Suck it, Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not back, I'm just dropping by to send Ben into a depressive funk.

Why did you think this would send me into a depressive funk? I mean honestly. The fact that the school is arresting students isn't going to end the debate, they will just get more students to come out every time.

It is a terrible decision on the part of the university of calgary. They would have been better to permit the debate, and appear to be even-handed, etc.

FWIW, it's not that they want to shut down the debate. They thought it was important to have.

Name another protest that the University of Calgary would treat in this manner? ....Beuller? Beuller? I can't think of any. The APEC protest was different because you had violent protesters who were pepper sprayed.

The university permits them to protest, but only if the obscenely graphic images are only seen by people who wanted to (they suggested an enclosure with the images facing inwards).

There are warning signs placed at these displays, so that you cannot walk past them without seeing the warning signs. Turning the signs inward is simply censorship. You could have obscene modern art and they wouldn't restrict it, they would sell it in their student union building. You can have dancing condoms in the student union building or the Vagina Monologues. That stuff is financed by the university. If the school is so concerned about enforcing 'obscenity standards', then they are doing a poor job of it. I admit I was embarrassed when I attended school to see a dancing vagina in our student union building.

The protesters did not agree, and put up posters of graphic images of slaughtered children in the middle of busy areas on campus despite explicit warnings and signage saying they would be charged with trespassing if they did so.

Which they signed on all sides with warning signs. I am not against the university setting up a designated area for protests, so long as the area is of reasonably high traffic. You can't set up 'free speech zones', that's unconstitutional and has been ruled so already by the courts.

I don't see how a student at the University of Calgary can be fined for tresspass on their own school grounds, in these high traffic areas. The University of Calgary has overreached and they will lose.

The point is this, though: the pro-life people are on the way out. Even Calgary doesn't tolerate this bull**** anymore, and I doubt you'd find a city more right-wing and Christian-friendly in Canada than Calgary.

It's all over for Ben and his ilk. Not too long ago, it was the social libertarians on the fringe protesting with the Christian majority as the status quo. No longer, and it's becoming more pronounced as time goes on.

The university of calgary is so threatened by the protests that they have arrested the protesters. I don't think they are dealing from a position of strength. If they were as confident as you, why would they need to arrest anyone?

[DrSpike]

I'm not back

You seem pretty back. I knew you wouldn't be able to stick it for long.

[snoopy369]

I think there should be facilities that will help every women who needs it. Face it, we are paying for abortions. Surely we can afford to help the women who choose to keep their children. If we can pay welfare, then I cannot see why we shouldn't give a supplemental to women who have a child so that they can put a roof over his head. I believe if we make the investment now, that it will pay off in the future.

This, by the way, is perhaps the most sane thing out of Ben's mouth in months. The most effective pro-life tactic, in my opinion, is making it financially beneficial to have the child. The difficulty, at least in my mind, is making it adequately beneficial to have the child, but not so rewarding that women decide to have children so as to make money. It needs to be enough reward to offset most of the pain/difficulty of childbirth, when you factor in the pain/difficulty of having/choosing an abortion.

I'd say start by offering 100% free pre/postnatal healthcare by a competent physician, 100% free adoption placement, and if she keeps the child and does not place it, a small stipend for 2 years (say, $200 a month), which is in addition to the child tax credit and whatnot that everyone gets. I'd also like to give say half of that stipend directly if she DOES place the child for adoption, or some reasonable amount; but that is where you start getting into difficult ethical matters. I'm not sure though that still isn't the superior solution.

The real difficulty with making this argument TO most ardent pro-lifers is the simple fact that they consider abortion to be murder, and don't consider any sort of compromise to be possible. This is after all a compromise; some people will not weigh the difficulties in the same manner, and will still make their choice for abortion. I think it (or some similar compromise) is absolutely necessary - the world is simply too complex to see it in pure black and white terms, and if this compromise is not made, far worse harm is done (in my opinion, both to society AND to the children). If this sort of program reduces abortion rates by 50%, say, that's a huge gain, even if there is still a lot of 'murder' going on from one point of view.

I would note that the black-and-white problem is a problem for both sides; ardent pro-choicers believe the same that you cannot limit the right to choose at all, and are doing as much harm as murder to do so. Obviously plenty of people (non-ardent-...) are in the middle, and are considered to be on 'the other side' by whichever side you talk about; but I think both sides need to see something like this as a viable solution.

I don't think they WILL, but perhaps eventually...

[Ben Kenobi]

My definition of 'free speech' is 'you are free to say/express whatever you wish, so long as a reasonable person is not harmed by it in a tangible way'.

I'm sorry but 'disgust' is not the same as physical harm.

Have you seen Emmitt Till? They used to use pictures of him to get the point across that civil rights were essential in a society that would drag him behind a pick-up truck for the crime of being a black person. Was it disgusting for me to see the pictures of his face in the after column? Yes. Did it make me mad as hell that there were folks who would actually do this? Yes, indeed.

No slander/libel, no shouting fire in a theater, no threats, and nothing so obscene as to be physically painful, or cause substantial mental anguish

Here's what Dr. King said about this question:

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

[DaShi]

It is financially beneficial to have children. Spit out some babies, get some welfare checks, smoke some crack, repeat!

[DaShi]

Many of these poor unaborted babies are going to die from STDs and gun-related incidents, all supported by the christian-right. Abortion and anti-abortion are the same, only the former is more humane.

[Asher]

Why did you think this would send me into a depressive funk? I mean honestly. The fact that the school is arresting students isn't going to end the debate, they will just get more students to come out every time.

It is a terrible decision on the part of the university of calgary. They would have been better to permit the debate, and appear to be even-handed, etc.



Name another protest that the University of Calgary would treat in this manner? ....Beuller? Beuller? I can't think of any. The APEC protest was different because you had violent protesters who were pepper sprayed.



There are warning signs placed at these displays, so that you cannot walk past them without seeing the warning signs. Turning the signs inward is simply censorship. You could have obscene modern art and they wouldn't restrict it, they would sell it in their student union building. You can have dancing condoms in the student union building or the Vagina Monologues. That stuff is financed by the university. If the school is so concerned about enforcing 'obscenity standards', then they are doing a poor job of it. I admit I was embarrassed when I attended school to see a dancing vagina in our student union building.



Which they signed on all sides with warning signs. I am not against the university setting up a designated area for protests, so long as the area is of reasonably high traffic. You can't set up 'free speech zones', that's unconstitutional and has been ruled so already by the courts.

I don't see how a student at the University of Calgary can be fined for tresspass on their own school grounds, in these high traffic areas. The University of Calgary has overreached and they will lose.



The university of calgary is so threatened by the protests that they have arrested the protesters. I don't think they are dealing from a position of strength. If they were as confident as you, why would they need to arrest anyone?

You are insanely stupid and a terrible human being.

You are also a pathological liar.

I didn't even read your post and I knew how to reply. How cool is that.

[Asher]

You seem pretty back. I knew you wouldn't be able to stick it for long.

Nope. Only posting in this thread and only to bug Ben and remind him of his failures in life.

[Ben Kenobi]

This, by the way, is perhaps the most sane thing out of Ben's mouth in months. The most effective pro-life tactic, in my opinion, is making it financially beneficial to have the child.

Right now the only recourse to do so is through private donations. There are crisis pregnancy centres that operate all across Canada and the US that try to defray the costs of children, either through providing the supplies necessary to looking after the child, to arranging doctor visits, checkups, etc. They provide transportation, and that is what I have done in the past for them (among other things).

If you are interested in helping out, I'd be glad to provide you the location of one in your community.

I'd say start by offering 100% free pre/postnatal healthcare by a competent physician, 100% free adoption placement, and if she keeps the child and does not place it, a small stipend for 2 years (say, $200 a month), which is in addition to the child tax credit and whatnot that everyone gets. I'd also like to give say half of that stipend directly if she DOES place the child for adoption, or some reasonable amount; but that is where you start getting into difficult ethical matters. I'm not sure though that still isn't the superior solution.

I think that would be an excellent solution myself. The problem is to convince the government to include this as a benefit. Privately, the doctor visits are provided as well as a few other things (clothes, baby supplies, cribs etc), but the biggest issue really is the housing issue, because oftentimes having the child means having to move, either to a larger place or somewhere else altogether.

The real difficulty with making this argument TO most ardent pro-lifers is the simple fact that they consider abortion to be murder, and don't consider any sort of compromise to be possible.

It is murder, snoopy. What would you have them say otherwise? The unborn children are the same persons as the born children that we see later. In or outside of the womb doesn't make a difference.

This is after all a compromise; some people will not weigh the difficulties in the same manner, and will still make their choice for abortion. I think it (or some similar compromise) is absolutely necessary - the world is simply too complex to see it in pure black and white terms, and if this compromise is not made, far worse harm is done (in my opinion, both to society AND to the children). If this sort of program reduces abortion rates by 50%, say, that's a huge gain, even if there is still a lot of 'murder' going on from one point of view.

Ahh, I see what you are getting at it. No, that's not my position at all. I'm of the belief that if it helps us get there without compromising our beliefs then it's a positive step in the right direction. Your suggestion wouldn't really be a compromise for us, because it would not require us to reject the humanity of the unborn, rather it deals with some of the practical issues surrounding keeping a child.

I think your proposal is very sensible. Like I said earlier protests are only part of an effective strategy. You need to have the rest of it in place. If you went to one of these protests you would see referrals to crisis pregnancy centres, etc is all there. All the pamphlets have that information as well as other stuff too.

[Asher]

Ben, this isn't an argument about if abortion is right. Abortion is legal and is staying that way. Man up, collect your strap-on, and go on home.

[Kuciwalker]

The fact that the photos make you vomit, is the point. You obviously are disgusted by the content. If you cannot bear to look at the pictures, then why are we permitting abortion to occur? Does it make it ok when it's done out of sight instead of where you can see it?

Because lots of surgery is really disgusting if you take photos of it. DUH.

[Alinestra Covelia]

This reminds me of the South Park episode where Mr. Garrison gets a sex change.

The video of it is pretty unsettling to say the least.

[MOBIUS]

The fetuses are fine.

I agree. I like seeing a picture of a dead bloodied foetus - especially if it's one of a bunch of them dumped in a bin like so much trash...

Each lovely picture reminds me that women have a choice over their bodies, instead of letting some religious freak dictate what they can and can't do.

[Elok]

The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away...the BK driveth away, the BK lureth back on...oh, the wonder of it...

Ben, I think the proper way to fight abortion is to attack it as a purely legal matter, the same way other rights are addressed, without PETA/Greenpeace style stunts such as this, without trying to turn it into a public referendum on religious belief. That's the real biggie; for the pro-life movement to have any success at all, it needs to become more secular. The majority of its adherents need to learn respect for the separation of church and state, stop "debating" by quoting Psalms and shift their viewpoint into the legal arena. Yes, there's a role for religion in public life, but not the farce the religious right has made of it.

EDIT: Kuci and others pretty much covered why disgust is not some sort of valid argument against abortion--I just want to add that anyone who can be convinced abortion is wrong by a vivid picture of a mangled fetus can probably be convinced it's right again by a picture of a botched back-alley abortion. People need to make ethical and legal judgments with their heads, not their stomachs.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Kuci and others pretty much covered why disgust is not some sort of valid argument against abortion--I just want to add that anyone who can be convinced abortion is wrong by a vivid picture of a mangled fetus can probably be convinced it's right again by a picture of a botched back-alley abortion. People need to make ethical and legal judgments with their heads, not their stomachs.

This is a good way of putting it.