Suck it, Ben.

[DaShi]

While I agree that Ben is dishonest, willfully ignorant and generally obnoxious, I don't think the mods would be in the right to take Asher's side in this particular spat. Not to the extent of banning Ben, anyway. It would be perfectly reasonable to offer some restrictions, but Ben is a master at sidestepping the letter of the law; I'd say it's his greatest talent. Methinks it'd be nigh impossible to put any policy in place that didn't specifically target BK (which is unfair even if it is the only workable option).

Well, the mods do have policies that specifically target Asher. They have admitted as much.

[DaShi]

Instead of banning Ben, can we abort him?

I still believe that Ben's own logic requires that he castrate himself.

[Berzerker]

Yet you don't see people arguing they should have a right to break other people's legs.

The right to play football carries with it the risk of injury, thats a given and need not be argued for...

The KKK is repulsive, but I sincerely doubt that the exercise of freedom of speech would be considered at all repulsive to you. The same cannot be said for the 'right' to have an abortion.

Its an association I despise, but its legal nonetheless... The exercise of free speech includes disgusting or repulsive speech, and I'm sure I'd hear plenty of that at a KKK rally.

All I'm saying is that we don't remove laws because some people will break them. If that were the case, then we ought to abolish all laws. It works just as well saying we shouldn't have laws against bank robbery, because some people will still rob banks.

Actually we should (or do) when the number of people violating the law is so large a disrespect for the law and govt in general grows. Thats one of the problems with the drug war, it turns us into a nation of suspects and millions exercise their freedom in defiance of the govt.

At current time, the law says that a person is only a person at birth, but that has changed too. It used to say that a woman couldn't be considered a legal person, or a black man.

It hasn't changed, there's nothing in the Constitution that says women and black men are not people.

Now the question is what changes at birth that fundamentally changes the quality of the human being to make him into a person? Birth doesn't change anything except location, developmentally, the child after birth is no different then the child that was there a day ago.

I agree

Infringing rights that have not always been there. Arguing for woman's rights doesn't mean that we ought to deprive unborn children of their rights. It's not a zero sum game.

The problem is this: you said the woman is infringing upon the baby's rights, but the baby is infringing upon her rights too. She runs a risk of death or serious bodily harm to bring that baby into the world and I dont want politicians deciding how close to death women must come before an abortion.

No, I already said that if done to save the mother and you cannot save the child, then it is no differently then a disease that would claim the life of your child. The one responsible for the death is not the doctor, but rather the medical condition which prevents the child from being carried to term. Agency is the primary concern wrt to murder, and the agency is not the same in either case.

Well, thats logical

I'd want a ban on all 'elective' abortions, simply because if it's elective then there is no reason to be having one. If there is no other recourse, then yes, I would say it should be permitted.

You (and I) may not agree with it, but there's always a reason.

Millions? Where are you getting your figures from? Abortions are about 100x larger now then they were prior to legalisation. There have been 40 million abortions in NA over the past 30 years, so that would come out to maybe 400 thousand illegal ones from 1900 onwards. Sure laws against abortion won't stop all of them, but 99 percent isn't bad.

I started with millions and you got all sorts of numbers from somewhere Illegal abortions dont get reported unless something goes wrong, so how do we know how many there are? I'm basing my guess on how many there were the first year it was legal everywhere. I've heard 1.5 million, I doubt there were only 15,000 in 1972. I'd say more like a 1/2 to a million...

None, they plead down to no charge in exchange for testimony. I don't believe there ever were any women arrested and sent to jail for illegal abortions. Only the doctors were prosecuted.

What do they plead down to when they self-abort? You're telling me abortion laws weren't really enforced, more symbolism than substance. So how did abortion laws prevent all those abortions when it was illegal? This is where the pro-life side falls down, you cant call it murder and let the murderers walk. Even the docs weren't treated like murderers...

No, I don't. I don't believe the state should have that power over the lives of individuals. With life imprisonment convictions can be reversed when new evidence is found.

But women who have abortions - who conspire to murder - walk...

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz:

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Actually we should (or do) when the number of people violating the law is so large a disrespect for the law and govt in general grows. Thats one of the problems with the drug war, it turns us into a nation of suspects and millions exercise their freedom in defiance of the govt.

I agree with you that if a law is on the books then it ought to be enforced. Suppose we said that there were a rash of murders or robberies or home invasions? Would the right approach for law enforcement be to say that because there were so many people breaking the law that they should abandon the law altogether?

Another law that often comes up in these discussions is that of copyright. It bothers me when I see companies renewing copyright indefinitely. That is not why they were introduced. It was simply a way to protect intellectual property such that the author could be properly compensated for their work. It was intended to expire a certain period after the death of the author. The reason being for archival purposes, you could preserve important cultural artifacts without running afoul of copyright issues.

The other thing are companies that do not have any interest in marketing or selling property that they own, by which there is still some demand. I agree that people shouldn't pirate, but if the copyright holder has no intent of distributing the property through legal channels, then that makes it quite difficult. I've always thought it would be a good business model for companies to continue to distribute older games, or simply release the copyright to someone who is willing to distribute.

The problem is this: you said the woman is infringing upon the baby's rights, but the baby is infringing upon her rights too. She runs a risk of death or serious bodily harm to bring that baby into the world and I dont want politicians deciding how close to death women must come before an abortion.

The child relies entirely on the mother for her life and preservation. The mother cannot say that her rights are infringed by the child as the child is not the agency for pregnancy. I cannot cross a line that I did not cross myself. In the case where the mother has consented to sex, she also consents to pregnancy.

In the case of rape, the agency is the rapist not the child, and so we ought to punish the rapist instead of the child. She doesn't have an obligation to the child to care for the child after, but as the child will die without their mother, she does not have the right to kill the child regardless of how the child got there. The child is innocent.

I started with millions and you got all sorts of numbers from somewhere

I was curious where you are getting your numbers from. Dr. Barnard Nathanson admitted to inflating the statistics while he was with NARAL.

What do they plead down to when they self-abort?

Self abortion strikes me more in line with cutting, then it does a criminal offense. I would think it more appropriate to place anyone who self-aborts into a psychiatric ward.

You're telling me abortion laws weren't really enforced, more symbolism than substance. So how did abortion laws prevent all those abortions when it was illegal? This is where the pro-life side falls down, you cant call it murder and let the murderers walk. Even the docs weren't treated like murderers...

Not really enforced? It's far more effective to go after the doctors, since there generally are only a very few that will perform abortions.

But women who have abortions - who conspire to murder - walk...

As often happens, you want to go after the doctors moreso then the women.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's part of the problem. The warning sign should be away from the display so that people can avoid the display. I'm having a hard time believing that warning signs are always there and, if they are, they are put up in good faith.

The pictures that are generally taken of the display tend to revolve around the display and not the warning signs. There are some of the warning signs, but not nearly as many. I agree that not as much time and thought is put into the warning signs as they are in the display, but that would be natural, given the primary purpose of the display in the first place.

[DaShi]

The pictures that are generally taken of the display tend to revolve around the display and not the warning signs. There are some of the warning signs, but not nearly as many. I agree that not as much time and thought is put into the warning signs as they are in the display, but that would be natural, given the primary purpose of the display in the first place.

You're implying that the primary purpose of the displays is to disgust and offend people, like a cruel joke. If they wanted people to think about the displays rationally, they would support proper placement of warning signs. Thank you for confirming this.

[Ben Kenobi]

The prolife people received permission to protest?

They have in the past, and even the sign from the university before acknowledged that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the prolifers right to freedom of expression. The university has changed their position to requiring the signs to be placed inwards, so as to restrict their freedom of expression.

The rules are the same.

The rules are not the same. Does the university require the Falun Gong club required to turn their signs inward? That is where the rules differ, and why the prolife club is right to defy the rules that are specifically targetted at the prolife club.

For illegal solicitation, yes fraternities have been punished for that. And now your argument has changed to protesting. And where does the money come in? There are pills for your problem, you know.

Where does the money come? Private donations by concerned individuals.

And the state has the right to prosecute protestors who violate rules, which I mentioned and you ignored.

The state has the right to arrest those who break an unjust law, but that does not justify them being arrested in the first place. I believe the club should accept the authority of the law, while at the same time rejecting the application of the claim of trespassing. Same as Dr. King when he served his time.

I'm sure images of the corpses of women who died during childbirth would be more effective at promoting abortion. But that too would not be appropriate in a public venue. And, as I stated and you ignored again, the images only serve to generate an emotional response.

Then why would the same images on their own are inoffensive? The display makes an argument that is considered offensive, regardless of the photos used.

They don't add to your scientific evidence argument. And to use them while trying to reason with people would be disingenuous.

Which is why there are volunteers at the signs. I agree with you that the signs in themselves are not enough, but they serve to create the creative tension that Dr. King speaks about such that the issue cannot be ignored. The volunteers have the job of discussing the issue and addressing the points and the questions of anyone who wishes to discuss.

You can read their minds now? The university only offered to turn the images as a compromise.

Then why don't they impose the same 'compromise' on the other clubs? What makes the prolife club so special that only they receive 'special regulations?'

From your own statements "They obviously don't mind the protests" which negates your arguments of discrimination.

This is why I said it was VIEWPOINT discrimination, in that they don't mind the protest, but they do mind the ideas expressed by the display.

There is no evidence on their opinions of the ideas of the protest (you made that up, which is why people call you a liar)

You haven't answered the question I posed as to why they would single out the prolife club. Do you have an alternative explanation that would account for all the evidence?

but there is evidence that they won't permit graphic images. And since the images were graphic, it can not be viewpoint discrimination.

They permit the exact same pictures when used in a holocaust display. Obviously they do permit graphic images, when it supports causes that they support.

I never said that indoors had a more intellectual air

Do you really want me to quote you? You said just that earlier.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're implying that the primary purpose of the displays is to disgust and offend people, like a cruel joke.

The primary purpose is to inform. If the subject matter was unicorns farting rainbows, then it would be colourful and light. That the pictures disgust and are horrifying is because abortion is both disgusting and horrifying.

If they wanted people to think about the displays rationally, they would support proper placement of warning signs. Thank you for confirming this.

Where did I say that the signs should not be placed in such a way as to permit folks to see the signs and make an informed decision? All I said is that the warning signs are not the primary focus.

[Ben Kenobi]

he'd be on Desperate Housewives as Bree's nemesis.

Which one is Bree? I've never see the show.

[Ben Kenobi]

For the record, I disagree with most of what Ben Kenobi says politically and philosophically. But he does so in a way that doesn't constitute personal attacks on people. I also think he has shown a great deal of restraint in his responses, given the context that some threads will devolve into BK-bashing even when he has not posted in them.

Well, thank you Ali.

High praise.

[Asher]

Ben: You repeatedly mention the Falun Gong club posters. Show me the UofC Falon Gong club posters if they are so horrible. I don't recall seeing anything outrageous from them, but clearly you are saying they have graphic posters on the UofC.

I look forward to your evidence.

Then why don't they impose the same 'compromise' on the other clubs? What makes the prolife club so special that only they receive 'special regulations?'

Because only they have content that is obscenely graphic.

If you're going to again assert other clubs are just as bad, you need to back that up. If you're not going to back that up, you may as well just shut the **** up now and save us the time and save DanQ the bandwidth.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why do i doubt that it was only the vandalism that convinced you to join the abortion doctor killer crowd.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

[Asher]

This Falun Gong poster is particularly graphic. Why doesn't the university force them to force the posters inwards?

[Ben Kenobi]

You repeatedly mention the Falun Gong club posters. Show me the UofC Falon Gong club posters if they are so horrible.

Why should the content determine how the university treats the protest? Should the university only permit fluffy displays with brownies handing out girl scout cookies?

I don't recall seeing anything outrageous from them, but clearly you are saying they have graphic posters on the UofC.

I didn't say that. I simply said that U of C permits holocaust memorials that display the exact same images without issue. Obviously it isn't the images that are the problem, but the idea.

If you're going to again assert other clubs are just as bad, you need to back that up.

I am saying that finding the content of the display objectionable is not a good rationale for banning the display.

If you're not going to back that up, you may as well just shut the **** up now and save us the time and save DanQ the bandwidth.

Then perhaps you should not start threads trolling other posters.

[Asher]

Why should the content determine how the university treats the protest?

There is a concept of public decency.

If you're asserting protests in public should not be censored, then I'm sure you'd have no problem with NAMBLA printing off 3'x6' posters depicting graphic pedophile sex acts either. Why should the content determine how the university treats the protest?

I didn't say that. I simply said that U of C permits holocaust memorials that display the exact same images without issue. Obviously it isn't the images that are the problem, but the idea.

So, long story short, you keep bringing up Falun Gong and Holocaust Memorials that the UofC apparently hosts in public. Do you have evidence of those, because I certainly don't recall any of them and I went to the damn school.

Put up or shut up, Ben.

(PS: The holocaust images the GAP uses are not overly graphic in general, they are just offensive to many in comparing the plight of holocaust suffers to a fetus -- it is the other images that tend to be more graphic).

It's interesting you didn't talk about the Falun Gung in your reply. You were so keen to talk about it in this thread when you kept talking about how the UofC doesn't censor their posters -- but when asked to show what posters you're talking about you change the subject yet again. ****ing cowardly liar...