.
Babies that get torn apart so that Planned Parenthood can make money on their parts is GHASTLY.
If you can’t figure out that you had sex and may be pregnant in six weeks, maybe you shouldn’t be having sex at all. THERE are exceptions for rape and incest. Don’t try to use that excuse for women using it as birth control and shouting their abortions to the world.
Thousands of BABIES are getting murdered daily to satisfy the lefts genocidal hunger. When will there be enough???
Speaking of responsibilities regarding sex, check out the responsibilities list I put in the following blog post, I’d welcome your input here or there.
It looks like I forgot to include the link: Imagine If You Will…
Wen Bars wrote, “Thousands of BABIES are getting murdered daily to satisfy the lefts genocidal hunger.”
The use of the word murder in any form in this context is literally false! Murder is a legal term which is defined as an unlawful premeditated killing of another human, abortion is currently legal so it’s literally NOT murder. What should be used is the word killed or exterminated. The ones using “murder” are simply factually incorrect and the word usage in this context should be corrected every time it is seen.
Also; instead of using the word “babies” use the words “completely defenseless human beings”.
Pass this on to your fellow pro-lifers.