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?

It should be allowed but watched very carefully. It's a bit if a far right ideology though.

@creampeach

I am staunchly pro-choice, but anti-abortion. I raised in a religious environment with a pro-choice mother who told me abortion would never be a choice for her, but she would never impose her beliefs on another woman because it is her right to choose. I am the same. I dont believe there is space anywhere for pro-life discourse because it advocates for forcing women to carry a pregnancy they do not want and takes away their choice. The discourse for taking away bodily autonomy for men would never be up for discussion even the castration of rapists is not even a valid conversation so why should forcing women to carry pregnancy be a valid opinion. It is deeply misogynistic. Noone is forcing you to have an abortion if you think it is wrong but not your place to dictate to others what they should do

The discourse for taking away bodily autonomy for men would never be up for discussion even the castration of rapists is not even a valid conversation

Why not? This is an entirely "valid" conversation.

So, for example, is the response to the proposal that women should allow themselves to be GPS tracked. A couple of threads on here suggested that a better idea would be for men to be tracked instead. Is that not a valid conversation?

Why would you want to shut down discussion of these things?

It's scary that people think free speech should be censored at university. Who decides which groups are allowed to be heard? If you can't debate various opinions at a university, where can you? Free speech means allowing people with opinions you find distasteful being allowed to share them.

Interesting how universities allow the promotion of sex work and pro-life, but allow the harassment of pro-women professors who state biological reality. It's almost as if the structures around us are inherently misogynistic...

@Taxwolf

No, I have come across venomous anti abortion young people in Ireland (not Catholic btw - but I think Methodist). They spout absolute and utter rubbish which is offensive to any woman who has had an abortion for any reason.

It is also absolutely toxic to any young woman who finds herself pregnant when she doesn’t want to be.

It’s belt and braces misogyny and forced birthers should not be allowed to organise on campus.

I agree with you.

The trouble starts when it's "groups". It's one thing for people to share these opinions but to permit groups to form on a subject where there are very strong black and white opinions becomes toxic. Where does that stop?
The woman who has had a termination after years of repeated rape doesn't need this in her face while at university.
I don't think these opinions should be rammed down anyones throats and find these groups vile.
I wish Catholicism wasn't used as a reasoning, coming from a Catholic woman.

Providing pro-women groups are also allowed the same freedom of course.

What posters aren't getting, is that if we take away people's right to express views which are abhorrent (and these views ARE abhorrent to me), what's to stop the banning of you expressing views which you firmly believe in, which others dislike?
I'm gender critical. Should I be banned from meeting with likeminded people to express concerns about children being given puberty blockers? Or convicted rapists being placed in women's prisons?

I think free speech should be upheld, regardless of whether we believe the speech is reasonable.

I genuinely don’t understand why this should be banned and radfem groups allowed. The latter are going to impact the mental health of students far more, surely, if around 30% of that cohort describe themselves as non binary to some degree.

I don’t understand why so many MNers think this group should be banned. Why not just counter with argument or set up a pro-choice group to educate people?

Anti-abortionists to do have a 'fairly innocuous idealogy' - you're confusing 'would not have an abortion for religious/ moral grounds' with groups who actively harrass women and medical practitioners.

@donquixotedelamancha

Pro lifers ram their views down everyone’s throats

By that measure we should ban veganism too.

The judgement about what is allowed has to be action not words. Any groups harassing people should be banned but just holding meetings should be permitted for even deeply unpalatable views (unless specifically unlawful e.g. terrorist groups)

Once again people aren’t calling for the, to be banned just because they don’t like the message. Having looked at their Facebook page and other postings from this group it’s the misinformation they spout. They believe women are bullied into abortions by “misinformation from pro-choice advocates.” And while they try to use legalistic terms to “teach people how to counter pro-choice messages” in order to create “a culture of life” they absolutely spread dangerous lies about termination.

Of course they should be allowed. I’m pro-choice and can pick holes in pro/-life arguments all day long but it’s a legitimate viewpoint.

What they shouldn’t be allowed to do is harass others. But that’s a different thing.

When i was at university there were 3 groups wrt student unions

• pro-life
• pro-choice
• 'no policy on abortions' (meaning the student union shouldn't have a policy one way or another)

Different views should be allowed to be expressed, provided those views are expressed in appropriate ways (and the laws of this country, which permits abortions upheld).

I don’t understand why so many MNers think this group should be banned. Why not just counter with argument or set up a pro-choice group to educate people?

Exactly this. If you don't believe that your pro-choice stance, or your gender ideology and your TWAW assertions can stand up to challenge from those who disagree then it doesn't say much for them.

If your presentation of these views tips over into behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress then you are commiting an offence, and that's a different matter.

Can we stop imagining we don't have freedom of speech here. This isn't a censored country like the ones who don't allow it without severe punishment.

It's ridiculous to use "freedom of speech" to validate harassment groups, where the members collectively direct their pent up anger towards women.

Totally agree @CallMeNutribullet: Exactly the same arguments are being used for GC groups and we disagree with that:

• GC groups make non binary students feel unsafe;
• GC groups tell non binary and trans students what to do with their bodies and remove choice;
• GC groups spread misinformation;
• GC groups make students feel unsafe;
• GC groups go against the uni’s values of inclusion;
• GC groups are really outdated or religious ideologies.

I don’t think you can have one and not the other.

I did Philosophy at uni and in one of the ethics modules the issue abortion came up. Some people in my class were anti-abortion, essays were written, views aired.

Are people saying what happened back then should be banned now?

I disagree. I think forced birthers should be educated in to why women would want/need an abortion and that their opinion isn’t needed as it isn’t their life to fuck with in the first place

I disagree. I think forced birthers should be educated in to why women would want/need an abortion and that their opinion isn’t needed as it isn’t their life to fuck with in the first place

Replace that with “gender critical” - why is it different?

There's a lot of debate here about universities' duty to support freedom of speech. But no one has posted any evidence of any university banning pro-life groups. Some students unions might have, but they are independent from universities. A uni cannot force an SU to support a society.

Pro-life propaganda is, quite frankly, disgusting. Talk of 'murdering babies' - abortion cannot be 'murder' and it's a foetus, not a 'baby

This is a matter of opinion, not fact. The argument over ‘when life begins’ is quite frankly not answerable by science because it really begins at conception. So the question becomes ‘when do we assign personhood?’

That is ultimately a matter of opinion and nearly every society comes to a different answer on this. We will never have a clear standard backed by science.

I think banning peoole talking about things you disagree with is a slippery slope.

I dont think that vigils outside abortion clinics are ok though as they are preventing healthcare access.

As much as I disagree with them they should be free to form groups and discuss their ideas. They shouldn't be sheltered from the robust debate that will follow from those who disagree from them bit that should be achieved without threats of violence or intimidation. Their organised activities should not be allowed anywhere near places where women can seek out contraception, the morning after pill or abortion clinics.

Pro-life groups have a right to their views and to be represented at universities. Universities should be places where debate occurs - cancelling a group is not what should happen in a democratic society. Pro life groups at university are not standing outside an abortion clinic intimating women from entering they are expressing their view. I fail to see how there existence is a threat - this is another example of cancel culture

"What posters aren't getting, is that if we take away people's right to express views which are abhorrent (and these views ARE abhorrent to me), what's to stop the banning of you expressing views which you firmly believe in, which others dislike?"

This.