Ms. Hill was obviously frightened by the possibility that anyone was going to discuss abortion ("discourage fellow pro-aborts from debating and then banish CBR") and she was speaking for most pro-aborts in America. Student Camila Wright posted an electronic bulletin board note which addressed this same point:
I have heard and read many complaints about CBR’s presence on campus and their use of graphic pictures to promote their cause but I have still not heard a rational defense of the pro-choice position. Would someone please defend abortion?
Of course, no one did. Another student made the same point on line but in a different way:
In the hours I stood with the counter protest [pro-aborts] (and I can only speak on behalf of myself, not the counter protest as a whole), a small number of persons (a majority of which were white males) approached members of the counter protest and tried to engage them in discussion/argument over abortion. Again and again and again I heard counter protesters clearly state “The issue here is not abortion but the revisionist history and divisive tactics of CBR.”
He was largely correct. One of the most humorous sights I witnessed at UT was two second year law students asking the CBR staff a series of interesting questions about abortion and then, in absolute good faith, repeating them to the pro-abort “counter demonstrators.” The pro-abort women became so flustered that they finally summoned the campus police to lodge a complaint against their inquisitors for “harassment.” The poor legal scholars walked away in obvious bewilderment. It was a bad week to be a pro-abort at UT.
More students than we have room to quote noticed the reluctance of the pro-aborts to debate abortion. Jarod Pearson (lepearso@utkux.utcc.utk.edu) wrote:
One interesting point I must make is that the opposition never openly opposed the subject matter of the display. Their only point of opposition was that CBR ‘promoted violence’ with their graphic displays. That comment implies that pro-choicers are prone to violently oppose people who express a different view.
At least in this respect, the pro-aborts are robotically consistent. Thomas Webb, a member of the student acting club sent this dreary epistle:
I am sure that by now all of you have seen the anti-abortion posters that have been around the HSS building and the UC. Tomorrow, we are going to stage a silent protest at the UC. The purpose is not to show that we are pro-choice or pro-life but to prove that we are intelligent people who find these extreme and virtually misleading tactics to be very offensive. Our plan is to all dress in blue jeans and black shirts, sweaters, jackets, etc. and then form a line facing away from the display. We will not be talking to anyone, not each other, or people who may come up to argue, question, or even compliment …. Again, let me stress that we aren’t taking a side in the issue, only on the tactics used by these people.
Just like their friends the pro-abort dancers, these pro-abort actors didn’t want to argue and who can blame them? How would you like to stand in front of a giant picture of an aborted baby and explain why what’s depicted should be legal?
When contemporary racists are challenged about the meaning of the Confederate flag flown over the South Carolina State Capitol, they deny that the issue is racism and try to change the subject by arguing that the flag is a symbol of “Southern heritage.” They are merely following the example of their Civil War ancestors who asserted that Confederate soldiers weren’t defending slavery, they were fighting for “state’s rights.” Racists didn’t want to defend slavery for the same reason pro-aborts don’t want to defend baby killing. Like abortion, the ownership of blacks was a matter of “personal choice” -- for whites that is. Blacks didn’t “choose” slavery anymore than babies “choose” abortion. Both are indefensible. So their perpetrators change the subject.
DEBATE CHOICE OR DEBATE SLAUGHTER
But pro-lifers are also trying to change the subject. As I have noted in other essays, Michigan Right to Life and an organization calling itself The Caring Foundation are running subtly pro-life TV ads in various regions of the country. One of the many problems with their campaign is that the ads seem to vaguely dispute a woman’s “choice” to abort. “Choice” is an argument we lose with most Americans. GAP, on the other hand, forces the pro-aborts to debate baby-killing (or look silly by default) which is an argument we win big (the partial-birth abortion debate proved that fact beyond dispute).
TRIVIALIZING FREE SPEECH
Another student identifying himself as “David W.” posted this juvenile note:
I don’t like it when people try to influence my views about abortion by placing photos of baby parts between me and my classes. And avoiding them should not disrupt my daily routine in any way whatsoever, that means I shouldn’t have to cross the street when I usually take the bridge over it just to avoid offensive material. And if you call that trivial, than you’ve missed my point. GAP (Genocide Awareness Project) is like a bad commercial, they negate their cause by crossing the line of common decency.
Actually, anyone with a functioning conscience would call Mr. W.’s selfishness “trivial” but we do get his selfish point. Our pictures are “indecent” because baby killing is “indecent” and some UT coeds who now know that -- only because they reluctantly viewed our pictures -- have decided to not kill their babies. That seems, to us at least, an important enough matter for which to cross the street. But if Mr. W. won’t cross the street to save a baby, perhaps he will cross it to save free speech. Because if he is given the power to censor our point of view, someone else will eventually use that power to censor his. If Mr. W. says he wouldn’t object to that, Mr. W. is either untruthful or undeserving of liberty.
Student Byron Earnheart responded with this posting – “rock on” Mr. Earnheart:
What is the deal with this university? We consider ourselves to be well-educated, open-minded, progressive students and we get this outbreak of disgust for people with another viewpoint. Obviously, there is the GAP awareness thing this week. However, there was that day when the Gideons passed out Bibles to the students. People were upset with this and thought that the Gideons were forcing their beliefs on others. Did anyone get a Bible forced in their hand? Also, isn’t a university a marketplace for ideas, a place where we, as individuals, can learn other ideas and opinions and decide which is better? Or is a university a place where we say we are open-minded and then when an unpopular group comes in, we talk about kicking them off and prohibiting their ideology from campus? The point is if an idea offends you, look away.
Student Sam Quinn (elvis@utk.edu) doesn't want to expend the energy required to look away and he has a very fuzzy understanding of constitutional law.
Don’t like the crap spread on the humanities lawn? Wonder why and how it got there? Thank our administration for giving CBR permission. Just think, if the administration allowed an extremist group like the Center For Bio-Ethical Research [sic] to agitate, divide, infuriate and insult the student body, what other groups would the administration allow on campus?
|
