OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Monday, November 3

#20043

OMG: To the pro life club on campus, I fully respect your right to have your own opinion and express your views. However, I feel that holding a speech in the middle of the SLC containing graphic descriptions and triggering content while providing little warning was highly inappropriate. Perhaps an advertised event held in Hagey Hall would we better. We are a diverse community, and you never know who you could trigger. Just something to be aware of.

116 comments

  1. I'm a pro-lifer (though not a part of the club) and I agree that's kind of inappropriate... people shouldn't be forced to listen to/see that if they don't want to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually it was advertised. Feds had posters up on the bulletin boards.

      Delete
    2. I walked by to get some food. I didn't see anything graphic, I did hear some graphic things, but I didn't see anything but some signs that said "I Regret My Abortion." I have no problem with hearing graphic things. People should stop getting offended so easily. People get offended by the smallest things, everything is becoming too feeling based and it's annoying. It's hard to say anything without someone going "I am offended by that, and I will complain about it and report you." These people have the freedom of speech (As long as it's not hate speech). I didn't hear anything hateful walking by, just some random real-life story type things.

      Delete
    3. It is definitely inappropriate but not in the way OP describes, it's inappropriate because if what OP described is true because your forcing that level of detail to people who didn't intend to see it. It's just disrespectful, which isn't that big of a deal. On the flip side it's definitely not an issue of whether people can be triggered by shocking imagery. That's life. The world is not filtered, that shouldn't be a reason to blunt public discourse about controversial thing. That doesn't help anyone, it just prevents people from desensitizing themselves to whatever entrenched reactions they have and prevents the actual issue from being addressed properly.

      Delete
  2. Right wing extremist at their finest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What? I'm not sure you understand the term right wing.. though extremism is probably a good description.

      Delete
    2. Oh look guys, another moron.

      Delete
  3. I was there today and I was really annoyed. I had to leave. I'm a woman of pro-choice, and I didn't feel like hearing someones abortion stories and opinions as I try to eat and study.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And thus cycle of intolerance/ignorance continues

      Delete
    2. Fuck you m8, I wouldn't care to hear about abortions while I was eating and that doesn't make me intolerant or ignorant.

      Besides, we've heard the spiel before. It's not so much an ignorant intolerance of your(?) opinions so much as a well-informed disagreement with your ideas and general disgust at the tactics your associates use.

      Delete
    3. I'm ALWAYS there and don't seem to mind the annoyance. Then I realized that someone was screaming in my ear when i was trying to just mind my own business.

      Delete
    4. WHY IS THERE NOT ATTENTION FOCUSED ON ME????

      Delete
  4. As a staunch pro-choicer, I have a problem with the pro-life club being in the slc today. but not because they show people something they don't want to see. good activism, on anything, shows people something they don't want to see. my problem with them hosting events in slc, existing, and getting funding from feds is that ultimately, their goal is to restrict womens access to healthy care and bodily autonomy bylying about facts and statistics, warping personal narratives and using said personal narratives to shape policy that affects everyone.

    it sucks that you regret your abortion. maybe your mom did want an abortion and didnt have one and otherwise you wouldnt be here. maybe you/your mom was sexually assaulted and chose not to have an abortion/couldnt and was happy.

    thats all great, its fine to have/share those stories and seek support. its not fine to use them to restrict womens freedom. and thats why the SFL club shouldnt exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm, well in most situations I'd probably agree, but we are in a university environment. Universities are VERY touchy about academic freedom. You can say or teach or research whatever you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on rights of others. So if they were harassing women, or otherwise making them uncomfortable, this may be a problem. But there existence, if it is just meant to educate people about the issues, can't be denied on campus.

      fyi, I went and found their mission "UW Students for Life (UWSFL) is a Pro-life club whose aim is to support women in crisis pregnancies through volunteer work and tangible resources, advocate for the rights of all human beings from fertilization to natural death, form club members to speak about these topics with confidence, and educate the student population about life issues."

      Delete
    2. Right, and the rights of the child are totally neglected because you dehumanise the issue. Stop bringing up women's rights, it is simply an issue of whether or not the child has a right to life. If you had voluntary sex you agreed to carrying a child since you knew there was a possibility.

      Delete
    3. @4b Fetuses are not children and agreeing to have sex is not the same as agreeing to have a child.

      Next I'll suppose you'll say "she had her fun, now she needs to face the results", right?

      Delete
    4. @4b. "If you had voluntary sex you agreed to carrying a child since you knew there was a possibility." Isn't that kind of like saying "If you voluntary got in a car you agreed to be in a horrific accident since you knew there was a possibility"?

      Now I'm not saying that the two are the same, but I am saying that it is unfair of you to say that someone agreed to anything just because it was possible.

      Delete
    5. Not exactly. If you get in an accident then that was caused by the actions of another person hitting your car or weather. If you caused the accident (by negligence) then, yea I guess you consented. I mean the courts will charge you for causing it, so they already see it as your action even if you didn't intend it.

      Pregnancy would be like the negligence type of consent. You knew by texting on your phone you may be distracted and cause an accident, therefore when the courts get involved legally you are responsible for it. If you kill someone in the accident that's manslaughter and you pay for it and probably go to jail (they have a right to your money by suing, money is your property which is created through your labour, and your body generate labour, therefore they now have a right to your body).The same thing happens in intercourse.

      If someone hits your car, that's like rape. You didn't consent and therefore the fetus has no right to your body.

      Delete
    6. @4c. Fetuses are products of reproduction. At fertilization, the zygote is a whole being, not just another ordinary cell that's part of the body. It has everything it needs (DNA, the molecular blueprint) to develop into an adult. But at the moment of fertilization it is a human being and is alive. Why? Because it has human parents and it is alive because living things come from living things. It is a child in relation to its parents. Why does it not look like a toddler (which I'm assuming you're definition of a child)? Because it hasn't had the time to develop yet. But likewise, a 5 yr child old isn't the same as a 25 yr old adult. Yet it is not ok to kill a 5 yr old child just because the child isn't as developed or has reached adulthood. The way I see it, abortion is simply age discrimination. Time is a factor in development but we're all human beings at the moment of fertilization. It's not like we suddenly become humans at birth. Saying that abortion is ok is like saying that it's ok for us to kill those who are younger than us.

      "Agreeing so sex is not the same as agreeing to have a child"--I'm not sure if you've slept through biology or something (I mean it in the nicest way possible) but there's a reason why the organs we use when we have sex are called reproductive organs. They are meant to support reproduction (resulting in a child). What you've said is like saying that agreeing to breathe is not the same as agreeing to have oxygen brought into my lungs to be absorbed by the blood and circulated to the rest of the body. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

      Delete
    7. I would probably rather get into a horrific car accident than have a kid right now. At least my life would be ruined instantly instead of over 18 years.

      Delete
    8. 4f. Age of something that's unborn?

      Delete
    9. 4f. I honestly don't much care whether a fetus has everything it needs to become a whole person. Its not murder if the organism doesn't have consciousness and wouldn't survive without the mother. As a side note, you're a condescending ass. We know what the biological function of sex organs are, humans have sex strictly for pleasure and that's one biological distinction between us and most other animals.

      Delete
    10. I feel like 4b has never been laid and is one of those stuck up people preaching abstinence and God's will

      Delete
    11. 4i. Let me get this straight. You're saying that what defines a human being is its consciousness and ability to survive without the mother, not by the virtue of belonging to the same species. If that's true, then you must also agree that people who lose consciousness (whether it be through brain injury, drug or alcohol poisoning etc) cease to be human beings at that instant and that to kill them, instead of helping them isn't murder. So if I'm at a party, and buddy has had too much to drink and is not conscious and I kill him, would I be able to to just tell the police that "hey, he was not conscious, therefore it's not murder"? I'm not so sure if that's gonna go well. Also, an infant will not be able to survive without the care of his mother or some other person. Would it still not be considered murder if you kill a 10-day old child? Yes, we all depend on our mothers or guardians to survive at first, but as we age, our level of dependancy decreases. If it's ok to kill those who depend on their mother a lot, then who can stop someone from murdering those who are less dependent that them?

      Delete
    12. 4k, helping an overly-inebriated friend is different than supporting a child you can't afford to support for (at least) 18 years.

      Delete
    13. @4i by that definition half the students at UW would be aborted, because half of you still need to suck on your moms tit to survive.

      Delete
    14. @4f

      classic example of begging the question (your example is actually THE one used to teach the fallacy)

      Delete
  5. "advocating for the rights of all human beings from fertilization" based on a false idea from religion GREAT!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It isn't always based on religion. It could simply be the fact that they belief life begins at conception..

      Delete
    2. @5a The group that the club brought in for the event today was a religious organization.

      Delete
    3. Not necessarily religion. Lots of biologists affirm that life beings at fertilization but it's also still being studied today. It's a very contested issue, and, might I add, the main argument between both sides.

      Person-hood, on the other hand, is subjective to whether you believe person-hood occurs when life begins (whenever that may be) or a more philosophical view of consciousness, capability, age, etc.

      Delete
  6. In response to 4.a
    I think you have been misled by the rhetoric included in UWSFL's mission statement. Pro-life organizations often mask the intent to remove rights from women and trans* people by stating that they exist to support women/support life, educate, or advocate. You are missing the point. The pro-life standpoint is the political opinion that the right of a fetus to live overrules the right of women and trans* people to control whether or not other people (including fetuses) access their bodies. Under no circumstances does any person, including the pre-born, have any right to access another person's body without that person's express consent. The club is a pro-life club, and by default, anti-women's/anti-trans* rights. We as a community need to stop tolerating and entertaining this view, just as we as a community need to stop tolerating all misogyny. If we intend on UW campus becoming a safe place for women and trans* people to work and learn, we need to create a campus where their rights are not debated and questioned at every turn. UWSFL in an ongoing threat to women and trans* people, and should not exist for this reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "person's express consent" except that was given if they had voluntary sex.. if you have sex you understand there is a chance to become pregnant. Therefore by having sex you're implying your consent.

      "we need to create a campus where their rights are not debated and questioned at every turn." And the rights of unborn aren't being ignored? I think you need to understand people have a right to free speech, especially on campus. Why is that pro-choicers love to restrict pro-life speech? Maybe because you have no deductive reasoning to argue pro-choice?

      Delete
    2. To 6.a
      You are making the claim that consenting to penile/vaginal intercourse is the same as consenting to carrying a pregnancy for nine months and giving birth. I'm sure someone who has experienced both can speak to the differences involved in these two things better than I can, however, I will point out some differences.
      Having sex: usually last less than a few hours, satisfies sexual urges, involves some health risk, is good for mental/physical health, may result in a fertilized ova.
      Carrying a pregnancy and giving birth: usually lasts nine months, produces an infant, involves quite a bit of health risk, involves a financial burden (increased food consumption, taking time off work for appointments/birth recovery), involves hormone fluctuations, can have positive/negative impact on emotional wellbeing.
      As you can see, they are, in fact, quite different! I think your point is more justly expressed as "sluts should keep their knees together or be forced to give birth as a consequence", which is the kind of misogyny that powers the pro-life movement.

      I did address the rights of unborn humans, they have the right to live.However, they do not have the right to access female/trans* bodies, no person in Canada does. This is why people can choose whether or not to donate organs, give blood, have sex etc. You are trying to make the claim that women's/trans* bodies, by virtue of being physically able, should be available to fetuses. Women's/trans* bodies exist for the owners, not as public property or as incubators.

      Silencing people who are trying to hurt others is actually not unheard of, as a community we do not allow hate speech. Since slut-shaming and treating women's/trans* bodies as incubators harms women and trans* people, it should not be allowed on campus. Your right to free speech does not give you the right to create an unsafe environment for already marginalized peoples.

      Delete
    3. Yes, they are quite different events. You missed the fact that intercourse carries the risk of pregnancy though, and unless you are mentally incapable of understanding that (which means it would be illegal to have sex with you) than you understand that you are assuming the risk of becoming pregnant. Therefore you are implying your consent to be pregnant knowing you will possibly create life that has rights.

      Thank you for attempting to label me as a misogynist.. I am far from though.

      If you are too scared to have the conversation then you probably shouldn't be involved in it.

      "Your right to free speech does not give you the right to create an unsafe environment for already marginalized peoples." Funny thing, free-speech is a right, you're "feeling" safe isn't a right, it's a privilege. Please understand the difference.

      Delete
    4. Lets assume that you are correct, that consenting to certain kinds of sexual activity implies consent to carry a pregnancy to term. This consent can be withdrawn at any time. For example, consider a person that undergoes in vitro fertilization. They have, without a doubt, consented to a becoming pregnant. If our society values bodily autonomy, we will respect the right of this person to remove consent and terminate the pregnancy. As mentioned above, no person in Canada has the right to access another person's body, even for live saving purposes, even if consent was once given and then withdrawn.

      This concept of withdrawing consent applies to all sexual encounters as well. Any person engaging in sex should, at any time, have the control to stop the activities. This is why safe words exist in BDSM culture, to give all participants the power to clearly withdraw consent.

      I am not scared to have this conversation, I am having it right now. If I didn't want to have this conversation then I would simply not respond to your misogynistic comments.

      I do actually have the right to feel and be safe as laid out by the Federation of Students' values, "We wish to enhance the quality of life for students by promoting a safe, secure and environmentally conscious campus" (feds.ca) and according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms I have the right to, "life, liberty and security of the person" (Canadian law).

      Delete
    5. Yes, you may withdraw consent from sex. That is an activity. Carrying an unborn child is different. It has a right to life that you knew you would create when you had sex, therefore you can not end it's right to life since you implicitly knew they would exist when you had intercourse. Rights are not plastic, they are unmodifiable and absolute. You may not remove someone's right after they are created.

      "'life, liberty and security of the person' (Canadian law)." Mentions nothing about your feelings.. On private property yes, the owners can enforce anything they want within obvious legal constraints. I was simply correcting your rhetoric.

      Delete
    6. Okay.
      You are now backtracking. I agree, sex and carrying a pregnancy are inherently different and should be treated as such. Which is why I made the claim that they should be consented to separately. If, however, you view sex and pregnancy as an ongoing event with no separation, then consent may be withdrawn at any time.

      Your are beginning to argue in circles. Conversation TL:DR
      me: women should have access to abortion
      you: no because babies are alive
      me: living people do not have the right to access bodies of other people without consent
      you: consent was implied
      me: consent can be removed
      you: no because babies are alive
      Which then brings us back to my original argument, that, although fetuses are alive, they do not have the right to access other people's bodies to maintain this life. Just like every other Canadian. As you said, my rights to bodily autonomy are not plastic, they apply before, during, and after sex/pregnancy. A person does not have the right to access my body "after they are created".
      If you do not have a logical argument to follow in this sequence of arguments, I suggest you stop arguing and crawl back into the past. May I suggest the 1800's? It was a golden age of morals, when women knew their place, protected their flowers, and the sexual revolution was but a distant dream.

      In response to your claim that my feeling of safety don't matter, only the safety of my private property, (at least, this is what I think you're saying) my feelings of safety are directly related to my actual safety. When someone threaten's my right to bodily autonomy, this is a threat to my safety.

      Delete
    7. While I'm strongly pro-choice, this kind of argument is damaging in my opinion. Calling pro-lifers anti-women/trans* only serves to offend them and add another unnecessary dimension to an already loaded argument. You don't need to bring up that card and make it into an issue of the subjugation of women anyway, pro-choice wins without it.

      Delete
    8. Are you a troll, 6.g, or just really stupid? Becahse if you somehow miss how wantong to controlling the bodies of women and trans folks is misogynistic, then you arent pro choice. The goal of debating pro-lifers isnt to "not offend" them when they are being sexist. I want them, and other people, to recognize that limiting womens access to health care, controlling their bodies, shaming them for having sex/being assaulted and forcing them to carry pregnancies they dont want to term is sexist.

      Delete
    9. 6.f, 6.e here. I'm not backtracking. I think you're just getting confused.

      "my rights to bodily autonomy are not plastic, they apply before, during, and after sex/pregnancy." No, they don't. You give up the right to bodily autonomy by having intercourse. You waive it in the action of having sex because you know the fetus will require your body to mature until birth. If you agree to the rest of what I have said then you must understand that you are giving up your bodily autonomy when you have sex to the possible child you may create, since you know if you don't give it your body till maturity you would murder it. Hence you would be creating life with the intent to destroy it. When the zygote is created it has a right to life, and because you had sex, you knew that means 52 weeks within your body (otherwise you aren't intelligent enough for someone to have sex with you).

      Delete
    10. 6i. No one is confused, you're just too entrenched in your beliefs to recognize you got owned. 6f's argument is more or less flawless assuming we don't consider the zygote to be a fully fledged person. If the zygote is a person, you don't want them in you, and they are, then that's rape. You can argue that it's different but being able to withdraw consent is being able to withdraw consent.

      I honestly see no difference between not carrying a zygote to term and pulling out (aside from the difficulty and possible emotional trauma of the former). Neither can survive without the mother's body being used for ~9months. End of story.

      Delete
    11. I see some other people have gotten involved in this sub-thread, so I will try to respond to everyone separately.

      To the pro-life shit-weasel: You are beginning to repeat arguments that I have already addressed. I have already addressed that the fact that fetuses' status as living beings does not give them the right to access other people's bodies. I have also already addressed the idea that consent can be withdrawn during any sexual activity, including anything that occurs because of sexual activity (pregnancy).
      Your argument has boiled down to "sluts do not deserve rights". This is a sexist argument, and it has been used in the past and the present to deny women/tans* people safety and autonomy. Spousal rape has only recently been acknowledged as assault because of the claim that women who consent to be married give up autonomy. Sex workers rarely see justice for violence against them because of their chosen careers. I was recently told I am setting myself up for sexual violence because I consented to dancing in a night club. In short, no amount of dressing/dancing provocatively is a reason to deny someone autonomy. Going out in public is not a reason to deny someone autonomy. Getting married is not a reason to deny someone autonomy. And finally, having sex is not a reason to deny someone autonomy. No one ever gives up the right to bodily autonomy. Claiming that women should be punished for engaging in sex by removing their rights is sexist and absurd. I have literally never heard of anyone who has become pregnant on purpose with the intention to have an abortion, so your claim that women are creating life with the intention to kill is a pathetic attempt to slander women and frame consensual sex as a violent crime.

      To 6.g: I am making two different claims here. One, that abortion is morally permissible, and two, that removing women's/trans* people's rights is systemic violence. Of course pro-choice wins without the second claim, but lets not ignore the impact the pro-life movement has on society.

      To 6.j: Thank you for the support, although I'm not quite sure we are on the same page. My argument is that zygotes are persons, but do not have the right to access other bodies to live. I do not believe that an unwanted pregnancy is akin to rape, rape is sexual violence, an unwanted pregnancy is annoying. But I do think that the ideas that sexual women should be punished and female bodies are public property fuel a culture where rape is prevalent and a constant fear.

      To the pro-life shit-weasel again: If you would like to continue this discussion you need to come up with some new material. You must prove why fetuses deserve the right to access another body, which no one else in Canada is granted. Or, possibly, you could prove why women/trans* people deserve to be treated as second class citizens. Perhaps you think fetuses are sacred in a way that children/adults are not? Perhaps you think women are mean and their bodies should be used to fulfill the needs of others as a response? Just offering some ideas! The arguments that "fetuses are alive" and that "sluts are bad" simply wont to cut it. Step up your game, little man.

      Delete
    12. The femi-nazi is strong with 6.k. Ignore all the logic!

      Delete
    13. Ah yes, you've uncovered my true identity the femi-nazi. I stand up for reproductive justice and kill Jewish people in my spare time.

      I have addressed your reasoning that fetuses are alive
      I have addressed your claim that consent is implied
      I have addressed your argument that bodily autonomy is forfeited by women's/trans* people previous choices

      I have laid out very clearly what you now need to prove in order to win this argument. Stating "I don't like feminists" is not a pro-life argument. I am patiently awaiting any new arguments you would like to voice! In the meantime I'll just hang out with my cat and draw swastikas.

      Delete
    14. Well 6.l wasn't me, I'm the one known as the pro-life shit-weasel. Though I agree with him.

      Anyway, you're not connecting the dots. I'm not sure how you're missing it so I'll recap.. again..

      - You consent to sex
      - You have sex
      - You know sex may lead to child
      - You know zygote will require your body to survive
      - Zygote has right to life that can not be removed
      - When you have sex you know you must support zygotes right to life
      - Therefore when you have sex you enter into a contract with the zygote to support it
      - You can not withdraw from contract since that would be indirectly causing it's death, which is murder.
      - Consenting to carry a child isn't an active thing, it's a contract. You can't withdraw consent from this.

      Delete
    15. When you reply to the above argument quote the exact part you have a problem with. I'm tired of sifting through the crazy-feminist talk and insults. Try to be adult about this.

      Delete
    16. Ah, my mistake. Misogyny looks quite similar in this font.

      In your re-cap you have reiterated the points that:
      -zygotes/fetuses are alive
      -engaging in sex automatically removes any bodily autonomy and with it any right to withdraw consent

      I have already responded to the claim that pre-born humans are alive. We agree on this. We differ on what the right to life means. You are of the opinion that being alive and having the right to life means also having the right to use other people's bodies to maintain that life. Which leads us to your next argument, that female bodied people forfeit the right to deny another access to their bodies by having sex.

      Perhaps my reasoning was not the most clear in my feminist rant. The idea that women/trans* people forfeit rights to autonomy is and has been harmful, illustrated by the previous belief that married women forfeit autonomy and the current belief that women who look/act sexual forfeit autonomy. The same reason you can say no to sex after marriage is the same reason why you can say no to pregnancy after sex. Every person's body belongs to the owner of that body. No contract, legal or social, removes this right.

      To claim that autonomy is justifiably removed because a person consented to sex is to say that sex is punishable. Do you think having consensual sex is morally wrong? Is this why you think autonomy is forfeited?

      You have not given any other reasoning as to why a person could not withdraw from what you call a contract of pregnancy, other than "fetuses are alive". Since I have already addressed this, do you have any other reasoning to suggest that female bodied people are morally bound to this contract? Do you have any other arguments as to why a sexually active person should be denied the right to withdraw consent (during sex or pregnancy) at any time?

      Calling a pregnancy a contract does not change the fact that consent can be withdrawn. The fetus being alive does not change the fact that consent can be withdrawn.

      Delete
    17. Once you peel back the silly feminism your post gets pretty clear to reply to, thanks.

      Let's define right to life - No other person may take an action that would result in your loss of life

      "Every person's body belongs to the owner of that body. No contract, legal or social, removes this right." In almost all cases yes, and this is the crux of the abortion problem. You give up this right when you voluntarily had sex, since you know that you may create another life that will depend upon yours.

      "To claim that autonomy is justifiably removed because a person consented to sex is to say that sex is punishable." that's not at all the case. The argument is that abortion is punishable, not the sex, there's nothing wrong with consensual sex..

      "Calling a pregnancy a contract does not change the fact that consent can be withdrawn." That's exactly what it is though, a contract with the zygote/person. You consent and created the contract when you had sex. That's the exact thing. You had sex knowing you may have to carry life till pregnancy.

      Delete
    18. @6p,
      Omg, you're doing so well in this discussion, and really nailing the key points which should be addressed. Try not to get discouraged by cyclical arguments from the other side, I'm sure that one day, they might be able to truly understand the concept of bodily autonomy and consent.

      Remember to draw the line when you believe that engaging with them is no longer productive.

      Delete
    19. Just finished reading this. Everyone give this a read. Points 6-10.

      http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/04/i-am-afraid-of-this-indisputable-pro-choice-argument/

      Delete
    20. Have to post in two parts because this is too long.
      Part A:

      You seem shocked that someone would respond to sexism with feminist arguments. I'm not sure why.

      Thanks for the article, I guess I'll respond to 6.q's points first, and address the author's points after.

      "No other person may take an action that would result in your loss of life"
      Yes and no. If you asked to live in my body I can say no. If you die as a result, this is taking an action that results in your death. I am not obligated to keep another person alive with the use of my body, even if I accidentally created that person.

      "there's nothing wrong with consensual sex"
      You make this claim, but you still think having sex removes a persons right to autonomy.

      "You had sex knowing you may have to carry life till pregnancy"
      Most people having penile/vaginal sex know they might become pregnant, but knowing that this CAN happen does not remove a person's right to withdraw their consent at any time. You do not HAVE to support the life of a fetus until birth, it's still your body and you can either choose to give birth or not.

      For the Matt Walsh article...

      point 1: Women are not responsible to the children they don't choose to have. Mothers who consent to parenting have responsibility to their children, women who don't consent to parenting do not.

      point 2: creating human life does not mean a person is responsible for maintaining human life should they not want to.

      point 3: comparing consensual sex to poisoning your child is another attempt to frame sex as morally wrong.

      Delete
    21. Part B:

      point 4: "because it's natural" is never an argument for anything. We all do "natural" and "unnatural" things. Cats will eat their own kittens, animals abandon their young all the time. This is, quite literally, nature. The same argument has been used to deny same sex couples right and trans* people rights. I am not concerned with the "natural order" of things. And let's not bring god into this.

      point 5: abortions can be performed in different ways. For example, with medical abortions involving the use of methotrexate, the drug quite literally stops a body from supporting the pregnancy. It stops the body from metabolizing folic acic, which ends the pregnancy. Claiming that abortion is wrong because the fetus is crushed/dismembered etc is not really relevant. It can be done in other ways.

      point 6: People who want to give birth generally take precautions to have a healthy child. Those who suffer from addiction, do not have resources, do not have education etc don't always take precautions. I do not condemn people for having mental illness, money, or education. I do not condemn people who use drugs during pregnancy.

      point 7: I support abortion at literally every stage of development. No one gets to use my body for nine months, or for five minutes, without my consent.

      point 8: parents can and do decline the option to support their children after giving birth when they put them up for adoption, this is not morally wrong.

      point 9: In the case of public masturbation, it is considered wrong because it is believed to cause harm to those who see it, but masturbation can occur in an enclosed area. When people opt out of pregnancy, they do cause harm to the fetus, but with no other option of not causing harm to the fetus while still opting out of the pregnancy. Odd comparison.

      point 10: yes, we all engage with responsibility to others in various ways. Ideally without being forced to. Walsh uses many social obligations as an example. To apply this analogy to pregnancy you are (warning: feminism coming) saying that female bodied people are socially obligated to carry pregnancies, by virtue of being physically able ie:female. If a person would like absolutely no obligation to other humans they can become a hermit. Becoming a hermit is uncommon, but not immoral.

      Okay, this has been fun, but I think I'm done after this. I'm think I have repeated myself enough times in enough different ways with enough different analogies to make my point clear. I'm sure that anyone reading this thread can come to their own conclusions about autonomy, consent, withdrawing consent, obligations to others etc etc. with the help of all the arguments posted here.

      To 6.r: Thank you for the support! Keep fighting the good fight.

      Femi-nazi out.

      Delete
  7. If this bothers you so much then you should go talk to the feds vice president maaz yasin. I agree that the slc should not be used to show graphic content or anything that could make a student feel uncomfortable and that this should definitely have been taken behind closed doors.

    Giving another example that may not be so polarizing then lets say that students wanted to hold a protest to try and increase government support for ebola vaccines being sent to africa. Do you think it would be appropriate to show graphic images of people who have died or are dying from ebola that could scare students? If you agree that is wrong to show in public then you should agree that showing graphic abortion content is wrong as well. It is really awful of feds to have let this happen. Shame on you vice president yasin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes because when students enter the real world, they won't experience graphic subject matter at all.

      Delete
    2. @7a Examples?

      Delete
    3. I am pro choice and had I been there I would have been upset.

      BUT Ebola is not as relatebale as prolife/chocie matters.

      As a women that has faced sexual violence and rape too many times in her life, I am a strong pro choice.

      If you were raped by lets say...Paul Bernado. Would you be okay with keeping his child? If you answer yes, I have no words for you.

      Delete
    4. I am offended by the Muslim week that is put on every term. 3 days of preaching to me is offensive. What's the difference? If they let that through, I can't see why letting the UWSFL group do their thing is any less offensive?

      Delete
    5. I agree with 7c, that using ebola as an example probably isn't the best choice, but I understand what 7 is saying - the issue of abortion is very polarizing so it makes it harder to have a clear debate on whether graphic content should be shown in public in this manner.

      But let's replace 'ebola' with 'cancer' from 7's post. Imagine they show graphic images of dying cancer patients in the great hall. Imagine how that could trigger some students, myself included. Every single person on my mum's side of the family that have died, have died from cancer. My mum has had a tumour removed, and I and my siblings know that we will need to very regularly be checked.

      If there were images shown of dying cancer patients, it would really unnerve me. I have a thick skin, but would still get upset by this.

      I am not trying to say that this should be a debate on whether we should be pro-choice or pro-life. I also am not saying that we should ban all graphic content, because like 7d suggested, where do we draw the line? But we need to be careful of what could possibly be a trigger for people. Don't just openly display trigger-worthy content - have some consideration for others.

      Delete
    6. 7a here: I am being sarcastic. In life nobody is censoring people's ability to protest and what they protest (with the exception of hate speech) Not to mention what people say. Why does the university need to shelter students from crazy pro life people. Let them be. They are an example what is out there in the world for us to face and conquer.

      Delete
  8. Feds is apparently already following up on several complaints about their event today, so if you want to register a complaint you should email the VP Internal Maaz Yasin (vpin@feds.ca) asap.

    UW Students for Life is apparently already on "probation" of some sort from Feds for the way that they operate as a club.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it's actually for one specific infraction (using pamphlets containing graphic images after telling Feds such images wouldn't be used at that event). UWSFL is not in trouble for the way it generally operates.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the information. I will be sure to voice my disgust at their tactics.

      Delete
  9. Pro-life groups love to do shit like this. I'm from Calgary, and the prominent group there went so far as to hang a banner with similar images over an overpass on the busiest highway in the city, which caused at least one crash, and a myriad of distracted driving complaints from people. It's nothing more than a shock tactic to scare people into being facile, and not forming a well-thought out opinion.

    Doing this also essentially removes credibility for the movement. I believe that their concerns over abortion are totally valid, and I personally have my own ethical concerns over parental responsibilities in the instance of an unwanted pregnancy. But when I have a concern, I talk about it with people, and I try to engage in informed debate where people hold their own ideas, but are respectful and open to the ideas of others. UWSFL clearly isn't capable of doing this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. On the one hand I do like killing babies... but on the other, I don't like giving women a choice

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the choices, the choices!

      Delete
  11. I am pretty sure they just want to educated people who don't already know...
    If the idea that the growing being inside you will experience a sort of fate that you detest...maybe it will allow you to reconsider...

    ...we should also have presentations of bullying and what some bullied victims have done to themselves
    lets pick the most graphic pictures too... of the ones who have committed suicide or worse

    then we can jump to the war and the gov't...

    ...suffering happens, and some awesome people who care about victims want to get the voiceless heard
    even if it won't make much of a difference...let people do the good they are doing
    and if the issue does hurt your feelings say something kindly and i am 99.999% sure those people will be sensitive to the issue OR just leave...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People shouldn't have to "just leave" the Great Hall because of graphic triggering content, it is a student space governed by Feds.

      Feds clearly states in their values that their job is to promote "a safe, secure and environmentally conscious campus".

      Delete
    2. How, exactly, is putting the mental well-being of students at risk "doing good"?

      If UW Students For Life cared about presenting a pro-life message they would have booked a room somewhere (the OP suggested Hagey Hall - which always has available space), put up some posters a few weeks in advance, and held a talk open to everyone (perhaps with some free snacks).

      Foisting it on students *with no promotion or warning beforehand* in one of the most public places on campus is nothing but a cheap publicity stunt. One that lacked any respect for the students of this school.

      Delete
  12. They are having another, even more controversial event this Friday. Would be great to see pro-life support there.

    https://www.facebook.com/events/370633916433360/?ref=3&ref_newsfeed_story_type=regular

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seriously?

      You should really email the Feds VP Internal and tell him about this (if he doesn't already know).

      Delete
    2. RE: 12a

      Sorry, that was meant to be a reply to 16

      Delete
    3. how about we just destroy their Fascist propaganda? Yep I'm down for that

      Delete
    4. ^ Fascist? I think you should probably learn what that word really means.. 2edgy4me

      Delete
  13. Things to keep in mind:
    - Most doctors in Canada will not preform an abortion after a certain time period unless the life of the mother is in danger
    - The abortion law was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Making a new law would entail using the Notwithstanding clause, which would involve undermining the power of the Supreme court, and cause a whole bunch of issues.
    - Making abortion illegal would not eradicate it, it would simply drive it underground. It is better for women to be able to receive abortions in safe facilities that are monitored by heath professionals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1 for explaining things objectively and clearly

      Delete
  14. To the girls who sat their stating that they didn't regret their abortions, bless you. That takes a lot of courage.

    ReplyDelete
  15. https://twitter.com/UWSFL

    If you read their twitter, they have been tweeting things containing words such as 'murder', 'slaughter', 'Holocaust of abortion', which is not appropriate language for a club associated with our university.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, 'genocide', 'society after abortion will look like society after slavery'. I'm horrified. Apparently a club's social media presence has to be monitored as well

      Delete
  16. you do not understand my culture

    i eat the baby and now i puked it all out

    what a waste

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No understanding
      I eat babies and then I
      vomit. What a waste

      Now it's a haiku.

      Delete
    2. lol. not everyone is trying to write some bullshit haiku

      Delete
  17. I wonder how many of these so called "pro-choicers" are actually pro-choice and would support the idea of financial abortion.

    When it comes down to it, people aren't pro choice. Just pro-women's choice (not that that is a bad thing necessarily).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before I say this, I want everyone to know I am a guy, so I might have a different answer from a woman.

      If I was having a child that I knew I could not support, I would abort it. It is more humane to kill it before it is larger than a small clump of cells than to make it suffer through an inadequate life.

      It is like a dog, if it is suffering, you put it down.

      Delete
  18. I think people should be able to remove parasitic organisms from their body if they want or need to.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Horror story of accidental late stage abortion, I won't go into detail, but don't read if you think it might disturb you, I will create space so you don' see it:
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Family friend is pregnant after trying for several years. One day, she starts bleeding and goes to the emergency room. The doctors tell her the baby is dead, and they have to remove it. She tells them she can still feel it moving, but they say that it is dead. They take it out, and its still alive. They are currently suing. They were hoping to have the baby in Canada before their student visa expires. Had expensive in vitro fertilization because they couldn't do it naturally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just because it was still moving doesn't mean it was going to be a viable death. It's also possible that whatever complication had occured could have killed the mother. From this info though I can't say either way, hope their suing brings them some peace of mind at least.

      Delete
    2. They thought it was fully dead inside.

      Delete
  20. Someone should start a petition to revoke this club's charter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. This isn't Sons of Anarchy.

      Delete
    2. And what would that accomplish? The University of Waterloo is already considered one of the worst universities for upholding free expression (Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms). By revoking this club's charter that would just further prove aforementioned point. The club is permitted to talk about and inform others about their view points, which is what they did with yesterday's event, however so "graphic" it may be. As graphic as some of those pictures are, there are probably worst things you've seen.

      Sauce for UW being in top 10 for freedom of speech:
      http://www.therecord.com/news-story/4897041-constitutional-law-group-criticizes-uw-record-on-freedom-of-speech/

      Delete
    3. 21b, adding to that, this is not actually a Feds-run club. It's an affiliate group who has an agreement with Feds. Ergo, Feds doesn't approve their charter.

      Delete
    4. @21b JCCF is hardly a reliable source on "freedom of speec" on this issue, they've been around for only 4 years and nearly all of the cases that they have been involved in -- the only exception being Allen v. Alberta, a case regarding laws on health insurance -- have involved defending anti-abortion groups, most recently Calgary Airport Authority vs. Canadian Centre for Bio-ethical Reform.

      They are supported and endorsed solely by social conservative groups including the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (a right-wing lobby group), the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (a part of Focus on the Family Canada), and both the MacDonald-Laurier and Fraser Institutes (prominent right-wing think tanks).

      On the other hand, the opinion of a reputable group like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association would be useful, but wait... they're too busy doing actual work in the courts to bother with publicity stunts like releasing school ratings.

      Delete
  21. so i don't understand

    what does this club do? gather together and not have abortions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They advocate for pro-life policies.

      Delete
    2. @22 you know, that's probably true, but that could apply to most clubs...

      4.a found the mission statement: "UW Students for Life (UWSFL) is a Pro-life club whose aim is to support women in crisis pregnancies through volunteer work and tangible resources, advocate for the rights of all human beings from fertilization to natural death, form club members to speak about these topics with confidence, and educate the student population about life issues."

      Delete
  22. "This is what a fetus looks like if its aborted!!!!"

    Um, have you seen open heart surgery? Child-birth? My shit earlier? Its all gross, no one particularly wants to see it, and has nothing to do with the actual issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abortion related images are a trigger for many people, and can cause serious anxiety. Just because you haven't experienced something doesn't make it invalid. Check out thread #7 as it explains this pretty well.

      Have some consideration for others, please.

      Delete
    2. ^seems like 23 was expressing the same sentiment as you 23a...

      Delete
  23. I hate liberals...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hate conservatives LOL! Go back to the dark ages with your backward beliefs

      Delete
    2. I hate non-capitalists!

      Delete
  24. Everyone's time and money would be better spent invested in prevention, easy access to contraceptives, education and community supports.

    I'm always saddened by these demonstrations since their tactics are usually founded on shame and guilt when they speak of justice an love. If we focused on the issues leading to unplanned pregnancies then we could reduce the number of abortions in general. This would help everyone on either side of this unfortunate issue.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It's funny and sad how intolerant people have become for something they don't agree (I suppose ignorance is bliss). If you don't like it, then don't watch it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one is saying they shouldn't be allowed to speak. Only that one of the busiest places on campus in the middle of the day, with little warning, is not appropriate.

      Delete
    2. @26.a Supposedly they did do promotion before the event. It's hard to keep up of everything that happens in the SLC and if you're a student that just happens to be walking in one day to get food or whatever then seeing this would be surprising, but to be honest, a lot of people a surprised about things that happen in SLC often. Do you know how often I hear the mutterings of "what the hell is going on?" or "what is this?" because people just don't pay attention to club promotions. Really you can't blame the club if they did all their promotions correctly, just the students who were unaware.

      Delete
  26. I am a man so it is impossible for me to understand what it would be like to become pregnant but I believe that no government or religious group or Pro Life Club should have to right to dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her own body.

    NOBODY :enjoys: abortions. It isn't an enjoyable experience for anyone involved so adding guilt and shame on a woman who is already absolutely terrified and most likely already feeling unbearable guilt and uncertainty seems so petty and low.

    If I got a woman pregnant at this stage in my life, I would honestly want her to get an abortion BUT there is NO WAY I could possibly FORCE her to get one. It is the woman's body and thus it is her choice.

    Similarly, if I get a woman pregnant and I want her to keep the child, there is NO WAY I could FORCE her to bear the child for 9 months. I may be upset and angry and understandably so but again, it is HER body and thus HER choice if she wants an abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm pro-choice. I think half of the people on OMGUW should have been aborted. But seriously, I'm really pro-life. I mean, if you have an abortion then that is that and you can never undo it if you change your mind, but if you have the child and decide later you don't want it you can always pull a Casey Anthony. Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I would like to see what a member of this club would do if they were raped or something and became pregnant. It's not always black and white for people who are getting abortions. They cannot tell another person what is wrong and what is right for them to do if they don't fully understand that individuals situation. Don't get me wrong, I think its terrible that some people view abortion as a form of birth control, I think that's very wrong. But sometimes pregnancy is a legitimate accident (contraceptives failing, etc) or a product of something more violent, and the woman that is pregnant has a right to do what is best for her. No one can tell you what is right and what is wrong for your own body or your own life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Considering members of this club believe that a human being is alive at the moment of fertilization then they would keep the child. They have the saying: Why should the child die because of the wrongs of the father? Most pro-lifers I've met aren't wholeheartedly heartless to the pains of the women who have been raped (if anything they try to be consoling and try to provide support to the woman whatever her situation is) and they don't try to make it seem as if they understand what a raped woman is going through. They, however, wholeheartedly agree that the man who caused this pain should be punished to the fullest extreme of the law.

      However, because the majority of pro-lifers believe that life begins at fertilization, they would more than likely carry the baby to term, even in that difficult situation. I have many pro-life friends and they all affirm this. They say it will be difficult, but a life is a life and it's the father who should be punished not the child.

      Delete
  29. Lmao. "Trigger". Why are you such a wuss?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Help, help, I'm being oppressed!

      Delete
    2. It's "repressed", you pleb.

      Delete