Suck it, Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

Only the botches ones are vomit-worthy.

The regular ones are still hideous, but they're hideous in the same respect that most Americans are -- not vomit worthy, but holy ****, WHY?

So lets see then.

Regular surgery -> Botched surgery

Hideous -> Vomit worthy

Regular surgery -> Abortion.

Clearly there is something different about abortion, and something that it has in common with botched surgery.

[Asher]

So lets see then.

Regular surgery -> Botched surgery

Hideous -> Vomit worthy

Regular surgery -> Abortion.

Clearly there is something different about abortion, and something that it has in common with botched surgery.

Holy hell, Ben.

As I said, fetuses are fine. I don't give a ****.

It's the images of mutilated, slaughtered infants and children that I don't like -- and the university didn't like.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's the images of mutilated, slaughtered infants and children that I don't like -- and the university didn't like.

You have a problem with the GAP display using images of genocide?

I don't see what the issue is, how is it a bad thing to bring about awareness of genocide?

Would you have a problem with just the images of genocide in a holocaust memorial?

[Blaupanzer]

Again, why should we do surgery?

Ask Sloww (or any of us who had a heart attack). Ask severely wounded soldiers. Ask wounded cops. Your effort here is not logic.

Do we do abortions to save the life of the mother? Overwhelmingly, the public answers "yes." That establishes we will do them , now we argue where the line is. The difficulty in preventing them without wildly intrusive inspections of every woman in the nation is so overwhelmingly obvious that the question becomes "Is there any reason we should allow them." The answer to that is the personal privacy, personal morals aspect of freedom in America. Nonviable fetuses have no comprehensible rights or existance except as a parasite.

The argument here is two fold:
1) If we will permit abortion at all then we are not arguing "if," we are discussing "what are the limits?"
2) If the law is essentially unenforceable, then why advocate that law?

[Asher]

You have a problem with the GAP display using images of genocide?

I don't see what the issue is, how is it a bad thing to bring about awareness of genocide?

Would you have a problem with just the images of genocide in a holocaust memorial?

You're so ****ing stupid that it is incomprehensible.

What's the difference between a MEMORIAL, where people GO IN ORDER TO SEE SOMETHING, and planting HUGE PICTURES in "bottlenecks" on campus that students have to pass by in order to go to campus?

Further, the images of the holocaust are nothing compared to the ones the GAP people use. I've seen them first hand for years. They're vivid in colour and detail, they're always young children, etc.

And they are not raising awareness about genocide, they are cheaply trying to equate a fetus to a 3 year old child. I realize to your alarmingly small, underutilized mind that this is the same thing but it is not to most people, or scientifically. Further, the images they show are not of legal abortions -- they tend to be botched abortions or late-term abortions.

Long story short, they are INTENSELY and INAPPROPRIATELY graphic images used in an INSENSITIVE and INAUTHENTIC manner to try to SHOCK people who walk by and want nothing to do with it.

It is a DEPRAVED act by PATHETIC HUMAN BEINGS. I can see why you don't see fault in it. You are a disgusting person.

Genuinely, as a gay man, I didn't give much thought to the issue of abortion until I saw the GAP posters in my first year. Ever since then I've become increasingly fervent in my support of abortion, if only because if those are the people who support outlawing abortion, they're clearly not right in the head and not deserving of my support. It's the same reason why you -- and you alone, Ben -- have lowered my respect for Christians to astonishing lows.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ask Sloww (or any of us who had a heart attack). Ask severely wounded soldiers. Ask wounded cops. Your effort here is not logic.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do surgery. Not at all. All I am asking is the question as to why do we perform surgery over other treatment options.

Do we do abortions to save the life of the mother? Overwhelmingly, the public answers "yes."

The public doesn't decide whether surgery is the best treatment option available. Would you want people voting about what treatment you should get? What people think should happen doesn't mean that it is the best thing that would be done for the patient.

That establishes we will do them

No, it does not. If people voted to amputate limbs off someone who asked for it to be done, does that mean appropriate treatment in such a case would be amputation of perfectly healthy limbs, or would that be called mutilation?

now we argue where the line is.

You haven't even established that abortion is an appropriate treatment option. All you've said is that because people want it that makes it good surgery. No, it doesn't. Whether a surgery is appropriate or not, has nothing to do on what people believe should be done. People don't have medical training, they are not equipped to diagnose.

The difficulty in preventing them without wildly intrusive inspections of every woman in the nation is so overwhelmingly obvious that the question becomes "Is there any reason we should allow them." The answer to that is the personal privacy, personal morals aspect of freedom in America. Nonviable fetuses have no comprehensible rights or existance except as a parasite.

Suppose we assume that the unborn child isn't a person. Does that mean that abortion is a surgery that should be done? Look at it this way. What are the consequences if surgery does not occur? The consequence is that the woman will continue to be pregnant, and have her child. Pregnancy is not a disease, abortion is not a cure of any disease. Why are we doing surgery to correct a condition that is not harmful to a woman?

This is why abortion is akin to amputating healthy limbs. It is a mutilation of the mother. She may want the abortion, she may want to have her arm cut off, but that doesn't mean the doctor should oblige her in her desire.

Now, there is one exception to this case, where the abortion would threaten the life of the mother, as in an ectopic pregnancy. This is the only case in which surgery is warranted because there is an immediate threat to the mother. You cannot save the life of both, so you must save one.

Nonviable fetuses have no comprehensible rights or existance except as a parasite.

So as soon as the unborn child becomes viable, she is no longer a parasite? She's still on her umbilical cord.

[Ben Kenobi]

What's the difference between a MEMORIAL, where people GO IN ORDER TO SEE SOMETHING, and planting HUGE PICTURES in "bottlenecks" on campus that students have to pass by in order to go to campus?

So you are claiming that there is no way to go that would avoid the pictures? Hardly.

Just because they are in a prominent place doesn't mean that you cannot avoid the pictures once you see the sign. It may be a bit inconvenient, but that's a far cry from being forced to see the pictures.

Further, the images of the holocaust are nothing compared to the ones the GAP people use. I've seen them first hand for years. They're vivid in colour and detail, they're always young children, etc.

Always young children? I would post them here with permission of the moderators. Their holocaust photos are the same ones they use in the memorial, exactly the same. They have photos of the Jewish death camp graves where the corpses are stacked like cordwood. They have photos of young black men being lynched.

Yes, they are vivid, but they are the exact same photos that have been used in many other places, including holocaust memorials.

And they are not raising awareness about genocide, they are cheaply trying to equate a fetus to a 3 year old child.

So your issue isn't the genocide photos at all. Your issue is the comparison between the two. Why didn't you say that in the first place? You'd have no problem with the genocide photos, except that abortion is being compared to them. They aren't "too gross", etc you have an issue with the content of the display, in the idea they confront you.

So why don't we discard all this nonsense about 'gross pictures' and get to the meat and the potatoes.

Why is human life at 3 months in the womb 'cheaper' then a fully grown adult? Why is that offensive to you Asher?

Further, the images they show are not of legal abortions -- they tend to be botched abortions or late-term abortions.

Again, this is false.

If the moderators will permit me to post the images, I can show that this is not the case. They use abortions as early as 8 weeks, that are perfectly legal, and very, very common.

Genuinely, as a gay man, I didn't give much thought to the issue of abortion until I saw the GAP posters in my first year. Ever since then I've become increasingly fervent in my support of abortion, if only because if those are the people who support outlawing abortion, they're clearly not right in the head and not deserving of my support. It's the same reason why you -- and you alone, Ben -- have lowered my respect for Christians to astonishing lows.

Hmm, my experience was the opposite.

I was a weak abortion supporter before I saw the display.

I read about it in the campus papers where other students hated it so much that they tore it down. I said, if you believe in freedom of speech, every idea should be seen and debated no matter how repugnant. So I went to go see what all the fuss was about, and I asked the question, why would this issue bother them so much?

The more I read up on it, the less the position of the pro choice folks made sense. My cousin told me it wasn't a man's issue, and that was it for me. I thought that any position that made philosophical sense shouldn't matter whether it was a man's or a woman's issue. I wasn't a Christian at the time, but it all made sense to me from a scientific standpoint that human life begins at conception.

[DaShi]

Who here thinks that Ben should be castrated? Clearly, he shouldn't be allowed to breed from a philosophical standpoint. But really, it's not his issue, it's up to society (ie us) to decide. I find it morally repugnant that he isn't.

[Asher]

Ben is the #1 reason more women should get abortions.

I like how you pretend to know exactly what images the ********* on the UofC campus have posted for years. You don't.

They're far worse than you say they are. Why do you think the UofC went to such great lengths to get rid of them? The students union and the university were unanimous in their opposition to the display. Even some of the local Christian students groups were opposed to the displays for being gratuitously graphic.

AS USUAL, you clearly have no ****ing idea what you are talking about.

AS USUAL, I will invite you to go jump off a ****ing cliff for being a pathetic human being.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben is the #1 reason more women should get abortions.

I like how you pretend to know exactly what images the ********* on the UofC campus have posted for years. You don't.

I suggest you stop before you make more of a fool of yourself.

They're far worse than you say they are. Why do you think the UofC went to such great lengths to get rid of them?

They did the same at UBC, at SFU, and elsewhere. You think U of C is special?

The students union and the university were unanimous in their opposition to the display.

The folks at UBC were the same.

Even some of the local Christian students groups were opposed to the displays for being gratuitously graphic.

Catholics for a Free Choice?

AS USUAL, you clearly have no ****ing idea what you are talking about.

Hmm, this is exactly like telling KH his position has no merit, unless he was a research physicist.

Please mods, can I? May I? Please?

[Elok]

Images are powerful. I don't see what was wrong about what the Civil Rights movement, which I notice you conveniently ignored, making a big issue over lynchings, publicising police brutality, bringing it home to everybody what exactly is at stake.

Is the reason you ignored the Civil Rights movement, because you find the analogy uncomfortable? We are dealing with persons here, Elok, not animals.

I "ignored" it because it's an entirely different subject. Nobody, AFAIK, is unaware of what goes on during an abortion. The purpose of the images is not to arouse indignation, but to cause revulsion. And revulsion is meaningless; I imagine I would have a similar reaction to images of a slaughterhouse, but it would not cause me to take a moral stand against eating meat. It's just a normal human reaction to blood and guts.

Secular in what sense? I was a secularist Elok. All the arguments stand or fall on their scientific merits. How is this argument anything to do with quoting Psalms? It's entirely secular. Where are the biblical quotes here Elok? If you are saying that the movement should become more secular then GAP is a huge part of it.

No, I mentioned the over-entanglement of religion as a larger but more or less unrelated problem. These absurd stunts are counterproductive at best, which is why I compared them to PETA or Greenpeace shenanigans. They just make their adherents look like lunatics and offend everyone who might have been undecided. The movement would probably have a lot more success if the dominant voices were serious activists who didn't show up at pro-choice rallies and call "forgive them, father, for they know not what they do" through a megaphone (dunno about Canada, but that happens often in the states, or did as of the time a few years back when I got depressed and stopped paying attention to the movement).

So you are saying I'm in favour of a back-alley abortion? That's a terrible argument. Clearly I'm opposed to both.

No, you read me wrong. Not everything is an editorial on your opinions, Ben. I am saying that, suppose person X sees one of these images and says, "Oh, how horrible! I'll never support abortion again!" When person X is then shown an equally gruesome picture of a botched back-alley abortion, will person X not say "Oh, how horrible! I'll never oppose a woman's right to choose again?" Revulsion is an instinctive reaction, and without context meaningless. People need to oppose abortion intellectually--I oppose it because I realize that any distinction between fetus and infant is ultimately arbitrary, and frequently quite silly.

[Asher]

I suggest you stop before you make more of a fool of yourself.

LOL!

They did the same at UBC, at SFU, and elsewhere. You think U of C is special?

Has UBC and SFU gone to such lengths to charge the groups with trespassing?

I've seen the UofC displays 4 times. They're far more graphic than you describe.

Catholics for a Free Choice?

No, they weren't abortion special interest groups. They just recognized the perversion of the cause, not unlike Elok.

Hmm, this is exactly like telling KH his position has no merit, unless he was a research physicist.

Please mods, can I? May I? Please?

How is this anything like this?

You've never ****ing seen the posters these ***** put up on the UofC campus each year -- I've seen them four times. IF this is like the KH situation, it's you again who's no ****ing idea what you're talking about.

[Berzerker]

If you cannot bear to look at the pictures, then why are we permitting abortion to occur?

We'd ban all sorts of stuff based on that

we permit it because the alternative aint any better, abortions go underground, maybe some are prevented, and some are botched, and what do we do with the women who have abortions, or suspected abortions? Nothing? Then whats the point? Go after the Docs so women start asking friends to help or seek ways of self aborting? No thanks, that'll take an even larger police state with authorities snooping around in our medical records etc etc etc.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nobody, AFAIK, is unaware of what goes on during an abortion.

I would be surprised by this statement. Where would you get to see one being done? AFAIK it's not shown anywhere else, and I would greatly challenge that people understand what happens during an abortion. This is one of the reasons for GAP, because a great many people that I have worked with in the past have said they didn't know this was happening, etc.

The purpose of the images is not to arouse indignation, but to cause revulsion.

Why would you say that? If the purpose would be to cause revulsion, they would do it just for the sake of the pictures. Should the situation arise where they would be used, the protests would no longer be necessary and would go away. The purpose is very clear, to show people the truth, the fact that it is gruesome really isn't important. The most important part is the comparison.

No, I mentioned the over-entanglement of religion as a larger but more or less unrelated problem. These absurd stunts are counterproductive at best, which is why I compared them to PETA or Greenpeace shenanigans.

Counterproductive how? In changing hearts and minds?

Some people are going to be turned away from the display. There's no way around this. However, it has been very effective towards those who are in the middle. Why do you say they are counterproductive? Do you have the numbers showing that more people are turned away then brought in? The most effective campus clubs have been the ones that did GAP regularly.

They just make their adherents look like lunatics and offend everyone who might have been undecided. The movement would probably have a lot more success if the dominant voices were serious activists who didn't show up at pro-choice rallies and call "forgive them, father, for they know not what they do" through a megaphone (dunno about Canada, but that happens often in the states, or did as of the time a few years back when I got depressed and stopped paying attention to the movement).

Wow, ok. No, the GAP displays are very different. No, we don't show up at Pro Choice rallies, and we hold our own displays instead. We just stand by the signs and hand pamplets to anyone interested and discuss with anyone who wants to talk. It's really very quiet.

The only ones with bull horns are the pro choicers trying to shout us down.

No, you read me wrong. Not everything is an editorial on your opinions, Ben. I am saying that, suppose person X sees one of these images and says, "Oh, how horrible! I'll never support abortion again!" When person X is then shown an equally gruesome picture of a botched back-alley abortion, will person X not say "Oh, how horrible! I'll never oppose a woman's right to choose again?"

It's a bad argument. Even accepting your premises it doesn't work. Compare this to what the prolifers want to have happen, which is a mother giving birth to her kid. The issue isn't between legal and illegal abortions, but between childbirth and abortion. You've put up a false dilemma.

Revulsion is an instinctive reaction, and without context meaningless. People need to oppose abortion intellectually--I oppose it because I realize that any distinction between fetus and infant is ultimately arbitrary, and frequently quite silly.

You are weird.

No, seriously, people work in different ways. Personally, I lean towards your ideas, but everyone is different. GAP is effective for some and ineffective for others. It should be part, not the be all and end all. Saving babies is the most important thing, and there are many ways to get there.

[Ben Kenobi]

We'd ban all sorts of stuff based on that

It's raising the question as to why we are revulsed by it. It's not a normal reaction to a right. You aren't revulsed by freedom of speech, or freedom of association on the face of it.

we permit it because the alternative aint any better, abortions go underground, maybe some are prevented, and some are botched, and what do we do with the women who have abortions, or suspected abortions?

We don't remove laws based on murder because it means there will be back alley hitmen. Yes, there will still be abortions done even if the law is changed. That's inevitable. We have to have laws because one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

If the unborn child is a person, then we have the same obligations to protect them as we do the mother.

The issue isn't that the police will snoop, just that the unborn child deserves the same protections. What used to happen in the past is the police would shut down the doctors and have the women plead out. It's not necessary to monitor in the fashion that you suggest in order to enforce things.