The managing editor of UC-Santa Barbara's student newspaper, Devon Claire Flannery, is not pleased with the display.
Showing photo-shopped images of mutilated fetuses is a most deplorable way to communicate one's message. The reason for this, specifically, is because if these demonstrators really cared about stopping abortion, then they would actually try to help women rather than try to guilt them out of terminating unwanted pregnancies.
The first tactic of pro-choice people who don't like to look at the images of aborted children is to say that the pictures are fake or are "photo-shopped." Yet Flannery like most pro-choicers who think abortion photos are fake provides not a single lick of evidence to back up her assertion.
I wonder if Flannery thinks showing pictures of people starved and killed during the Holocaust is the most deplorable way of communicating the horrors of the Holocaust or if showing pictures of Emmett Till's body was a deplorable way to share how Emmett was killed. Probably not.
Flannery also has no clue if the people at Justice for All do anything to help women. Does she assume that the only thing these prolifers do is carry around pictures. Is their no possibility that they might also help pregnancy centers? Nor does Flannery seem to understand that prolifers think persuading women away from abortion via pictures and debate is helping them.
The anti-abortion protestors assert that fetuses are humans, too, which is debatable, but last time I checked, there is no controversy over whether a fertile woman is really a person or not.
It's amazing isn't how quickly a pro-choice writer can put aside the central question in this debate. Simply say that whether the unborn are human or not is debatable and move on. Don't provide any argument or evidence. Don't work to come to a conclusion. Simply say it's debatable and move on.
However, the demonstrators shouldn't hide behind their "Justice for All" and "free counseling for women" signs next to their photos of mutilated fetuses - which were probably mutilated because the abortion was performed illegally in a country where abortion has been outlawed by people like those present on campus today - and try to call it free speech.
One wonders if Flannery has any clue what she is talking about if she actually thinks that the fetuses are mutilated because the abortion was probably illegally. Does she not recognize that the goal of abortion (whether legal or illegal) is to destroy the fetus? How would an illegal abortion create a more mutilated fetus than a legal one?
So then why isn't it free speech? Because you disagree with it?
These demonstrators don't care about women; they don't even care about fetuses. They just want to scare those of us who may need to have, or have had abortions, into thinking religious organizations, sexist males and insensitive thinkers know better than us on what is right for our bodies, our lives and our futures.
How many unargued assertions can one fit into two sentences? I guess when you have limited knowledge on a subject and are unable to provide any evidence for the central question of the debate, the most obvious tactic to turn to is impugning those you disagree and throwing out personal attacks.
Well, I don't want to hear it. Get your medieval, ignorant and sexist posters, opinions and scare tactics out of my school, out of my country and away from my body.
Although, early in her editorial, Flannery says, "No one is saying the demonstrators don't have a right to be here," she is now telling the demonstrators to get off her campus and out of her country. So much for free speech. If Flannery doesn't like the images on the posters, she doesn't give a rat's behind about free speech. She calls the posters medieval (huh?), ignorant (how?) and sexist (why?).
Some pro-choicer will have to explain to me how a poster of a living unborn child next to an aborted unborn child is sexist.
Time after time after time, I'm continually amazed at the unbelievably poor arguments which come from pro-choicers at institutes of higher learning. When confronted with facts about embryology, they call their opponents "sexist." When confronted with logical arguments about why abortion should be illegal, they call their opponents "religious fundamentalists." And when given the opportunity to provide a defense for their views, they resort to childish name calling and insults.