Posted on 05/01/2003 9:34:30 AM PDT by NorCoGOP
LAWRENCE, Kan. -- I have been writing this column in my head now for four years, since I first saw the gruesome and sensationalized photos of aborted fetuses that anti-abortion activists adorned our campus with.
Now, after a lovely spring day has been ruined by these photos and the offensive comments that accompany them, I have decided to exercise my First Amendment right.
The purpose of this column is not to get into some sort of argument over semantics, to debate the definition of the term "baby" or "life" or to debate the morality of abortion. I only wish to defend the group of people on this campus who have been arguably the most devastated by these anti-abortion demonstrations: women who have had abortions.
I have no statistic as to how many young women on this campus have had abortions, but I am willing to bet that it is in the hundreds or perhaps even the thousands. Think for a minute the effect these billboards have had on these women.
The abortion protesters I spoke with this week had one horrible misconception. They assume that women who have had abortions had some sort of malice towards the pregnancy they terminated. This is pure ignorance. I have several friends who have had abortions. It was not by any means an easy decision to make. These women had to make an excruciating choice that will affect them for the rest of their lives. That's not to say that they regret the choice they made; however, having an abortion was a frightening ordeal for them, one they surely do not wish to relive while attempting to cross the campus so they may receive an education.
Fact: Abortion is legal in the state of Kansas. Fact: The University of Kansas is a public university. Is it a forum for people to enact moral judgment on someone who did something entirely within the realm of the law? Since when has it been appropriate to express glaring public disdain toward someone for making a choice she had every legal right to make? What is the purpose of these protesters? Is it their goal to make those who have had abortions feel guilty by posting words such as "kill" and "genocide"? (Whoever first equated this term with abortion has surely never opened a dictionary.) They assured me that their only aim was to put an end to abortion. Why must they accuse hundreds of young women of murder while trying to make a point?
We all have the right to make moral judgments. We all have the right to decide whether a woman who has had an abortion is a murderer. These abortion protesters have a right to their platform. However, just because a woman has had an abortion does not mean she has to endure this. This is a state school. At a religious institution it might be acceptable to post billboards condemning peoples' actions; but this university is not such an institution. Maybe this wasn't the intent of these protesters; however, it disgusts me that any one young woman on this campus has to tolerate such blatant disdain of a choice she legally made.
I do not expect these protesters to realize my point. After having several discussions with them during which they uttered unconvincing mantras, I realized that arguing with them was useless. My question is, which university official thought it appropriate for young women on this campus be harassed for exercising their legal right? I am horrified that our beautiful campus was polluted with these horrific displays, and I am dumbfounded that it was permitted.
Mandy, you're soooooo close. If Truth was a snake, it would have bitten you by now. Here, let me help:
Why wasn't it any easy decision for your friends to make?
Why was the choice so excruciating that it will affect them for the rest of their lives?
What exactly is done during the "termination of a pregnancy", that is so excruciatingly difficult to "choose" and will affect the chooser for the rest of her life?
But they'd prefer it if nobody did.
Is it their goal to make those who have had abortions feel guilty by posting words such as "kill" and "genocide"?
The goal is to prevent more abortions by showing people the result. These same people often have no qualms about anyone who criticizes homosexuality and laying a guilt trip on them.
I wouldn't call abortion murder, which is personal and premeditated. But it is the killing of the innocent - denying someone an average lifespan of 70+ years - and is perhaps worse than murder. Some people deserve to get whacked.
Of course, the interesting thing about that were the pro-choicers flying around the displays like hawks, passing out leaflets and buttons and bumper stickers. They didn't seem all that bothered by it; they were really much more concerned that others might be disturbed by what they saw.
I was a little amazed by all that. All I can say is they must have strong stomachs not to be appalled by all that chopped-up flesh: I'm afraid I don't.
A perfect example of the world view of modern liberlism, which says that all choices are morally equivalent. The author believes that no one's actions should be condemned no matter what.
Interestingly, one can easily measure the success of such a view simply by looking at reality. For the modern liberal, the role of government is to remove from any individual the consequences of bad choices. In doing so, the myth of moral equivalence can be maintained.
Unfortunately, this view has wreaked havoc on our society in the last forty years. By throwing money into engineered solutions to every 'social problem', destructive behavior has only been reinforced. Further, by removing any moral obligation from the citizens, a government dehumanizes the populace and lables them as machines to be 'engineered'. Once the concept of a 'free moral agent' is removed, the actions of the government need no justification. Tyranny follows.
The world view of modern liberalism has been taught with religious fervor in our schools since the 1960's. It is no wonder that our society is failing and that the young man in this article is so misguided.
Nicely said.
Regards;
I only wish to defend the group of people on this campus who have been arguably the most devastated by these anti-war demonstrations: vets who have fought in wars.
I have no statistic as to how many military veterans on this campus who have killed in action, but I am willing to bet that it is in the hundreds or perhaps even the thousands. Think for a minute the effect these billboards and anti-war placards have had on these vets.
The anti-war protesters I spoke with this week had one horrible misconception. They assume that soldiers who kill had some sort of malice toward enemy soldiers. This is pure ignorance. I have several friends who have had killed in action. It was not by any means an easy decision to make. These soldiers had to make an excruciating choice that will affect them for the rest of their lives. That's not to say that they regret the choice they made; however, being in the middle of firefights was a frightening ordeal for them, one they surely do not wish to relive...
We all have the right to make moral judgments. We all have the right to decide whether a soldier who has killed in action is a murderer. These anti-war protesters have a right to their platform. However, just because a soldier has opened fire does not mean he or she has to endure this. This is a state school. At a religious institution it might be acceptable to post billboards condemning peoples' actions; but this university is not such an institution. Maybe this wasn't the intent of these protesters; however, it disgusts me that any one young vet on this campus has to tolerate such blatant disdain of a choice he or she legally made.
Now, where or where is the same sensitivities of these leftists when it comes to our troops? Think such a piece would ever appear in any major campus publication? Not in our lifetime!
Do you see how far our open "free-speech zones" of campus life have evolved? "Permitted"? "She"(any generic woman since who knows who's had an abortion and who hasn't) doesn't have "to endure this"?
Another solid indicator of what Anne Coulter said in yesterday's column: "Liberalism is part of a religious disorder that demands a belief that life is controllable."
Chuck Colson years ago had a name for this: "Safism"--the liberals' belief that they can make the world safe for all atheists.
Don't these holocaust-is-evil promoters understand that gruesome concentration camp photos generally ruin a perfectly good spring day?
My heart goes out to all those Germans, Austrians and other good Arians who have been demonized for simply following the law. Yes, many of them turned in their neighbors and knew that Jews were being turned into lampshades and soap, but that was ok because the law said it was ok. These were good people. Yes, a number of these Arians and their supporters had to work the concentration camps, trains and slave labor camps that the Nazi’s ran; they saw the cruelty and barbarity, but that was ok because the law said it was ok. These were good people.
Why doesn’t anyone think about the feelings that these good Arians must suffer anytime someone pokes a photo of a brutalized child in their face? What about the Arians? The law said it was ok. These were good people. Do you really think they want to be reminded about the difficult choices they made?
I could speak of slavery in America but I must avoid the subject lest I offend the relatives of some of our former slave holders, or our Confederate friends.
Heil Hitler everyone!
(Sarcasm off)
And, my God, what was even worse was this pollution was done the same month as "Earth Day"!
How dare you trash my campus with pictures of horrific trash!
Let bygone humanity be bygone humanity!
This reminds me of Kefa Sempangi's book, "A Distant Grief." Sempangi was both a pastor & college prof in Uganda during Idi Imin's bloody reign. On the way to a 5 or 10-year planning meeting at the college, they passed dead bodies in the streets. (And there were many more who simply disappeared, never to be seen again).
They tried concentrating on college plans, but one finally blurted out: "Here we're talking about the future and we're passing dead bodies in the street."
This coed, had she been around in Uganda then, would have written on that campus: "I am horrified that our beautiful campus was polluted with these horrific displays."
You see, dictators come in all shapes & sizes. And not all are named Idi or Saddam or Pol.
She's one mixed up cookie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.