Evidently free speech is alive and well at York University in Toronto. The Canadians have had issues lately with liberal fascism. Mark Steyn is one example, and these on campus pro-abortion groups are another. Evidently they consider the Pro-life position as sexist in nature and that it shouldn’t be tolerated at all. They are trying to ban all groups on campus that have a pro-life position. That’s right, ban!
In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University in Toronto has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.
Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it “within a pro-choice realm,” and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.
“You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body,” Ms. Massa said. “We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they’re sexist in nature … The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do … Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women’s rights.”
How can this be a sexist issue when according to polls women are more pro-life than men? Are women being self sexist? I have never really understood the militant defense of the pro-abortion position. A majority of Americans agree that it’s a gruesome practice, especially partial birth abortion. Even many abortion supporters claim to be “pro-choice” not “pro-abortion.” That’s one of my favorite bumper stickers. I can understand a fairly ambivalent libertarian position on abortion rights, but the extreme defense on the Left is puzzling.
These women look super excited about infanticide.
The emotion of Pro-lifers is understandable considering they believe abortion is murder. Unfortunately, most of the time the debate is framed in such a way that being pro-life means debating someone who says “what about pregnancies from rape and incest.” Basically a gruesome hypothetical situation is the justification for 40 million people not having a chance to live. About 88% of abortions take place before the end of the first trimester. That means approximately 5 million have taken place in the second or third trimester. It’s difficult to believe that is a positive and acceptable development for society.
so you want to completely deregulate everyone’s economic behavior but you want to regulate everyone’s personal behavior?
so you want to completely deregulate everyone’s personal behavior and regulate everyone’s economic behavior?
c’mon brown, these straw man arguments are tiresome and unproductive.
it’s not a straw man argument. it appears to be a disconnect in your republican/libertarian ideology. it’s something i’ve seriously never understood. it makes it seem like you are just picking and choosing when to call for deregulation. like the way republicans cry “activist judges” when they don’t get their way.
I’ve covered this before, but you still don’t get it.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position).
so what do you call it when you decry something as a strawman argument so as to avoid addressing a legitimate point?
look, you call yourself a libertarian but you are anti-abortion. that is an ideological inconsistency and therefore fair play.
I have never claimed to be a 100% libertarian… Actually, I’ve never said I’m a libertarian (other than taking a 8 question test on a libertarian website). You haven’t made a legitimate point.
I guess you think people should have the choice to stop a beating heart after three months? Maybe you think it’s even a choice to have the baby murdered during partial-birth abortion. It’s just seems inhumane to me.
regardless of my personal views on abortion, as a political issue, it is not consistent to repeatedly make the claim that our lives would be better with less government and then ask the government to intervene when people behave in a way that is distasteful to you. this position would be more consistent with the idea that government has a role to play in society and that each issue must be considered pragmatically on a case by case basis.
That would only make sense if I was asking for no government regulation. I have never made that claim. I have argued there is too much regulation (which there is at the local, state, and federal levels). I’m assuming you’ve never tried to build a house, buy a piece of property, or had to deal with all the regulations involved with owning your own business.
Instead you try to make the argument that asking for less regulation means asking for no regulation at all. I have never said that there shouldn’t be signs on the interstate. That’s a straw man. You’re debating with a phantom.
The government has a role in society; unfortunately it has become too invasive in most of our lives, in most cases.