Pro-life speaker astounded lecture at SMU shut down by protesters

[earth_as_one]

Let him speak.

Security should have arrested the protestors, not shut down his presentation. Being offensive or even shocking is within the limits of free speech. If he was advocates killing people, yells fire in a crowded room or otherwise endangers people, then that crosses the line of free speech. But he was giving a speech in front of a group of adults who can choose to attend or leave.

Being shocking and offensive doesn't threaten public safety.

 

[Praxius]

My comment had more do with fears related to parenthood and responsibility.

Well in those cases, abortion is not warrented as I see it. Adoption or suck it up and accept your responsibilities. Only in serious cases do I see it justified.

Which is why I felt this guys approach of relating those who are pro-choice to those who promoted the holocaust is not a productive disscussion and is only meant to cause a sh*t storm.

 

[Avro]

Yet another nut job fighting for more beauratic control over the masses. It is morons like this that fueled National Socialism in the first place.

What's next? Book burnings?

Freedom from religion not freedom of religion is what this nation was founded on.

Nah....maybe they will just ban people who disagree with them from speaking.:roll:

Pot meet kettle.

 

[Said1]

Well in those cases, abortion is not warrented as I see it. Adoption or suck it up and accept your responsibilities. Only in serious cases do I see it justified.

Which is why I felt this guys approach of relating those who are pro-choice to those who promoted the holocaust is not a productive disscussion and is only meant to cause a sh*t storm.

People are aborting in cases of multiple births and where instances of deformation and disease is detected. Today, people are able to be more selective. Not saying I agree, just saying.

As extreme as it may be, I think his approach is very productive. Look at all the discussion it has garnered?

'free speech is crucial to the greatest happiness for the greatest number, for happiness in the long term can only be achieved through knowledge, and only free speech promotes knowledge; restricting free speech ultimately stifles knowledge and learning.' John Stuart Mill

 

[karrie]

Well in those cases, abortion is not warrented as I see it. Adoption or suck it up and accept your responsibilities. Only in serious cases do I see it justified.

Which is why I felt this guys approach of relating those who are pro-choice to those who promoted the holocaust is not a productive disscussion and is only meant to cause a sh*t storm.

You mean sort of like the other abortion thread that's running where Cliffy labels ALL pro-life people as caring ONLY about fetuses and not caring what happens to 'born' people? Anytime ANY side of the argument engages in lumping whole groups of people, it's just to stir ****. It's funny how people tend to only ever notice it when it's aimed at their side though hey? lol.

I still say though that they should have let him speak so that the students can learn how to critique flawed arguments.

 

[Praxius]

People are aborting in cases of multiple births and where instances of deformation and disease is detected. Today, people are able to be more selective. Not saying I agree, just saying.

Fair enough, that's sorta what I meant towards serious cases.

As extreme as it may be, I think his approach is very productive. Look at all the discussion it has garnered?

Not really.... people argued a little about what occured, and then we got right back into the same old debates that have been going on in this forum for a couple of years now.... nothing really new has come out of this yet and he didn't really do anything.

'free speech is crucial to the greatest happiness for the greatest number, for happiness in the long term can only be achieved through knowledge, and only free speech promotes knowledge; restricting free speech ultimately stifles knowledge and learning.' John Stuart Mill

Yes, but with free speech, comes emotional response depending on how far it goes on about something. If you want free speech, accept and expect reactions to that speech.

Sticks and Stones may break our bones, but words can also hurt or offend. It's just simple human reaction. If people don't like those reactions, then maybe they should rethink a bit about what they are going to say and try to approach the subject in a way that you can get your point accross and not cause everybody to get into an uproar who disagree.

It can be done..... it's just that some people don't care and directly attempt to seek this reaction to suit their own cause.

Added:

Hypothetically, lets say I wanted to shoot off about how evil or bad african americans, or the irish, or jews are, and I use every slang and racist term I could use, or I attempt to relate them all to the evilest thing I could imagine...... do you seriously think I'd escape expressing those comments without getting my ass crippled? It's basic human emotional reaction for most who take direct offense to what is being said, and if I called a black person the N word to their face, I'd expect them to beat the living sh*t out of me...... and so justified they would be.... because there are many other ways to get your point accross without having to drag someone or a group through the mud.

 

[karrie]

Hypothetically, lets say I wanted to shoot off about how evil or bad african americans, or the irish, or jews are, and I use every slang and racist term I could use, or I attempt to relate them all to the evilest thing I could imagine...... do you seriously think I'd escape expressing those comments without getting my ass crippled? It's basic human emotional reaction for most who take direct offense to what is being said, and if I called a black person the N word to their face, I'd expect them to beat the living sh*t out of me...... and so justified they would be.... because there are many other ways to get your point accross without having to drag someone or a group through the mud.

When there is a group of people performing an action that we disagree with, which ISN'T limited to gender or race (such as the abortion issue.... it spans all races and genders due to the docs who perform them), it is quite common for people to get away with very strong language and views. Take the language used regarding soldiers and police officers from some members of this forum. 'Nazis' gets thrown out there often enough in reference to the actions of both. I can see where one could argue that launching a 'nazi' argument against abortion is no different. Stupid mind you.... but I can see where they could feel justified.

 

[Praxius]

You mean sort of like the other abortion thread that's running where Cliffy labels ALL pro-life people as caring ONLY about fetuses and not caring what happens to 'born' people? Anytime ANY side of the argument engages in lumping whole groups of people, it's just to stir ****. It's funny how people tend to only ever notice it when it's aimed at their side though hey? lol.

I still say though that they should have let him speak so that the students can learn how to critique flawed arguments.

Indeed.

However, it would seem that anybody who is pro-life, all seem to agree that they should have a right to be involved in the personal affairs of other people.... that's the core essence of their position in order to get what they want.

In a few of these threads, I have also seen some agree with education, programs and other assistence to help people "Choose" not to have an abortion, but they still disagreed in the end because they feel they should still have rights, which in the end would eventually trump the rights of the mother and father. (If they didn't them what would be the point of fighting to have rights in the first place?)

If they are fighting for rights that would overrule the rights of the parents, then in a sense, they are showing they have more priority over an unborn fetus then they do of the actual living human who's already started their lives.

When it comes to Pro-Choice, there are many ranges of people who agree to different levels of choice (only in medical complicated situations / anytime they wish to abort for whatever reason) With Pro-Life, there's no other aspect other then fighting for the rights of a fetus (Unless anybody else would like to explain a bit better to me other aspects)

In that sense, it has been argued in the past that perhaps if more focus was put onto the better care of those who are currently alive and to improve the quality of life for everybody (Baby, child and adult alike) then perhaps more people would be more apt to continue through the process of having children.

One side is easy to generalize, the other has varrying views of how far one can go with abortion. To me, I see a bit of a difference.

 

[Praxius]

When there is a group of people performing an action that we disagree with, which ISN'T limited to gender or race (such as the abortion issue.... it spans all races and genders due to the docs who perform them), it is quite common for people to get away with very strong language and views. Take the language used regarding soldiers and police officers from some members of this forum. 'Nazis' gets thrown out there often enough in reference to the actions of both. I can see where one could argue that launching a 'nazi' argument against abortion is no different. Stupid mind you.... but I can see where they could feel justified.

Fair enough.... but nobody on these forums is heading to colleges and universities to express these views to students who paid thousands of dollars to learn.

I don't take half the things said in internet forums as seriously as I would from someone on national tv, or in universities, or in the government.

Added:

They are being put above everybody else here into positions for more people to focus on what they have to say, as if they are somehow more right then any of us.

 

[karrie]

One side is easy to generalize, the other has varrying views of how far one can go with abortion. To me, I see a bit of a difference.

That's funny because according to your view, I'd be pro-choice, yet, I'd put myself in the camp of pro-life if pressed to define myself. The only reason I end up in the pro-choice camp by your definition is because the mother's life (not rights) takes precedent in my mind over a life that has yet to be born. So, if her life is in danger, it is the priority. Sounds pretty 'pro-life' to me. But I guess that's why definitions are such tricky things.

 

[Cliffy]

You mean sort of like the other abortion thread that's running where Cliffy labels ALL pro-life people as caring ONLY about fetuses and not caring what happens to 'born' people?

karrie,

Do you think I should have included a list of those pro-lifers that are an exception to the rule? In my dealings with the pro-life movement I have not run into any. In a discussion like this there is no room to list exceptions. All topics on here are generalizations. When it comes to topics that are as emotionally charges as this, there is very little logic involved.

 

[Praxius]

That's funny because according to your view, I'd be pro-choice, yet, I'd put myself in the camp of pro-life if pressed to define myself. The only reason I end up in the pro-choice camp by your definition is because the mother's life (not rights) takes precedent in my mind over a life that has yet to be born. So, if her life is in danger, it is the priority. Sounds pretty 'pro-life' to me. But I guess that's why definitions are such tricky things.

Well that's what we get with generalizations .... but yes, I would classify you as pro-choice.... since not all cases that involve the option of abortion at present, has the risk of life to the mother.

If there is danger to the live and well-being of the mother, then they have the choice to have an abortion, or have the choice to risk their life in giving birth.

With pro-life, there is no choice, she'd be forced to carry the child to term even if it meant her death as abortion isn't an option.... because it'd just be one more added to the holocaust. ;-)

 

[Said1]

Not really.... people argued a little about what occured, and then we got right back into the same old debates that have been going on in this forum for a couple of years now.... nothing really new has come out of this yet and he didn't really do anything.

Yes, really.

He incited discussion on the issue. His use of argument by analogy in his presentation and the results were just icing on the cake.

Hypothetically, lets say I wanted to shoot off about how evil or bad african americans, or the irish, or jews are, and I use every slang and racist term I could use, or I attempt to relate them all to the evilest thing I could imagine...... do you seriously think I'd escape expressing those comments without getting my ass crippled? It's basic human emotional reaction for most who take direct offense to what is being said, and if I called a black person the N word to their face, I'd expect them to beat the living sh*t out of me...... and so justified they would be.... because there are many other ways to get your point accross without having to drag someone or a group through the mud.

Hypothetically, your disagreement is popularly viewed as censorship (well, to me). Although what you wrote above would probably not be legal to postulate in public.

Hypothetically, you can get your point across better through the use of less sentences, too.

 

[Praxius]

Yes, really.

He incited discussion on the issue. His use of argument by analogy in his presentation and the results were just icing on the cake.

Sorta like how PETA pulls all kinds of stunts that never make it to tv or radio, but is just simply to cause themselves attention?

Not a group I'd like to be compared to, since their logic seems to be tossed out the window most of the time

Hypothetically, your disagreement is popularly viewed as censorship (well, to me). Although what you wrote above would probably not be legal to postulate in public.

Hypothetically, you can get your point across better through the use of less sentences, too.

Hypothetically one would think that..... however over the last 10 or so years of me posting in various other forums, this has proven to not be the case, since too many people never fully understand what I am trying to say unless I explain in great detail and as close to the point as possible.

If I don't, then I end up having people come back and argue about something I never said or something they took the wrong way, then I have to spend even more time making up even more sentences then I already do now, just to make sure what I am saying is understood and to avoid confusion.

And then it's work work work all the time.....

This is something I've learned through years of trial and error. Unfortunatly, you'll just have to deal with it in your own way.

 

[L Gilbert]

Don'tcha mean "fewer" sentences, Said1?

Anyway, the guys just another wingnut. Not as bad as the ones that remedy the killing of fetuses by blowing up people in abortion clinics, but still a wingnut.