Is it appropriate for a university to give out pro-life leaflets

[StealthPolarBear]

I genuinely don't know. Was a bit disappointed

Going a bit off-topic, but actually, now that I come to think about it, the more I like the idea of universities giving equal time and credence to all views:
University VC: "We are delighted to welcome Professor Stephen Hawking to speak and - for the sake of balance - pub landlord, Joe Bloggs, who will argue that the world is flat..."
Imagine how entertaining that would be, unless you were paying over £9K/year to learn stuff that is.

Why?

Curiously, when I was doing the adoption training that they make us do when applying to adopt, they went through some explanation of what causes trauma in adopted children. They explained that the damage can incur in utero, the foetus can pick up on what's going on outside, ie if the mother is in a bad place. That suggests that the foetus is alive, whether you call it a foetus (meaning offspring literally, not a mass of cells) or unborn baby.

That still doesn't by definition mean that abortion shouldn't be allowed, I'm not saying that. Just that calling it a 'foetus' doesn't prove it's not alive.

I should clarify that they were explaining the science of it, not just giving a social worker's opinion. It was a way of explaining why a baby is traumatised when separated from its mum, even if she never looks after it.

Of course, that could also be an argument in favour of abortion, why put a child through such trauma?

The quality care comission report on Marie stopes found aborted babies in unlidded bins in the corner of the room.

No, it didn't the report said it found "foetal tissue". Foetal tissue doesn't equate to a baby, and more than, say, tissue removed after a breast reduction amounts to an adult. And the report was based on an inspection around 18 months ago, there is no suggestion that that is what happens now: indeed, the CQC has pronounced itself satisfied that all its concerns have been addressed. Pictures of babies in bins are extremely misleading.

I seriously question whether freedom of speech equates to freedom to tell outright inflammatory lies that are potentially defamatory and may severely impact on the mental health of vulnerable people.

I agree, that's disgraceful. And of course it will be really distressing to a woman who has had an abortion or is considering one. That propaganda is also presented in churches as fact in order to persuade people to sign their petitions.

@Lizzie48 - my understanding of the research (I had a quick look) suggests that stress hormones released by the woman can impact neuro development in a foetus. Basically, the stress chemicals will impact on development in the same way as other chemicals or substances (e.g. smoking, alcohol etc) ingested by the woman.

No-one has said that a foetus is not living, have they?

Or that the whole point of abortion is to stop it living and remove it from the woman's body.

There is a weird sort of suggestion that people who believe that women should have full bodily autonomy (same as men and dead people unless of course they're pregnant women) don't understand that abortion involves (usually) stopping a potentially viable pregnancy from proceeding. That people don't understand that what is aborted has the capability (usually) to grow into a birthed baby.

This is bizarre. Obviously people who are pro choice know what abortion is. What we don't believe is that it is the same thing as murdering a born child.

It is also common for people who are anti abortion to believe it should never be performed including in cases where the pregnancy is not viable, where there is no prospect of a live baby at the end of it.

There is no explanation for this other than a deep rooted and utter hatred of women.

Exactly up no one has said they’re not living

to be fair I said they are not alive in the same way that a born human is alive. But that doesn't mean I said not alive either. There are levels.

That makes sense, peppa. I accept that and it makes a lot of sense.

No, it honestly isn't about hatred of women, not at all. It's about a very blinkered view of theology, that the taking of human life should never be allowed, it has to be left entirely to God.

It's not at all consistent, as these same people can be pro capital punishment and pro warfare.

But it has nothing at all to do with a view of women in this case.

Sometimes it is about hatred of women. To some prolifers, pregnancy is seen as a punishment for sex, and abortion unallowable as a get out of jail free card.

Yes agree with Peppa.

I would also argue that to refuse to allow removal of a foetus that is to all intents and purposes dead, and leaving it means increased risk of infection etc to the mother + the larger it gets the more difficult it gets to remove.

Forcing a woman to carry a dead foetus to term and give birth to it - I can't see any reason at all other than a deep hatred of women.

But this is obvious right, as they don't care about the death injury illness etc as a consequence of birth / illegal abortion.

Forcing a woman to take on the risks of pregnancy and birth when she does not wish to is unsupportable. Birth trauma is largely ignored by the medical community - it all stems from the same place - women are unimportant.

This is where the punishment comes in.

See also women in prison for miscarrying in some countries.

I know a lot of people who genuinely believe that, sadly. But it honestly isn't about hatred of women. They believe that the foetus's life is sacred, hence the reason for abortion not being permitted. There is a lack of compassion for women, I have seen that, but not hatred. A lot of women believe it too, and teach it very passionately.

I also believe that human life is sacred, but no one really applies that consistently, otherwise what about other issues, like war, as I said earlier.

you can't speak for others, Lizzie. And yes, it is, sometimes. You may not like to hear it, but its true.

I think you're the one speaking for others there, peppa. Why do you think you know what people actually think more than I do??

I think saying it is about hatred of women is simplistic and naive. In some cases, yes, it is plain old misogyny. However, in most cases, it is much more complex than that. I think Lizzie's point that they believe in the sanctity of the life of the foetus leads to a lack of compassion towards women is more generally accurate. They would see protecting the unborn as being for the greater good and that in any battle, there will be casualties. In the battle against abortion, women are the casualties but in their minds, this is an acceptable trade-off.

Dismissing it as hatred of women is dangerous as that fails to recognise the complexities that need to be battled in order to protect women's rights.

I was thinking that, theymademejoin. I think it's a case of collateral damage, they don't consider the cost to women, unfortunately. There's a lack of feeling of any sort for the woman, so there wouldn't be hatred either.

How is it not hatred to force a woman to carry a foetus with zero chance of survival / or that is dead to term and give birth to it?

In the USA women have died because of a reluctance / refusal to perform abortion. I was surprised when I learned the number of hospitals in USA that are RC! Which raises obvious issues around women's welfare in that country when it comes to reproductive matters.

women die when foetus fetishists are left to their own devices

And then make up lots of excuses about it to cover up the fact they just don't care.

I think you're the one speaking for others there, peppa. Why do you think you know what people actually think more than I do?

I've had dealings with SPUC-ers. They absolutely hate women. Do you think the ones that spit on and jostle young women entering clinics don't hate women?

let's put women in prison for miscarrying - a SPUC approved nation where abortion is strictly illegal