To think universities should allow “pro-life” groups?

[Mellowfruitfulnessy]

There’s been a few incidents in the news of universities saying that “pro life” groups should be banned because they make women in campus feel “unsafe”.

There was a protest in Exeter today and there’s been similar rumblings elsewhere.

This seems odd to me: it’s fairly standard teaching in Catholicism and the students in the group largely seem to be Christian / non-UK students. Unis are saying these groups are not “inclusive” but if mainstream religious thinking isn’t allowed, isn’t this excluding free speech? Is it really making women feel “unsafe”?

AIBU to say that pro life groups should be allowed on campuses as part of free speech/thinking/religious freedom?

At the end of the day, some arguments and viewpoints are intellectually boring and easily debunkable by anyone with a brain and/or empathy centre and therefore are not worthy of debate at any mildly prestigious institution.

Wow, that's pretty judgmental and condescending.

An absolute twat I know acquaintance of mine sneers openly at anyone 'stupid' enough to have a religious belief of whatever stripe. I could well imagine him saying that science can easily debunk the existence of a god and that anyone with a brain would agree with him. Presumably, by your logic, anyone who felt differently would be intellectually beyond the pale and not worth debating with?

As for going 'ugh' and using weeping emoticons at people talking about free speech... seriously?!

Not a particularly intelligent debating style....

Bigots ought to be allowed to form groups and have booths, so the rest of us can spot the cunts a mile off and avoid them like the plague.

Yes they should be allowed, if all they're doing is meeting and discussing their small mindedness with each other.

Sadly I doubt they are. Instead they're intimidating women.

At the end of the day, some arguments and viewpoints are intellectually boring and easily debunkable by anyone with a brain and/or empathy centre and therefore are not worthy of debate at any mildly prestigious institution

I mean, I say the same about Marxism all the time 😂 but they are practically an institution on campus and I’d not have it any other way

@underneaththeash

It depends how the group they are banning, go about it. There is an enormous difference between getting rid of a cluster of cells at 6 weeks compared to a formed child at 23 weeks.

Babies who are born via compassionate induction in the second trimester and beyond and overwhelmingly babies who have severe and fatal fetal anomalies. Their mothers are not "getting rid of them" for shits and giggles. It is devastating. These babies are wanted and loved.

This is not the same as termination for social reasons which again, overwhelmingly happens in the the first trimester.

@lazylinguist at universities, or specifically events held by universities? Yes. And of course we're all entitled to freedom of speech - for the record, I don't think I'm particularly intelligent so I count myself amongst the average lot. But not being given a formal spot to espouse my dim views at a university isn't a violation of my rights to free speech. I'm sorry my weeping emoticon upset you, I used it because I can't believe that people still don't understand what freedom of speech actually means.

@BrightYellowDaffodil I'm not sure I follow your logic, to be honest. Of course I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me about anything is stupid. My point is that not all arguments are academically worthy of being platformed by a university. Surely we can all cope with the knowledge that not all of our opinions are important or worthy of discussion or rebuttal by experts in the field? They have better things to be doing!

Go on your views and opinions all you like, but you don't have an automatic right to be platformed by a university, private company, website, whatever other organisation you feel owes you airtime.

@Totallydefeated I'm not in a formal debate. I'm on a mumsnet forum, so I will naturally communicate in styles commonly used online.

@UsedUpUsername

At the end of the day, some arguments and viewpoints are intellectually boring and easily debunkable by anyone with a brain and/or empathy centre and therefore are not worthy of debate at any mildly prestigious institution

I mean, I say the same about Marxism all the time 😂 but they are practically an institution on campus and I’d not have it any other way

And that's your opinion! But clearly, many institutions and experts disagree, which is why they continue to debate it - they feel there is still academic worth in the conversation.

But academics don't spend their valuable research time producing articles that argue with, to pick a random example, with flat earthers - there is no real value to be had in that conversation. Universities don't hold events inviting discussion on "is the Earth flat after all?" because it would be a pointless exercise and also probably rather cruel! Not all viewpoints are worthy of academic debate.

Pro-life beliefs are held by a range of people just as the pro-choice belief. I do not believe we should be making generalisations either way. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint, people who are actvitists or members of pressure groups are deeply committed to their views. Not all those with pro-life views are aggressive, intimidating and rude neither are all those with pro-choice views aggressive, intimidating and rude. What is important is to allow both views a platform and to express their views.

I think “when does life start” is worthy of discussion, and what that means for the rights of women over their bodies and of the pregnancy is surely worth thinking about. University may be the first place young men and women have to really explore these ideas. It’s a tragedy that anyone would think shutting that down was a good thing.

i have pro life leanings for myself although would not impose it on others.

I suspect the furore at my local university over the appointment of the Catholic chaplain, was a personal issue. Not a Catholic teaching issue. He thinks he's some sort of recusant time, hero defender of the faith. But he whipped it up on social media. I think he's an absolute knob to be honest.

But academics don't spend their valuable research time producing articles that argue with, to pick a random example, with flat earthers - there is no real value to be had in that conversation. Universities don't hold events inviting discussion on "is the Earth flat after all?" because it would be a pointless exercise and also probably rather cruel! Not all viewpoints are worthy of academic debate.

These are debates and groups for students not academics

And I'm sure there are a few Flat Earth socs...

My point is that not all arguments are academically worthy of being platformed by a university.

Who gets to decide what is 'academically worthy'? All topics can be discussed on a variety of different levels. Set up a discussion on 'Why is Mr Blobby pink?' and you could get into the depths of male privilege, racism and weight (why is fat funny)? Yes, it's a deliberately absurd example, but pretty much any subject is what you make of it.

Should debates on religion and philosophy be banned because many people are atheists and don't think science and spirituality can coexist? Should debates on gender ideology be no-platformed because 'everyone knows' XYZ? Should a debate called 'A woman's place is in the home' be banned in case women don't feel 'safe'? How about political debates when certain views are relatively unpopular in academic circles?

The answer is to stand up and defend your views, or go and do something else, not to switch other people's voices off as you would a TV programme you didn't like.

Not all viewpoints are worthy of academic debate

But the medical/philosophical ethics over abortion isn’t one of those.

@Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet

I have not problem with society preventing people from openly publicising incredibly hateful and harmful points of view.

And what if someone decided that your views were 'hateful and harmful', even if you thought they were perfectly reasonable? Would you be fine with not being allowed to air your views?

Pro-life is not perfectly reasonable. It's a viewpoint that actively seeks to restrict the fundamental right of bodily autonomy and directly leads to the death of thousands of women each year. It's not a debate as to whether pro-life is harmful or not.

I have no problem with people not being allowed to publically support harmful agendas. None. Just like I have no problem with allowing people to stand on street corners and encourage shoplifting.

*not allowing

@Peoniesandpeaches

Firstly I think you are unreasonable to dignify their shite by calling them pro life as they only care about preventing abortion. Secondly some of these groups are allowed on campuses but the ones that have been banned have been due to their behavior. It’s not about avoiding offending some snowflakes as some might have you believe but because of giving out leaflets with misinformation- hilariously one of the common photos they use to highlight the sanctity of birth is of an elephant pregnancy. They lie about the risks of abortion spout shit about medical conditions they know nothing about and generally act as a massive pain in the backside. I remember one group being banned from my uni after they insisted on smearing fake blood all over their hands and calling anyone who went near the free condoms a whore.

They don't only care about a abortion though, they classify morning after pills, coils, contraceptive injection, the pill and implants as abortion.

@Antiqueanniesmagiclanternshow

Pro life is really forced birth so no

The one thing surely everyone can agree on is that if such groups are allowed then they should be accurately named, not given ludicrous names that don't reflect reality.

Pro-life is a belief that people are entitled to - the actions by some individuals listed in the last two posts are unacceptable but that doesn't mean that all pro-life groups should be banned. Campaigning or promoting a view is perfectly acceptable and in the case of pro-life there is no law prohibiting that standpoint.

It's not a debate as to whether pro-life is harmful or not.

Pro-lifers argue that abortion is harmful. In an organised debate, those who are pro-choice can tell them exactly why they disagree with their stance.

So who is the oppressive hate group in this question, and who decides that?

Society en masse decide that and eventually a law will follow, if you disagree with that what objectional views do you hold, once it was ok to question the intelligence and worthiness to equality for POC do you think that should be brought back? Whether women are intelligent enough to be academic or worthy of the vote, should we bring that back? That 'the gays' are all perverts and want access to your childrens bathrooms (wonder where weve heard that argument before)

@SusieBob the same and much more could be said for hardcore pornography and sex work, and yet many university feminist societies are explicitly pro sex work and pro porn (the one at my university very explicitly is). Should the campus liberal feminists be banned too?

[quote minatrina]@lazylinguist at universities, or specifically events held by universities? Yes. And of course we're all entitled to freedom of speech - for the record, I don't think I'm particularly intelligent so I count myself amongst the average lot. But not being given a formal spot to espouse my dim views at a university isn't a violation of my rights to free speech. I'm sorry my weeping emoticon upset you, I used it because I can't believe that people still don't understand what freedom of speech actually means.

@BrightYellowDaffodil I'm not sure I follow your logic, to be honest. Of course I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me about anything is stupid. My point is that not all arguments are academically worthy of being platformed by a university. Surely we can all cope with the knowledge that not all of our opinions are important or worthy of discussion or rebuttal by experts in the field? They have better things to be doing!

Go on your views and opinions all you like, but you don't have an automatic right to be platformed by a university, private company, website, whatever other organisation you feel owes you airtime.

@Totallydefeated I'm not in a formal debate. I'm on a mumsnet forum, so I will naturally communicate in styles commonly used online. [/quote]
Sure, just as long as you realise that others may find your pronouncements on the intelligence of others to hold less weight if you present yourself in a less intelligent way yourself.

And, don’t kid yourself that this is new, in the 90s there would be the pro hunt and hunt sab stalls set up opposite each other, and the antivivisectionist stalls with leaflets of horrifically damaged animals and the pro life ones and the Conservative association and the pro Hamas stalls and the Israel Society and the Alpha Course Christians opposite the LGB stall and the campus territorial army society or whatever, and somehow people managed to avoid the ones they found distasteful, and still not feel like they were “unsafe” or “triggered” or that anyone should be banned.