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?

A university is the ideal place for this sort of group, surely? As one group among many with differing views, giving students the chance to discuss and debate and even hold somewhat extreme viewpoints that they will probably feel embarrassed about in later life. The alternative is that we all continue to hold the same views as our parents and school teachers. That would probably be a far more conservative viewpoint.

University is meant to be challenging. To be honest the Freshers parties and initiation ceremonies were a lot more intimidating than a group with a stall. The initiation ceremonies have largely been banned now I believe. Not sure if that's a good thing. The whole thing is getting to be so dumbed down it's like an extension of primary school, with parents coming in to deal with every little issue.

As long as they follow rules about not harassing women (example: shouting at women, following them, trying to stop them accessing abortion clinics), yes, they should be allowed. They can use words like murder, sinner, repenting etc., in their own pamphlet materials, as long as nobody is forced to look at them or hear them. If I saw a pro life booth at a university event, I personally would just smile and ignore them.

The whole trans rights debacle should give us warning of what happens when we shut down free speech.

@foxgoosefinch

What? The 1986 act? Plenty of extra legislation and guidelines have since been passed allowing universities to cancel controversial events if they violate certain clauses.

You could start by reading the Charities Act 2011 and its subsequent updates, plus the EqA10 and Articles 9-11 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and thinking about the intersections between them. This is not cut and dried law; educational institutions also need to exercise judgment and care in how they understand it and there is significant room for debate. But it is a lot more complex than you suggest.

I know it's not cut and dry - I was peripherally involved in lots of these arguments at uni as I was involved in the SU. Some of the cancellations I agreed with, some I didn't. But ultimately the university always had its back covered with whichever legislation or guidelines backed up its decision.

My point was that some views just aren't of much interest, and will not be viewed as worthy of an academic debate at a university. I didn't talk about whether certain subjects can or should be off limits, I'm talking about the fact that a university is not beholden to holding events that are of no academic value.

If pro life people aren't allowed to express their views that pre born children are human and worthy of respect, then surely pro abortion campaigners shouldn't be able tell people the lie that pre born children are no human and not worthy of respect?

@Mazblue86

If pro life people aren't allowed to express their views that pre born children are human and worthy of respect, then surely pro abortion campaigners shouldn't be able tell people the lie that pre born children are no human and not worthy of respect?

However you dress it up, it comes down to a choice between forced birth or choice not to give birth.

How dare you say for example that my Aunt, who had several abortions due to the foetuses having Tay Sachs did not ‘respect’ them as potential humans. It was because she watched her daughter die over a protracted period of time that she decided not to expose another child to that suffering.

I am 100 percent pro choice to the point that I would fight to my last for this right. However I believe in free speech and therefore pro life individuals should have a voice. As should women who don't believe males fall into the category of female

I also meant to add to my earlier post that most universities also have their own statutes, usually including outlining their public benefit under the charities act in terms such as “education, learning and research”, and usually including some kind of commitment to academic freedoms, so it’s also about the university’s statutes as well, not just the laws it’s subject to.

My point was that some views just aren't of much interest, and will not be viewed as worthy of an academic debate at a university. I didn't talk about whether certain subjects can or should be off limits, I'm talking about the fact that a university is not beholden to holding events that are of no academic value.

I think that’s some overreach here. I’m very pro-choice myself, but I can’t pretend that an issue centring on the fundamental medical ethics of life, women’s rights, bodily autonomy and advances in medical technology is a debate “not worthy of academic debate” or “not of much interest.” Issues like which trisomies or conditions are are included in TFMR or consent hurdles to access to medical treatment are extremely important, and if I think so too I don’t think I should get to choose who is allowed to speak on that or not.

Are we saying thick religious men don’t get to have an opinion on abortion issues but mothers of disabled children do? Who gets to decide, and when do I find myself not allowed to speak on an issue because someone else has decided I don’t get to have an opinion?

@foxgoosefinch

I also meant to add to my earlier post that most universities also have their own statutes, usually including outlining their public benefit under the charities act in terms such as “education, learning and research”, and usually including some kind of commitment to academic freedoms, so it’s also about the university’s statutes as well, not just the laws it’s subject to.

My point was that some views just aren't of much interest, and will not be viewed as worthy of an academic debate at a university. I didn't talk about whether certain subjects can or should be off limits, I'm talking about the fact that a university is not beholden to holding events that are of no academic value.

I think that’s some overreach here. I’m very pro-choice myself, but I can’t pretend that an issue centring on the fundamental medical ethics of life, women’s rights, bodily autonomy and advances in medical technology is a debate “not worthy of academic debate” or “not of much interest.” Issues like which trisomies or conditions are are included in TFMR or consent hurdles to access to medical treatment are extremely important, and if I think so too I don’t think I should get to choose who is allowed to speak on that or not.

Are we saying thick religious men don’t get to have an opinion on abortion issues but mothers of disabled children do? Who gets to decide, and when do I find myself not allowed to speak on an issue because someone else has decided I don’t get to have an opinion?

I didn't make a comment on the subject itself! I'm pro choice, but there are plenty of worthy debates to be had I'm sure - especially with regards to philosophy.

But not all pro-life stances are equally intellectual, are they? Not all pro-life groups have something interesting to say. That was my point!

No. I don't think it's appropriate because I've heard what these people say and believe and it's twisted and/or untrue. Therefore it's not an intelligent or balanced debate...

I genuinely don’t understand why this should be banned and radfem groups allowed.

Why are you conflating anti-abortion groups and radfem/GC groups?

The anti-abortion group you're referring to appears to be the one run by mainly men who believe that women who seek abortions don't know their own minds and need re-education as to how they should behave. The campaigners are not affected by whether these women have abortions, and most are men so will never be in the situation they are campaigning about as they are not, and will never be, biological women affected by becoming pregnant.

That's exactly the kind of oppression that gender-critical feminism opposes - biological men telling women what they are, how to behave and that the men know best.

GC feminism is completely different from anti-abortion belief as the women involved are directly affected by the issue of gender oppression - I'm not sure whether you're deliberately strawmanning and suggesting that GC feminism is tantamount to being anti-trans (and therefore suggesting that GC feminists are sitting around debating how trans people should live their lives), but I think it's inaccurate to suggest that GC feminism is in any way similar to anti-abortion campaigning.

To be clear - I'm not saying the anti-abortion discussions should be banned..my view is that students are perfectly entitled to object to what their own student union/university is funding. I just don't think a comparison of anti-abortion campaigners to GC feminists is helpful, fair or accurate.

No one is 'safe' from others' conflicting views, even when those views happen to be objectionable to us. Nor do we have an automatic right not to be offended.

We can choose to boycott discussion if we do find them objectionable. Or we can choose to take them on on their own terms and have an open discussion about why we think it's wrong.

Women now don't get a say in any of these institutions about whether we will accept sharing facilities with male-bodied people in spaces which make us vulnerable. Professors like Kathleen Stock are not apparently free to state such views without ending up with a concerted campaign of terror on her doorstep.

Women are certainly not safe in these institutions for the reasons above, but that isn't because of a conflict of views about (yet again) what we do and don't have the right to do with our own bodies. When it's a point of those bodies making us vulnerable to attack, with policies that make us even more vulnerable, that's a different ballgame entirely.

(FWIW I'm ardently pro-choice. It's not my place to dictate what other women do with their own bodies. Others naturally hold the right to a contrary opinion).

Of course pro-life groups should be able to form, meet and proselytise on campus! Whyever not?

As long as they don't try to force their views on others or get shouty and threatening or abusive drawing attention to themselves with loud-hailers, or get in women's faces or try to disrupt other groups who might hold different opinions or picket the campus health centre.

In other words, behave themselves respectfully, be ready to discuss their views rationally at their own open meetings or events and listen to alternative views.

They can have their members-only meetings and invite speakers and run their society according to the rules everyone abides by. I don't see a problem.

If every group on campus had to be inclusive and appeal to all students equally, not many would pass the test!

Is this thread trying to be goady in the hope of making MNetters look narrow minded and intolerant? Good luck with that.

No. I don't think it's appropriate because I've heard what these people say and believe and it's twisted and/or untrue. Therefore it's not an intelligent or balanced debate

In your opinion!
Let others make up their own mind - that would be intelligent and would allow fair and balanced debate. I don't need anybody to be a censor for me.

I think they should be allowed and I would be happy if they were providing free contraception and resources for emotional and financial support for anyone facing a tough decision. I would not be ok with it if they just protested in front of a clinic or just quoted the Bible to anyone in need of support.

How dare you say for example that my Aunt, who had several abortions due to the foetuses having Tay Sachs did not ‘respect’ them as potential humans. It was because she watched her daughter die over a protracted period of time that she decided not to expose another child to that suffering.

I mean, you can use hyperbole and emotive anecdotes if you like, but the way some people talk about fetuses is equally disturbing - in particular late term - is no better than the "forced birth" perspective.

Saying unborn babies, fetuses, whatever have essentially no value, are not even human etc. And can theoretically or practically be aborted til birth (even cases not related to TMFR)... surely that isn't any nicer for your aunt to hear?

Both sides can have some stupid and disturbing views if you go to extreme ends.

I ardently believe in all women being free to decide what they do with their pregnancies. I believe equally ardently in the right to free speech no matter how stupid or offensive the language as long as that speech is not used to harass or incite violence against other people.

History has more than enough examples of what happens when people have been prevented from expressing their opinions. I don't want any repeats of that.

I am very pro-choice and agree with you - we shouldn't be banning those we oppose from speaking. As long as not hate-speech (and lots of people are pro-life) then I don't see the problem.

We need debates not zero tolerance on things we don't agree with

@fanjosaysi

How dare you say for example that my Aunt, who had several abortions due to the foetuses having Tay Sachs did not ‘respect’ them as potential humans. It was because she watched her daughter die over a protracted period of time that she decided not to expose another child to that suffering.

I mean, you can use hyperbole and emotive anecdotes if you like, but the way some people talk about fetuses is equally disturbing - in particular late term - is no better than the "forced birth" perspective.

Saying unborn babies, fetuses, whatever have essentially no value, are not even human etc. And can theoretically or practically be aborted til birth (even cases not related to TMFR)... surely that isn't any nicer for your aunt to hear?

Both sides can have some stupid and disturbing views if you go to extreme ends.

I'd also add that I'd never use the term 'potential human' because a pre-born child is always human, no 'potential' about it. All things are either human, non living or dead. A growing foetus is alive; it has human DNA and so it is a living human. Ending the life of a person because it is your judgement that their life is not worth living, is, in my opinion, immoral. I don't mind if you disagree. But I'd wonder about your commitment to the pro abortion cause if it offends you.

I believe equally ardently in the right to free speech no matter how stupid or offensive the language as long as that speech is not used to harass or incite violence against other people

^This

you can use hyperbole and emotive anecdotes if you like, but the way some people talk about fetuses is equally disturbing

I'd also add that I'd never use the term 'potential human' because a pre-born child is always human, no 'potential' about it

Very true. Sad that the language expectant mothers use to acknowledge they are carrying a child suddenly becomes offensive when you don't want the child. 'Baby', 'baby bump' suddenly becomes 'foetus'' 'cells'. There is no getting away from the fact an expectant mother is expecting a son or daughter, not a chair or table.

But I'd wonder about your commitment to the pro abortion cause if it offends you.

You can end a life and still admit that it's a life. In the case of later fetuses, abortion is basically euthanasia as far as I'm concerned. For early abortions, the fetus feels nothing, and it's basically and induced miscarriage.

That's the rationale to me. I personally hate the way some people talk about fetuses as if they're nothing- bearing in mind an unborn baby at the point of birth is a fetus. Any gestation is a fetus, yet people claim it's not alive and all sorts of rubbish. It's still alive whether you think it's ok to end the pregnancy or not

@fanjosaysi

But I'd wonder about your commitment to the pro abortion cause if it offends you.

You can end a life and still admit that it's a life. In the case of later fetuses, abortion is basically euthanasia as far as I'm concerned. For early abortions, the fetus feels nothing, and it's basically and induced miscarriage.

That's the rationale to me. I personally hate the way some people talk about fetuses as if they're nothing- bearing in mind an unborn baby at the point of birth is a fetus. Any gestation is a fetus, yet people claim it's not alive and all sorts of rubbish. It's still alive whether you think it's ok to end the pregnancy or not

Well yes, that's a rational perspective.

I also agree about language! When I lost a baby it was 'pregnancy tissue.' My current baby is called a 'baby' and was at 6 weeks, 12 weeks etc.

I'm shocked by thar result. What happened to freedom of religion, freedom of expression..... basically freedom? I'm totally pro choice however I will defend to the death pro life people's right to voice their disagreement with me. Can't stand all these busy bodies telling other people what they are and aren't allowed to say. It makes me just want to scream CUNTs at the top of my voice.