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?

@PearLime

I hope I live to see the day when women being able to access a safe and legal abortion if they choose to is simply a given, and not a topic that is ever up for debate.

I just don't understand how something that a woman chooses for her own body and mind is anyone else's business to discuss. Especially by men.

Seeing what is happening in Texas atm is terrifying.

[quote Whstdoyouthink]@IM0GEN wouldn’t touch them at all. Frankly neither would any city firm, Shows a complete lack of judgement to publish such views. On the grounds of poor judgement, that is legal.[/quote]
That’s nonsense, you can’t possibility speak for all city firms. Most try to act within the law and recruit staff of many and no religions.

Dressing up your bigotry as “ Catholics / Christians / black people / Jews / whatever have poor judgement so we won’t hire any “ doesn’t work. It’s still discrimination.

They’re not pro life, they’re anti choice.

[quote RobertaFirmino]@Totallydefeated Do you think it is 'safe' for a young woman who has had an abortion to be branded a 'murderer' or a 'child killer'.[/quote]
Why is it unsafe?

It may be distressing. It may make the woman feel bad about herself. And I’d empathise with that suffering.

However, suffering is a part of life. And as adults, we have to recognise that not everyone agrees with us or what we do. We need to feel secure in our own decisions, regardless of other opinions. We need the resilience to be able to tolerate the fact that others may not approve of our actions. Of course, not everyone is in a position to be like that at all times. There may well be women who come across those views who have had terminations and are feeling sad/guilty/regretful and it will be very painful. Women in that position, feeling like that, would benefit from therapy or counselling and I would hope they would be able to access that.

But it doesn’t mean that others should be banned from their own views that it’s wrong.

We simply can’t go around silencing anybody who has an opinion that might cause other people distress. None of us have the right to sail through life and never be confronted by painful feelings. It’s an impossible ask of life.

Should we ban tv dramas about murder because they’ll be triggering to those who’ve lost someone close to murder? Should we drop reporting tragic accidents on the news because it will be triggering to some readers or viewers?

For the record, I find the views of the pro-lifers horrible. But banning them would lead to greater harms.

I believe in free speech, but do worry about the statement someone posted earlier from the president of that society that obviously targets women. If a similar statement was posted about say people of a particular age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, I think it wouldn't be tolerated.

The way anti-abortion groups specifically only target choices over women's bodies puts this in a similar category to if you had openly racist groups campaigning about controlling the choices of people of a particular ethnicity, campaigning for gay people to repent or something like that. If you allowed that, then yes, go ahead and allow anti abortion campaigning.

[quote RobertaFirmino]@Totallydefeated Do you think it is 'safe' for a young woman who has had an abortion to be branded a 'murderer' or a 'child killer'.[/quote]
There’s a big difference between “upset” and “unsafe”. She might be absolutely right to feel upset. This is, however, not the same as feeling unsafe.

There’s a big difference between “upset” and “unsafe”. She might be absolutely right to feel upset. This is, however, not the same as feeling unsafe.

Exactly. Put m much more succinctly than I managed.

Not buying it. It is unsafe for a woman who has undergone a perfectly legal medical procedure to be called these things. It could trigger a mental illness. That doesn't seem very safe to me. Abortion cannot be murder (given that the definition of murder is an unlawful premeditated killing of one human by another) so it doesn't seem safe that a woman can be branded a 'murderer' based on a belief which has no basis in fact.

I abhor pro lifers, but I do think universities should be places of free speech.

Generally, I believe that it's not best to place the right to restrict free speech within authority. Restriction isn't unilateral. If it's okay for a mainstream university or school to restrict the speech of a conservative religious group, then it can equally create a precedent for a religious university or school to other forms of speech- for example, pro-LGBT+ sentiment. These are precedents which ultimately funnel people towards polarisation, and that tends to result in more discrimination.

I believe the process of holding others to account for their views is essential for ensuring mutual respect within society. Seeing people react to or argue against your belief likely goes a lot further than having that belief or opinion ringfenced and only being able to express it to people who share your belief.

What exactly would the people in a pro-life group actually do? If they want to sit around a camp fire taking about how much they hate abortion and firing off a letter to the Catholic Herald every now and again then fine. If it's to harass to women when they're at their most vulnerable then no. Surely many of the religious groups at Uni already refer to their stance on this as part of their manifestos anyway.

Why does there need to be a debate? If someone wants an abortion they want an abortion. A stranger's opinion on the matter isn't going to change their situation is it.

Not buying it. It is unsafe for a woman who has undergone a perfectly legal medical procedure to be called these things. It could trigger a mental illness.

Unlikely, unless she was already on the brink of it. We don’t, as a society, ban other things that tip people into mental illness, do we? Thinking of poverty, benefits sanctions, poor housing, noisy neighbours, living in (genuinely) unsafe areas, etc(not dying any of these are good things). So why ban somebody’s right to free speech, just in case hearing their views turned out to be the last straw that tipped somebody over into depression?

Say we ban these people, what then? Who else do we ban? There are people who could be outraged or upset by many, many views and opinions. Where would you draw the line? And can you not see the potential for abuse of any system that banned views deemed to perhaps be upsetting to some people?

Life is upsetting at times. That’s the reality. I don’t think we do anyone any favours in trying to create a world where they can be wrapped in cotton wool. Far better to give people the support they need to gain greater resilience to deal with the world as it is.

Roberta, I have a close family member who had to have a second trimester termination for medical reasons (to save her own life during intensive chemo). She herself does not believe in abortion for most reasons, so it was terribly distressing for her. She wrote a blog about it for Tommy’s. Some right wing nut posted similar words to her. Of course she was deeply upset, but she was upset because someone was being stupid and offensive, not because she felt “unsafe”. He wasn’t going to leap out of the computer to attack her, or cause her to have a mental breakdown. Her trauma is the thing that happened to her, and not some idiot’s opinion about it or some stupid names, which, whilst upsetting, were not a big deal.

Safety is a matter of perception and one’s relationship with reality, not just perception. Do you really feel “unsafe” to hear stupid words? There is a big difference between targeted harassment and expressing an opinion. Being targeted outside an abortion clinic is clearly harassment in a way that expressing a reasonably mainstream lawful opinion is not. I might think it’s a repugnant opinion, I might think they are idiots, but I don’t think they should be prevented from expressing their opinion as long as it’s without threats or harassment. FWIW, I’m LB myself and I also don’t care if anyone expresses an anti-gay opinion (which I’ve managed to hear often in my life without it making me feel “unsafe”). Angry, a bit annoyed or mildly upset, yes, but unsafe? No. As long as they are not threatening or harassing me, that’s their business!

*No one is trying to censor their individual view.

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to gather in order to bully others*

This.

If these movements didn't try and intimidate, shame and bully vulnerable women into agreeing with them, it would be okay. Their tactics are reprehensible.

Assuming they're bound by whatever rules apply to other student societies, yes, should be allowed. So harassment, obstruction of other legitimate business, unregulated fly-posting etc would be precluded. Funding streams and speakers would be open to scrutiny.

Same as other groups that might divide opinion: Action for Palestine, Young Conservatives, Climate Change deniers, Trans Rights campaigners, UKIP, drinking societies, shooting clubs, anti-vivisectionists ... the point is to have regulated spaces for association, discussion and campaigning.

Her trauma is the thing that happened to her, and not some idiot’s opinion about it or some stupid names, which, whilst upsetting, were not a big deal

Unfortunately your opinion is not accurate about how trauma works for many people. The reaction that people have after the traumatic event can have a massive impact on the level of recovery.

@IM0GEN you may not like it but it’s true, city firms review social media posts/anything online. If they don’t like the views/feel it will offend their client base (which they rely on) then they won’t hire.

They wanted freedom of speech, they’ve used a platform to have it, they must understand the consequences. You can’t expect to walk into a firm like Deloitte or Barclays and expect to be hired. Firms want an inclusive culture and publishing extreme views which people know will offend is not demonstrating the ability to be inclusive. It’s right to exclude certain individuals to drive inclusivity.

To be honest even less extreme views are looked with disfavour. Broadly anyone at university I would discourage from having anything other than a vanilla social media presence.

It is not against the law to hold unpopular views.

Every viewpoint should be heard at unis, that's how we develop ideas etc and learn.

They should absolutely not be shut down. Most people wouldn't agree with their views but they should have the right to voice them.

Banning speech is a slippery slope and I'm surprised more people can't see that.

Who gets to decide what is allowed and not allowed?

@Pinklioness

Her trauma is the thing that happened to her, and not some idiot’s opinion about it or some stupid names, which, whilst upsetting, were not a big deal

Unfortunately your opinion is not accurate about how trauma works for many people. The reaction that people have after the traumatic event can have a massive impact on the level of recovery.

I’ve experienced significant medical trauma causing PTSD myself, and can tell you (in great detail, if required), that support after trauma and trauma counselling is completely different to banning all mention of the subject by others in case of upset. In fact, good trauma support is explicitly designed to help people deal with how the traumatic event might come up with others or in everyday life. Nowhere is it ever advised that people who have experienced significant trauma should never hear anything that might upset them.

The current popular discourse around “triggers” and “trigger warnings” is very woefully underinformed about what support and recovery from traumatic events focuses on.

The issue of abortion is one that provokes a legitimate moral debate. I think this should be allowed to take place, within sensitive limits (ie not outside medical establishments).

Young women attending university are intelligent enough to take in various viewpoints on a range of issues and come to their own decision.

*I’ve experienced significant medical trauma causing PTSD myself, and can tell you (in great detail, if required), that support after trauma and trauma counselling is completely different to banning all mention of the subject by others in case of upset. In fact, good trauma support is explicitly designed to help people deal with how the traumatic event might come up with others or in everyday life. Nowhere is it ever advised that people who have experienced significant trauma should never hear anything that might upset them.

The current popular discourse around “triggers” and “trigger warnings” is very woefully underinformed about what support and recovery from traumatic events focuses on*

Access to quality support for trauma is woefully inadequate, as evidenced by the number of traumatised people that struggle without it. People who haven't enjoyed the level of support you have, are definitely extremely traumatised by others' reactions. Your experience is by no means universal.

What else shouldn't be allowed to be talked about in case it traumatises someone though? Surely it shouldn't just stop at abortion, there's practically a limitless amount of subjects that upset people.

Should people really have their speech curtailed just in case there happens to be someone nearby that might get upset?

Where does it stop?

So many voices saying we should allow people to say whst they think, and so many saying what women do with their bodies is their business.

Weird how all that changes when it’s transpeople we’re talking about.