Letters to the Editor / Opinion

Selfishly Abusing Our of Freedom of Speech

Within the past two quarters, the abortion debate on campus has risen to an astronomical level. While I will not personally reveal my position on abortion, I feel that the materials the UCSB community has been exposed to have become increasingly more violent and triggering, meaning these materials often invoke a highly negative and/or emotional, mental or psychological response by people who have been affected.

Recently, I’ve seen more overwhelmingly insensitive material from the Pro-Life groups (both stemming from this campus and from off-campus organizations) on UCSB grounds. Personally, I feel their position on abortion is not the offensive matter in question, but I have a serious problem with their approach in how they are trying to educate and “inform” the student body.

In the case of recent events that have taken place, such as the “Graveyard” that took place in front of the SRB Fall Quarter and the overwhelmingly bloody and gory pictures that were displayed in the Arbor on March 4, 2014, UCSB students were given no warning that these events would be taking place; instead, students such as myself have had the unfortunate experience of being ambushed by these triggering materials. While I do believe events such as the “Graveyard” event — where numerous white crosses were placed in the lawn outside of the SRB signifying a ceremony for the loss of life — can be very beneficial for some, I feel students should be given the opportunity to actively choose to be a part of such events, not have the issue thrown at them while biking or walking through public pathways.

This is becoming increasingly unacceptable and insensitive. I understand that all are entitled to freedom of speech to express one’s opinions, but students should be given a warning before they are subjected to seeing such images blatantly placed in front of them. These groups have taken no consideration to the individuals who are directly or indirectly affected by abortion. UCSB prides itself on inclusivity and diversity, yet these groups have actively chosen to ignore the myriad people these images negatively impact. These groups have chosen to overlook these experiences, placing harmful and potentially damaging materials in front of students without so much as a warning. Student announcements are sent out every day, giving students warnings about numerous things; why aren’t such events required to do the same? I don’t think any group should be above that. It’s not the position I have a problem with, but rather the approach that is very insensitive, non-inclusive, violent and dangerous. These groups have failed to give students the right to choose to partake in such events, stripping individuals from their choice to practice self-care in topics as deep as abortion.

I am in no way representing any group I am affiliated with in regards to my opinion on this matter; however, as a student, I feel personally affected by the insensitivity shown towards the countless people who are affected by abortion. I am overwhelmed by these events and images, and I feel empathy for the students I witnessed crying after these protests. My intention is not to bash these groups, as the groups themselves and their position on abortion are of no pressing issue to me; however, their approach has been very triggering and problematic, especially in times as stressful as finals.

These groups are threatening the well-being of students, yet nothing is being done. We should not feel unsafe on our own campus. These acts of shaming and violence are beyond unacceptable, and in no case have these groups warned the student body before showing such images on campus. These groups need to see that although they are successful in initiating a response, it is not always about the damage you know you’re doing, but the damage you unknowingly do.

Delyla Mayers is a second-year feminist studies and sociology major.

A version of this article appeared in the Thursday, March 6, 2014 print edition of the Daily Nexus.
Views expressed on the Opinion page do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Nexus or UCSB. Opinions are primarily submitted by students.
Print Friendly
Tags: , , , , , ,

54 Comments

  1. What I don’t get is, if the images are so “overwhelmingly insensitive,” so “overwhelmingly bloody and gory,” why would anyone defend the perpetrators of the act that produces the reality behind those images?

    This screed is like attacking photographers who show us what war really looks like, or how many coffins were shipped home from the battlefield.

    • that analogy is flawed because you’re implying the photographers actively support and aim to oppress people who are being affected by the war
      women are choosing what they want to do with their body and that is nobody’s choice but their own
      the fact that people are trying to take away a woman’s right to choose is silly and the fact they are using shock tactics around people who are easily disturbed / are brought onto panic attacks by the images is less than ethical

      • Jane Giraldo says:

        I’m not “implying the photographers actively support and aim to oppress people who are being affected by the war”!

        The analogy is apt–both examples are of photographs that show the ugly by-product of an action.

        Abortion: the stated aim is to give a woman the right to choose to kill her fetus. (That’s what the preferred wording, “the right to freedom over her own body,” actually means.) The ugly by-product is dead fetuses.

        War: the stated aim is to support or defend democracy and/or human rights. (Arguably, the real aim to to create wealth for an elite few.) The ugly by-product is dead soldiers.

  2. I have just read the letter to campus from Vice Chancellor Young regarding the Miller-Young incident. It is disgusting and sickening. Talk about blaming the victim.

  3. Jeff Chang says:

    Replace the word abortion with the word gay / gay kiss in / marriage equality rally, then the victim with Christian / freshman from a rural area and we have the same facist BS this lady is pussing for.

    Mein Furer! Ms. Feminist! Mein Furer! Don’t gas me during your man-hating and anti-freedom campaign.

  4. Geez, the author of this article is a complete moron. The sound you hear is Thomas Jefferson and James Madison rolling over in their graves.

  5. stan klein says:

    When did warnings become the equivalent of “campus free”?

    Please!

    There was an argument in favor of possible warnings. Conflating this with the elimination of free speech is sophistry.

    The conduct and concern of veterans (as if you can speak for an entire diverse group) is off point. The question is whether a condition that is multiply realized (i.e., including, not limited to veterans) is perhaps well severed with signs indicating possible psychological danger? That is not anyone’s rational definition of campus censorship (anymore than are signs warning people of holes in the pavement equivalent to the removal of the holes themselves).

    I neither support censorship or its implementation and have never opined otherwise. Conflating censorship with warning is a category error. If you or others fail to see this, that is sad. But all I have advocated are warnings re triggering events, not the removal of the events per se.

    This is not serious discourse

    • Life and the real world is triggering. Warning: Don’t get out of bed in the morning or you might face some triggers. But you also might face triggers if you don’t get up.

    • WARNING: If you set foot outside your home you might be triggered.

      Here’s a warning everyone is aware of but you won’t find it on the university website: If you don’t agree with and slavishly praise the idol of political correctness, you will be socially isolated, verbally attacked, possibly physically abused and may not pass courses taught by bigots. So, pretend you agree with their crap in classroom discussions and write papers that sync with your professor’s views if you wish to graduate. Once you receive your diploma, you may now practice free speech openly on campus.

      You should be fearful of writing an article under your own name in the Nexus, and perhaps even cautious about using a pen name, lest the powers that be find out your identity and retaliate.

    • Would you stop a anti racism group from displaying a hanging black man in the past and have a physical removal altercation with them? I guess not, how about if the fetus was a minority race, would that make a difference? You would let that group have their signs and not say a word of the graphic content and let be heard without a physical assault

  6. stan klein says:

    The thoughtless remark on, in its sweeping ignorance, about “triggers” does no service to serious discourse.

    As I mentioned in an earlier comment (perhaps in response to a different article post), PTSD is sadly too real for too many. I have a family member who suffers from flashbacks. N=1 is not an inductive base for solid inference; i.e., the plural of anecdote is not data!

    But, in preparation for a paper I was invited to write on PTSD, I have now read 147 articles (in journals of clinical, cognitive, neuroscicence, memory, trauma and so on)as well as 3 technical books. I can assure you my stance on PTSD is not anecdotal.

    Those suffering from PTSD accompanied by flashback (which can stem from auto accident, battle, rape, childhood abuse, etc) suffer very serious consequences as a result of “triggering” events. Thank your excellent luck that you have not had the dubious opportunity to partake in a PTSD triggered flashback of a personal horror (I can only assume had you actually experienced a flashback you would not be so facile in your dismissal of “trigger” events).

    Generalization is never a good idea in the absence of serious research. Generalization — conjoined with belittlement, and particularly in the absence of understanding — is a bad idea. Please think before responding to things others have experienced that perhaps you fortunately have not.

    • I don’t believe anyone is denying the reality of PTSD; posters have only been reiterating that smiling, triumphant MM-Y is a fraud and we would like to see the smile wiped off her face in criminal and civil court.

      I have a good friend, a therapist who treats veterans with PTSD by teaching them coping skills (another anecdote.)

      But I doubt that despite your research, you or anyone else would recommend keeping the campus free of the loud or sudden noises that might create triggers for veterans with PTSD. And veterans aren’t whining for the special privileges they actually deserve because they served.

  7. GimmeABreak says:

    “Trigger” materials? Good grief. Our college students these days come from a generation that has a difficult time facing reality. Poor baby Delyla has to be exposed to those awful images that may upset her. The immaturity of some younger people in today’s colleges just astounds me. I would expect nothing less from a feminist studies major. What a worthless degree. The degree of a little woman-child just trying to make sense of the complicated world she lives in, and trying to justify her outlook on the world through academic theory. Study something real, useful and practical. And, GROW UP.

    • Good advice, but it is unlikely any of them would choose to grow up and become a contributing, rather than a leeching, member of society when oh so sensitive, whiny, victim drama pays so much better via a consecrated pot of tax dollars dedicated to the not so great unwashed masses.

  8. It seems a little babyish to get upset about graphic depictions of reality.

    • But they are babies. And babies cry and throw tantrums when they don’t get what they want. But babies don’t go to jail and get sued. Tut tut.

  9. i am surprised at all the thoughtful and intelligent comments pointing out the hypocrisy and disingenuous philosophy of the pro-choice movement and their tolerant advocates.

    if the situation were reverse, how would the pro-choice movement respond?

  10. Alum from 70's says:

    How UCSB has changed! How close-minded your Student Body has become. Why are you afraid of open debate? We fought for truth, freedom. Now, when confronted with the truth of abortion, rights of the unborn, UCSB students prefer to live in a cocoon, rather than welcome open discussion of human rights. Sure, live in the pretend world of denial, crushing debate, but our Society should have loftier goals. Sad to see UCSB has turned away from lifting Society. Party on.

  11. Of course you “won’t reveal your own position,” because you already have, Ms. Feminist Studies Major. Perhaps you might consider transferring to the University of Beijing, (and UC Berkeley will do just as well)where you will be safe from offensive, triggering, dangerous, violent and of course non-inclusive (did I miss anything?) speech revealing the horrors of abortion, including free forced abortions for all.

    I wonder what sort of employment is available for a Feminist Studies graduate? There just aren’t many high paying positions open for whining, crying and regurgitating memes. Just a suggestion: You might want to revisit Freshman English 101 prior to applying to graduate programs, although I suppose the Feminist Studies Program isn’t terribly picky.

  12. If it is the image of abortion you object to, then perhaps protesters should show a stork flying away with the baby.

    When does it become acceptable for a professor to take sign away from someone and make off with it as reportedly occurred on campus on March 4?

    Isn’t this really just about shutting down the anti-abortion voice?

  13. Free Speech For All says:

    My my, aren’t you such a tolerant lefty? Freedom for all, so long as it fits into your left leaning, fascist agenda. Tsk, tsk, so typical of the “tolerant” left.

  14. What I see here with the radical feminazi professor and her lemming like minions at UCSB, is the same thing being observed at campuses nationally. Which is that a particular side of the political spectrum (‘Progressives’) are phobic about seeing anything that would challenge their cherished pre-conceived notions.

    Facts are condemned as ‘hateful’. Dogma trumps dialectic. This is anti-academic and anti-intellectual. Nothing exemplifies it better than this http://blastedfools.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/ignorance-is-strength/

  15. Schvenzlerman says:

    I agree with Delyla Mayers that speech should be vetted. People can’t just expect to say anything they want without some oversight. I mean, really.

    • you’re joking, right? Who decides what speech is vetted? Were that the case, every newspaper, student rag (like this), radio station (NPR?), television station, internet news site, etc. would be screened by some panel and information arbitrarily censored. Perhaps you’d be more at home in North Korea?

      • Anti-feminist says:

        The sad reality is that most every outlet you mention above IS vetted, at least in terms of censoring anti-feminist, Men’s Human Rights Movement or anything else that speaks to progressive totalitarian tyranny in schools or in our government. The New York Times and NPR are among the worst offenders.

    • GauchoGrad says:

      Regulation directed at the content of speech (especially political speech) is highly suspect and no reasonable court would ever support this statement. While UCSB can make time, place, and manner restrictions, it has chosen not too. There are cases upon cases from Supreme Court history that cuts against this statement.

      • The problem is, what heretical speech censors can’t do via law, they do by way of social isolation and rejection of ideological apostates. You can add academic retaliation to the mix. While the lemmings are stupid, those holding the reins are astute about human behavior and cognitive science, and make use of the herd mentality.

        As parents were are paying for our children to get an education, when all they are receiving is indoctrination, intimidation and a credential at the end if they keep their mouth shut and offer sacrifices to the pantheon of chosen deities.

    • Well Ms. Schvenzlerman, you just said what you wanted without any oversight. Do you believe your progressive(?)venues and talking heads consisting of either manipulative liars or ignorant submissive sheep should receive oversight from someone outside the pen? I hope I am being charitable by placing you in the submissive sheep category.

      Funny, it seems that the “progressives,” shut up when anyone challenges them and they aren’t accompanied by a mob to shout down truth.

      Why don’t you go running to your PC enforcers to delete all the critical comments, because (decent) people just can’t expect to say anything they want without (communist totalitarian) oversight. I mean, really.

  16. You obviously love to murder innocent unborn babies.

  17. Doug Wenzel says:

    “”these groups are threatening the well-being of students, yet nothing is being done. We should not feel unsafe on our own campus. These acts of shaming and violence are beyond unacceptable, and in no case have these groups warned the student body before showing such images on campus.”

    As Colonel Jessup said, “You can’t handle the truth.” Abortion is grisly. That reality is too discomforting to face, so you’d rather banish any discussion of it.

    • If people can’t post up graphic pictures of two people having sex in a college campus courtyard, then why do pro-lifers get to post up graphic pictures of dead corpses and severed heads?

      In your world of logic, I bet it would be completely acceptable to post porn and 3 by 5 foot pictures of vaginal STDs in a public space, like a public park, or in front of a government building. Right? Right?

  18. “This is becoming increasingly unacceptable and insensitive.” What does this mean? Are you claiming there is a constitutional right to not be offended? Because there isn’t. If what I believe offends you, be offended. That’s ok. Just don’t prevent me from saying it.

    • Anti-feminist says:

      Heresy, Remorsely, pure heresy. Don’t you know that at pigheaded PC schools like UCSB there are unconstitutional Kampus speech Kodes which enforce the silencing of ‘offensive’ speech. You are CURRENTLY prevented from saying it.

      See FIRE’s free speech web site for the whole story.

  19. You are on your way to becoming Pro-life and anti-abortion but just have not realized it.

    Look if the abortionists argument held any validity whatsoever, then none of the fanatical proponents of abortion would have any feelings or reaction to the results of their actions in the least.

    The reaction would be the same as the viewing of a extracted tooth lying on a dentist’s tray.

    But even the most fanatical supporters’ have consciences which scream out in protest when confronted with the actual results of the act which they so vehemently support.

    You owe the people who put you in touch with your own conscience a hearty thank you.

  20. John Skookum says:

    It’s my Constitutional right to shame you or shock you or “trigger” you as much as I damn well please. Don’t like it? Join a cloistered convent, you precious little hothouse flower. And stay out of OUR public property where we are free to say anything we want.

    • Anti-feminist says:

      I’m so offended (NOT). How dare you talk to me that way, you oppressive patriarchal pig? Since this is our fascist feminist academic coven, we deserve to be protected from ‘woman-hating’ monsters like you.

  21. Hugh Akston says:

    So Delyla hears of a professor stealing the property and assaulting a 16 y/o girl for legally and peacefully demonstrating a point of view supported by a majority of Americans (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx#1) and her response is to criticize the girl for “abusing” her Constitution rights?

    Maybe next she can write an Op-Ed criticizing a date rape victim for having that second glass of wine or wearing a skirt that didn’t go past her knees. Seems in line w/her logic.

  22. I guess they don’t teach you college kids anymore about the value of being challenged. Apparently, now that the left has firmly entrenched itself in academia, it is all about keeping the message what you want to hear. Funny, when I was in school, the left was always screaming about censorship. Now they have embraced it. My how things have changed.

    Sorry that your world view was challenged by the pro-life protestors. However, you might ask yourselves whether the reason you find these images “harmful” is becasue they prick your conscience just a bit… If you truly embrace abortion as a “woman’s right,” why do the results of that abortion make you uncomfortable?

  23. Study harder, Delyla. Particularly, consider taking a class that explains the Bill of Rights. You can make up new terms for “I don’t like what you’re saying,” (like ‘triggering’) but your dislike of the speech is irrelevant, no matter how greatly you exaggerate it.

  24. freedom of speech says:

    “UCSB prides itself on inclusivity and diversity, yet these groups have actively chosen to ignore the myriad people these images negatively impact. These groups have chosen to overlook these experiences, placing harmful and potentially damaging materials in front of students without so much as a warning”

    ~~~~

    The first amendment exists to protect unpopular speech. a case can be made against the graphic depiction and gory photos, BUT ucsb is a publicly-funded university and the ability for school officials to stifle and censure speech is limited to safety concerns.

    the fundamentals of free speech in the u.s. does not incorporate the political and social sensibilities of individuals who may be offended by said speech.

    in other words, the fact that YOU ARE OFFENDED is insignificant to free speech. i am familiar with the multitude of soft-science groupthink ethnic/sexual studies BS at our school and am never surprised to read such half-baked analysis at the DN.

    i agree the pictures were in poor-taste…but the hysteria from pro-choicers needs to stop. you guys want it both ways…support abortion, but ignore and stifle all attempts to demonstrate what abortion involves. framing the debate as a social justice problem remains priority for pro-choicers. you guys cry when faced with the medical reality of an abortion..i love it.

    i hope the protest helped many on the fence take a cold look at what abortion really involves.

  25. stan klein says:

    No offense but… I am quite confused by the logical thread in your email.

    First, if, as you say, 2 wrongs = 2 wrongs, why in the world would you feel it necessary to add a second wrong to the wrong already under discussion? What is the communicative benefit (I assume comments are intended to communicate)of saying if effect “Well, they do it too, so there?” Is this meant to further rational discourse? How? What is the goal of finger pointing? If you acknowledge that pro-life is (your words) wrong, then address that. It IS after all, the topic under discussion.

    Asserting hypocrisy (i.e., “well they do it too!”) does nothing to strengthen YOUR argument either for the acts of pro-lifers or against pro-choice folk.

    Second, I do not know why you go to great lengths to argue for the merits of free speech in “response” to my comment, since my thread, in almost its entirety, was devoted exactly to that point.

    Finally, I have no idea how discussion of the merits of free speech either relates to the slippery slope comment I made or “roughens” the slope (other than providing an un-needed play on a metaphor).

    Sorry, but that is the way I see it. FkNitrogen (in a previous comment exchange) taught me to be less severe in my critiques so I will stop at what I have thus far written.

    • Anti-feminist says:

      I’m don’t understand some your questions in context, so I’ll just reiterate what I said before for clarity. Pro-lifers, pro-choicers, feminist gender bigots, KKK members, anti-feminists, and even, heaven forbid, Republican ‘knuckle draggers’ or Mohammed cartoonists have every right to display whatever they damn well please on campus. I’m basically saying that I agree with almost everything you’ve written about free speech below.

      As for ‘finger pointing’, I did that because this post was written by an addled student from the totalitarian covens known as ‘Feminist Studies’ and ‘Sociology’…which is often an evil arm of Feminist Studies. I was hoping to show that feminists and other easily ‘offended’ faux-progressives constitute the most serious risk to free speech on campus today. The irony of a feminist opinion which ostensibly promotes free speech as it, in reality, tries to destroy free speech should be obvious.

      If you go to FIRE”s website you’ll find a story in which another group feminist bullies at another campus tried to hang sheets up around a pro-life display. I’m sure the totalitarian ‘triggering’ logic they used there was similar. This is the slippery slope I’m most worried about…that is gender bigots or other PC ‘progressives’ who believe that just because their feelings get hurt they have a right to silence other people’s free speech…but who, of course, never need to worry about warning others about THEIR vile feminist hate speech.

      FYI: Sensitivity, inoffensiveness, and loathsome levels of ‘consideration’ form the basis for female communication. That’s because women generally don’t communicate for respect first but for relationship first. Given the naturally TOTALitarian character of female-female communication (and of feebleminded feminist ideologies) it’s to be expected that feminist women would hope to destroy our naturally combative Constitutionally protected free speech free-for-all.

      (For more on these blatant S-E-X differences please see Chessler’s Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman in a library very near you.)

      • Your summation of “female communication” gives the impression that you are someone with a lot of deep-seated resentment towards the female gender, resulting in unsupported and frankly idiotic generalizations about women, which don’t even have a direct bearing on any comments here. Regarding your reference, please. Here is a pertinent quote from Chesler’s text, which quite clearly is at odds with your poorly drawn conclusions:

        “It is important to encourage women to express what they think and feel directly, openly, in the here-and-now. Women will learn that doing so will not kill anyone and that truth-telling does not have to lead to female disapproval or rejection.”
        And so how does voicing one’s opinion, feminist or otherwise, counter your view of “free speech free-for-all?”

        • Anti-feminist says:

          Your false accusations of female gender resentment the primary shame game that ‘gendered’ feminists depend on to deflect attention from their hysterical hate movement. Your other ‘generalized’ cheap shots are of the same character. The day that feminist gender bigots, much less most women, truly engage in truth telling will be utterly shocking. For now though, professorial feminist gender bigots and their equally fascist students at UCSB seem content to attack OTHER women for telling THEIR truths directly, openly, and in the here and now. As Chessler said so clearly in Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman: ‘welcome to the lesser circles of hell’, but don’t falsely accuse ME of trying to shut down patently offensive feminist hate speech because I love to see fascists make asses of themselves in public settings.

  26. stan klein says:

    First, Anti-Feminist, the argument that two wrongs makes a right is childish. So, if you have a point, make it. But do not resort to such silly arguments. They do you no good in the eyes of anyone capable of simple logic and are more targeted toward “yes, but look over her” tactics than serious discourse.

    As for the offending material. I can say I find the abortion debate a very difficult issue. I come down on the side of pro-choice, but not without serious concerns (e.g., we DO NOT KNOW when mental life begins despite what advocates and detractors stipulate).

    But that is my problem and not directly relevant.

    First a story. In the 1960s, Alex Shockely (Nobel Laureate in physics) began promoting an agenda to the effect that we should offer voluntary sterilization services to folk whose IQ fell below a certain level. He was proffering a eugenics argument and was clearly out of his comfort zone (he had no professional expertise in psychological testing or genetics).

    He embarked on a lecture tour to promote his ideas. At Yale (near where I lived at the time — West Haven) he attempted to speak but the students booed him off the stage. And this during the “Free-speech student movement” days”!

    The upshot was that Shockley’s ideas (which were easily susceptible to serious counterargument) did not get a chance to be aired and aired-out. Rather, they were left buried in the sadly fertile ground of plausibility. They were not plausible, but denied serious rebuttal, they continued to fester as possibility. Moreover, what were the students so afraid of that they could not allow the “ideas” the cleansing of rebuttal?

    Point — ideas (particularly on a campus devoted to free expression of ideas) should be aired and then addressed rationally.

    If you find the pro-life signs offensive (I have no doubt that they were, and that this was at least part of their intent) — then take a deep breath (there are many offensive things in our world that will come upon you whether or not you welcome them into your life) and address them. But censorship due to offended sensibility is both wrong and counterproductive.

    I agree that warnings of offensive material (if they had not been posted — I do not know) would have been a courtesy. But removing the material, not matter how offensive (think Skokie pro-nazi rally in Jewish neighborhoods in the 1970s) need to be seen and then dealt with on the playing field of rational discourse.

    I do not like slippery slope arguments, but censorship due to offensive “information” certainly sets the stage all too well for such concern.

    • Anti-feminist says:

      I believe you misunderstood me. Two wrongs make two wrongs. Free speech is about allowing and even encouraging everyone to say what they damn well please in all public places on campus, unless they are REALLY interfering with other people’s business, shouting fire in a theater or threatening imminent harm. Removing ‘offensive’ material or even forcing the university to warn others about ‘offensive’ material is an outrage to free speech. It’s precisely the kind of tyranny which feminists regularly promote and commit particularly against anyone ‘offended’ by their hysterical hate speech. Hope that roughens up the slippery slope for you.

    • freedom of speech says:

      pro-choicers=jews, militant pro-life group=nazis. is this how you guys see it? delusional.

      • Antif-feminist says:

        No. Pro-choicers are generally, but not always, right wing religious nut cases who follow a fascist faith for a chance to go to some man-made Sky Daddy’s hotel in the hereafter. They’ve become ironically infamous for shooting the people whom they accuse of infanticide. But that said, who can argue with the logic of killing an unborn child and who can argue that they don’t have a right (just like everyone else) to shove that kind of mass killing right back into our faces? NOT me.

        • freedom of speeh says:

          you mean pro-life people, right?

          the reality is that the pro-choice has successfully framed the debate as a religious vs. progressive conflict. but the reality there are many pro-lifers, and people on the fence, who are not rabidly religious and anti-contraception.

          and interestingly enough the pro choice movemen has no problem with religious organizations if they support abortion. the religious ooalation for reproductive choice is basically a front for the interests of planned parenthood.

          but hey that’s all good because pro-choicers are incapable of incorporating religious doctrine in their politics.

          religion is FINE if it supports their beliefs.

          if we can start to frame the debate from a medical and scientific perspective, the pro-choicers will lose. they do everything they can to stifle the medical aspects of abortion. fetal science, embryology, etc. they mock and write off the pro-life movement with strawman arguments and accusations of religious fanaticism and hate speech like these troll author does. one day abortion will be seen for what it is. a backwards procedure that has no business in a truly progressive and developed society.

          • Anti-feminist says:

            Yes, I meant pro-life people. FYI: I’m broadly pro-life from an ethical prospective. I also hope to hear ALL GENUINE arguments by made by ALL sides. But fascist feminist and retarded religious ‘reasoning’ are merely oxymoronic insults to everyone’s intelligence so we’ll get no help from them.

        • Nonsenseyousay says:

          You have been watching too many episodes of Orange is the New Black in forming your opinion of those who protest abortion.

  27. Anti-feminist says:

    But of course, feminist gender bigots have no problem with insensitive, violent, dangerous and criminal projections of their OWN hysterical hatred: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0 Nor do they warn others away from the omnipresent female supremacist hate mongering which is common on campuses the Western world over. It’s just ‘free speech for me, and censorship for thee’ that these modern day totalitarian twits propose for us all.

    News flash for feminists and for other illiberal PC ‘progressives’: free speech IS often ‘hate speech’ to those who have an evil agenda to push. Crying, becoming enraged, and TALKING back, is precisely the reason we encourage genuine free speech in the first place. As so called-equals in free societies, fascist feminists don’t get to bully the rest of us to fit into feeble-minded female ways of communicating or hide behind the ‘sensitivity’, ‘offensivity’, or ‘triggeredness’ to scapegoat other groups for speaking at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>