Suck it, Ben.

[Lul Thyme]

University of Colorado is known as Colorado. In the civilized (academic) world [which is one of those oxymorons, like "military intelligence"], the University of Chicago is the only U of C

Asher will disagree with this of course, but you have to forgive him as he's from Canada and forgets that using the minor league names out of context isn't appropriate

Since Google is always the ultimate arbiter, I googled "U of C" and the first two hits were University of Calgary.

[Ben Kenobi]

For the same reason I always turn away when LT sacks Joe and that leg...argh...SNAPS!

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

I hear repulsive things all the time and the KKK is certainly repulsive. Shall I go on with other repulsive associations?

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.

That equates murder with abortion, I dont think thats a fair equation.

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.

And under the Constitution (Canada's different?) a person is born, not conceived.

Canada is different. First off, we don't have a right to private property and other rights that your constitution permits. We also don't have a right to abortion. We have no law whatsoever restricting when and where abortions can be done. You can have one up to the ninth month and it would be perfectly legal. The only regulations are those based on the predelictions of the abortion doctors.

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. 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.

Therefore this "non" person wrt to the law is infringing upon the woman's rights.

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.

And be it blessed to most, some women cant or wont continue a pregnancy that endangers their lives. Is that murder?

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.

Therein lies the rub, clearly the unborn child is a human being by the time of birth (and long before). But how many women have late term abortions? And why? Elective abortions usually occur much sooner. Would you want a ban on late term abortions to save the life and/or health of the woman?

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.

The police will need a record of every pregnancy and investigate any abortions and that means govt medical experts will tell juries whether or not the abortion was natural or induced.

No, hardly. All you need is one woman who's suffered a botched abortion and wants to sue the provider. Then Bob's your uncle.

Now, thats if you want the law actually enforced. Like you said, enforcement was hardly a priority in the past and millions of women had abortions anyway.

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.

So what did they plead down to? How many women went to jail for illegal abortions?

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.

Murder? Really? Dont you support the death penalty for murder?

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

The gay club (GLASS) regularly had their poster boards "modified" because of inappropriate content. They had to remove nudity on it (like a male ass) to satisfy content guidelines. And if you're not allowed to show a 25 year old's ass on a photo, why the **** should you be allowed to show a decapitated three year old child?

Ahh, so that's the only rationale you have for curtailing the speech of others? You are using nudity as a recruiting tool. Do you think prolifers would continue to put the signs up if there were no more abortions?

You're pretending like this is discrimination against the viewpoint.

Yes, why else would they state that they want the images turned inside?

Do you get that, Ben? Comprende? That's wrong. Calgary is a right-wing, conservative Christian city by and large, for **** sakes.... it has to do with appropriate content. There are a few pro-life groups on campus, all of them can and do display posters and literature...it's just this one group that cannot. And do you know why it is? Because they post obscene content like slaughtered children on big posters to try to disgust anyone who sees it.

Then you should be arguing that anything, obscene or not ought to be displayed. It would be the intellectually honest position. Just because you got your toys taken away doesn't justify oppressing others.

There is a difference between pornography and a holocaust display, and if you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.

The difference between the gay club and the other pro-life clubs is one of intelligence and being reasonable -- there are guidelines regarding what can be displayed in public without getting someone's informed consent, and they must be respected. The other clubs comply with such requests and can keep their exhibits, the militant Christian clubs like the one you apparently proudly belong to refuses to be reasonable then whine when they get "discriminated against".

That's because you are using the images as a recruitment tool. It's for your own self interest which is why you don't mind pulling them, because win or lose you are still the same. When you are trying to expose an injustice, then the regulations don't matter to you, and you will willingly put the pictures up. Appropriate content shouldn't be used as a smokescreen for censorship. The prolife groups will willingly submit to the authority of the university, but they will continue to run the displays, regardless of the consequences. It's no different then when Dr. King rejected the unjust Jim Crow laws. He broke them because they were unjust laws. He went to jail for it, got out and broke them again. The same will happen here.

The worst part is you tightwads are the same types that petition to remove SU funding to the gay clubs or protest the "content" of the gay club booths because they "promote sex" by handing out condoms.

I'm glad to see that your principles are on display here. I don't have a problem with gay clubs distributing condoms on their own dime. I have a problem with the public funding that goes towards gay clubs to distribute condoms on mine.

Whining because they took your toys away, and wanting to punish others isn't a very good rationale for your actions.

[BeBMan]

I have the last word in this threadi

[Alinestra Covelia]

Lastwordithreadi?

[BeBMan]

[Tuberski]

Since Google is always the ultimate arbiter, I googled "U of C" and the first two hits were University of Calgary.

I googled "U of C" and the first 2 hits were University of Chicago. So even the ultimate arbiter is confused.

ACK!

[Krill]

It depends where you are searching from. I get Calgary as the first link, Chicago as 6th.

[Elok]

Alas, it seems Asher is only back to get himself symbolically banned. I should have known he hadn't had enough time to calm down.

[Krill]

Calling ben a pathological liar isn't an insult, it's the truth. It's like saying RAH likes ferrets...

[Elok]

Maybe, but I think Ming might construe all those *****s as Asher attacking the poster rather than the post. Call it a hunch.

[Krill]

Hopefully Ming will grow a backbone and tell Ben to grow a brain?

[Asher]

I have pictures that prove otherwise. Would the moderators permit me to post them?



Then you need to open your eyes.



Considering I have scans of all the images, I find that accusation rather weak. I know what they use at U of C, because as I said I helped build them and I receive their updates. I know what they are using and how their displays have gone for the past several years.



It's standard procedure for the warning signs. I've worked with them and they are exactly as I said they were, saying, stop, "warning Graphic abortion pictures ahead," fullstop. They should have been at the access points to the display such that anyone passing by would see the sign.



Do you have any evidence that the photos themselves are doctored? The genocide photos have been used elsewhere across other memorials. Which ones are doctored, or are they all doctored?

You are a ****ing liar.

I've seen the ones on the GAP website -- they use some of those images and posters, but they've also included far more graphic images (not that the ones on the GAP website are publicly tolerable in the first place). Additionally, I know for a FACT They didn't put up their own signs. At the time, this was in 02 or 03, when they first started this **** it became a huge deal in the paper with articles SUGGESTING they put up signs at the very least, which they refused to do (if people didn't see the images, they felt their point was lost).

I know for a fact you know dick all about what went on at the University of Calgary despite your claims to be involved, because what you're saying directly contradicts what I've seen with my own eyes. If Zylka was still posting, I'm sure he'd back me up on this.

[MOBIUS]

Ben himself should have been aborted!

There. Said it. I bet everyone else here thinks it.

[Asher]

Ahh, so that's the only rationale you have for curtailing the speech of others? You are using nudity as a recruiting tool.

Who am I? I've never belonged to a gay student club, you ****ing presumptuous bigot. Here you go again with your ****ing insulting "gay hive mind" bull****.

And yes, they were using the nudity as a "recruiting tool" in the same respect that the GAP people use the slaughter of children as a "recruiting tool". The University has decided both were inappropriate. Frankly, one of these is far more evil than the other...but I'm sure you'll think the temptation of a perky male ass is far more dangerous than being scarred by the images of a decapitated 3 year old girl.

Yes, why else would they state that they want the images turned inside?

Because they are publicly inappropriate and offensive to many people. They're allowed to express their viewpoint and hold the events publicly, but only for people WILLING TO SEE IT.

You're so ****ing stupid here that you don't even see your inconsistencies. You rave about how these people put up "warning signs" so people who didn't want to see the images didn't have to see it, but then you get your panties in a twist over a request to turn the posters inside so only those who want to see the images have to see them. Are you being disingenuous when you claim they put up signs to protect people from seeing the isgns they don't want to see (which they don't do anyway), or are you too ****ing stupid to see that they both accomplish the same thing? Clearly, it is the motive of these groups to show the images to people who DON'T want to see them.

I'm glad to see that your principles are on display here. I don't have a problem with gay clubs distributing condoms on their own dime. I have a problem with the public funding that goes towards gay clubs to distribute condoms on mine.

Whining because they took your toys away, and wanting to punish others isn't a very good rationale for your actions.

No one ****ing took my toys away because I never belonged to a gay student club. I was making the point that there are CONTENT GUIDELINES for publicly-facing displays in public campus areas. This applies to ALL groups, not just the ones you circle jerk with and repent with after.