Thursday, September 4, 2008
Walking to class Thursday morning, I was greeted by the “Graphic Photos Ahead” signs near Strong Hall. Those signs seemed funny to me after I looked up and saw the two-story-high pictures of bloody fetuses. The pictures were unavoidable. Even if you crossed to the other side of Jayhawk Boulevard, the graphics were so large the scare tactics still reached you.
No matter what side of the pro-life vs. pro-choice argument you are on, forcing these pictures upon unsuspecting students is wrong and unnecessary. A healthy dialogue is not possible when these grotesque graphics are shoved down our throats. A volunteer with Justice For All, the Wichita-based group displaying the images, gave me a pamphlet with a complete representation of its display, and it is hard for me to even read the text because of the pictures.
Having these messages in front of Strong make it look like the University endorses this message.
“We were met with a bit of opposition, and we had to fight tooth and nail to get this here,” said Mary Millard, president of KU Students for Life, a nondenominational pro-life student organization.
Another volunteer, graduate David Lee, said the group couldn’t have a table on Wescoe because other student groups already had them reserved.
Some students who saw the display yesterday fought back by creating their own displays. Samantha Snyder, a senior in English and history, was working at a small table set up next to the giant displays. She works for the Commission on the Status of Women.
“The stance from the Commission on Status of Women is that abortion is a woman’s health issue and that making them illegal forces them into dangerous situations when trying to obtain one. It is up to the woman to decide the fate of their families and their future. This ridiculous circus display is obscene. It sends the wrong message about KU. We hope KU students are smarter than this.”
The arguments on Justice For All’s displays are offensive. The group compares the legality of abortion and slavery in a simple, superficial sentence: “Slavery was once a legal choice.” Equating the two is revolting. The group also compares its quest to Susan B. Anthony’s quest for the right to vote.
One of the reasons KU Students for Life thought it needed this group on campus is because “facts about abortion are not talked about in academia,” according to a posted letter. Isn’t part of being an adult and going to college having the right to choose what you learn about? Students have the right to choose their own majors and their own classes. Is Students for Life arguing that there should be an “Abortion Is Murder” 101 class?
These violent images contradict their message of peace and life. These displays do not portray the pro-life message in a positive way.
This group has a right to free speech, but it shouldn’t be manipulating this right. The psychological and emotional damage to a woman walking by these signs who has had an abortion could be enormous. Whether you are pro-choice, pro-life or pro-shut the hell up about it, using graphic images of this nature is wrong.
Thornbrugh is a Lenexa junior in creative writing.
Brown: Abortion display ineffective
Different techniques would benefit discussion.
Letter to the editor: the scary truth
Anti-abortion displays showed the gruesome realities of abortion.
Editorial: Graphic displays protected by First Amendment
While many students found the graphic anti-abortion displays offensive, the University must ...
Letter: What we all agree with about ...
Letter: Graphic images force us to confront ...
Play addresses both sides of an issue
Tonight the University Theatre will perform "Keely and Du," a play that ...
Letter: Abortion billboards give an inaccurate message
Abortion unalienable right
Court nominee's views at odds with country
Letter to the editor: Kivett
Students would be better off with formal sex education rather than graphic ...
Defining 'abortion'
Exhibit by anti-abortion group Justice For All displays graphic images, spurs discussion
End ideological divide between value of life
Ryan: Yale artist raises serious, basic questions ...
The issue of truth, however, is not important to the meaning of ...
Letter: Where does Jesus say it’s OK ...
Cohen: What we should learn from Wescoe ...
Anti-abortion display sparks discussion
Wichita-based group hopes to inspire thought with message boards, voting booths.
Brinker: Romney's conservatism a ploy to win ...
Republicans may find themselves disappointed if Romney ends up in the White ...
Keith: Abortion bill contradicts medical ethics
Arizona style abortion legislation is unethical, and may be on its way ...
Class designs posters for advocacy exhibit
Students create posters for advocacy groups such as Sierra Club to coincide ...
Free for All: February 1
Anti-abortion display concludes Wednesday
The group Justice for All hoped to provoke discussion with the controversial ...
Letter: What is the FOCA?
Readers should take a stand against the Freedom of Choice Act.
Group sponsors dialogue about abortion
‘The Morality of Abortion’ debate will take place tonight at the Kansas ...
Letter to the Editor: Pro-choice protection
New amendment would make it hard for insurance companies to cover abortion.
Attorney in the Roe v. Wade case ...
More than 40 years ago, a college administrator told Sarah Weddington to ...
Unexpectedly expecting
How four women faced unplanned pregnancies.
Free: Pregnancy issues the problem, not abortion
Where people stand on the contentious issue is not as important as ...
Rhetoric remains subject of debate
Emotion, reason difficult to balance in abortion protest tactics.
Bledowski: Safety cannot be neglected during sex
Safe sex must remain, as always, a priority.
Students use Spencer library and museum to ...
Spencer Research Library has more than a million photos available for academic ...
Cohen: Let's make Kansas proud
State's response to abortion debate offers chance for redemption.
Students inspired by museum exhibit
Graphic design class puts their own spin on advocacy posters.
From left: Kimberlee Hinkle, Libby Johnson and Hannah ...
1 comment
Kansas Jayhawk fans hold aloft a reproduction of ...
2 comments
Erin Saupe, a Ph.D. student from St. Cloud, ...
1 comment
0 comments
Armed robbers continue to threaten.
3 comments
Lecture from Greg Mortenson, co-author of New York ...
0 comments
Comments
Thornbrugh: How can abortion be compared to slavery?
In a column for this publication two years ago, I wrote that the days for the "Right of Choice" are numbered. I argued then, as I still believe today, that abortion on demand as a constitutional right under Roe vs. Wade would disappear at some point in the next decade or so. It would do so suddenly, with little warning, much like the Berlin Wall fell nearly 20 years ago - in spite of the conventional wisdom of the time. Why? Precisely due to the power of the argument Ms. Thornburgh so easily dismisses here. Ignore this at your peril, Abortion rights advocates. In March of 1857, the Supreme court handed down its decision in Dred Scott v Sandford. According to the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Taney, the court's decision turned on the matter of whether or not a black man was a citizen ('person') as defined by the US Constitution. They decided that no, Blacks are not persons - and thus, that Blacks could be enslaved. Flash forward to 2008. You may make 1,000 perfectly logical, rational arguments that abortion on demand is a legitimate constitutional right. The problem is, every single one of those arguments is based on the same, fundamental assumption: that an unborn child is not a person as defined by the constitution. Every single one, no exceptions. (Importantly, this applies only to the 'right of choice', or having an abortion exclusively at the woman's unconditional discretion. Exceptions to save a mother's life do not apply, as they are not 'abortion on demand', but a variation of right of self-defense. Remember, you can kill another person if you are defending yourself) The point here is that Slaveowners and Abortionists both make the same fundamental assumption: the person in question is not a person at all, thus I have the 'right' to do with it as I please - even killing it. In short, you are on the wrong side of history. So what's the catalyst that pushes the issue to resolution? As so often, I believe it's technology. In 1970, sonograms and intrauterine photography were rare or non-existant. It's easy to dismiss a fetus as a lump of cells, not really a person, if you can't see it waving at you on the monitor. As more young people show off their 20 week sonograms, or play the 12 week recordings of the heartbeat..... abortion on demand dies, one heartbeat at a time. Don't say you haven't been warned.
Thornbrugh: How can abortion be compared to slavery?
I'm in the shut the hell up about it group. I don't believe grisly pictures of anything should be shown on campus. Certainly not on twenty foot high signs touting catchphrases. If there were huge displays of dead soldiers in Iraq that would be just as bothersome, as would huge displays of atrocities in Darfur. A logical reasoned argument is not being made with these displays it is simply supposed to shock and incite. I am incited to not attend class as long as these images are on my route.
Thornbrugh: How can abortion be compared to slavery?
So free speech only applies if it's something you agree with? Got it.
Thornbrugh: How can abortion be compared to slavery?
Did I suggest that they had no right to do it? No. I said I didn't agree with it and thought it was an ineffectual use of resources.
So quick quips only apply when you can't say anything useful? Got it.
Thornbrugh: How can abortion be compared to slavery?
Abortion is easily compared to slavery, because it is an intrinsic evil. No matter how the pro-abortionists try to disguise the process through the use of selective semantics, abortion is still the murder of human beings.
The "violent images" do not contradict the pro-life position. The images weren't created by the pro-life people. We simply use them to show the truth of what abortion really is: lethal violence against the most defenseless humans.
An inability or refusal to look at these images is simply indicative of an immature inability to deal with reality.
We look at media images of humans slaughtered in war, in terrorist attacks, in drive-by shootings, and we don't yell, "don't show these images." No, we demand an end to war, an end to terrorism, an end to crime. We demand justice for the victims of war, the victims or terrorism, the victims of crime.
That is exactly what the pro-life movement is asking -- look at these images of murdered babies and demand an end to their slaughter.
Thornbrugh: How can abortion be compared to slavery?
I completely agree with Hendrix; this article only talks about what YOU agree with and what YOU want.
From my 3 years at KU, this is what I am beginning to interpret: that it is ok for gay pride week, that it is ok to have Fred Phelps tell us we're going to Hell, but it's not ok to voice a stance on abortion?
As a person who is not completely in favor of Pro-Life, I think this group has every right. Us, college students don't get anywhere by debating with words anyway. All we do is get into a large argument. This display was genius behind the way it was going to market it's theme, and apparently they did a good job at getting everyone's attention.
If you don't like it, then go create your own little booth about why abortion is ok. Better yet, go create a little booth with brochures without images to promote, "NO PLACING VISUAL IMAGES THAT I DON'T LIKE WITHIN MY VISUAL BOUNDARIES - BECAUSE IT MAKES ME MAD AND YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT!!!"
Thornbrugh: How can abortion be compared to slavery?
i am with Orangehead on this. I personally find the graphic images abhorrent and they make me sick, but if I am allowed to voice my opinion, why not them? I don't really classify myself as pro-life or pro-choice. I believe that women should have rights to their bodies, but I am also against murder of all types, INCLUDING ABORTION. Bottom line, if a fetus has a heartbeat, it is alive and therefore has it's own body. Maybe you should respect THEIR bodies. To quote the late Mother Teresa, "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
Thornbrugh: How can abortion be compared to slavery?
To swishymcjackass and others: Whether you think a fetus is a living thing or not is completely irrelevant. The fetus is in the body of another person -- and it is thus up to them to decide what to do with it. In the right to life of an unborn child vs. the right to your own body argument, I go with the latter. Telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her OWN body is sexist and wrong. If you don't agree with abortions, don't have one! But let the choice be up to others. It's none of your business.
Thornbrugh: How can abortion be compared to slavery?
Yeah, Caitlin, how dare you write an opinion column that contains your opinion. This is a newspaper of facts, not feelings. At least that's my opinion.
Thornbrugh: How can abortion be compared to slavery?
To quote onceinawhile: So tell us onceinawhile, what do you make of this hypothetical situation: A woman decides that her 3-month old Down's syndrome baby is too much of a burden and interferes with her favorite hobbies of club-hopping and partying. She exercises her 'right of choice' and suffocates the baby against her breast while feeding it. She has not used anything to 'terminate her pregnancy in the 12th month' except her body. Quoting your post, you believe that 'telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body is sexist and wrong'. So by your argument, she has done nothing immoral or outside of her natural rights?
It is logic like this that ensures that the pro-choice movement's days are numbered. Please, if you believe in the 'Right of Choice', come up with something better than bumper sticker slogans
Thornbrugh: How can abortion be compared to slavery?
BizGrad, that is a straw man argument. I don't necessarily agree with onceinawhile, but they suggested that while the fetus was within a woman's body, thus a fetus, it was that woman's decision, not once it was born. Your hypothetical completely misrepresents point. I don't know which side is right, but I do know that this isn't my big issue in the current political climate.
Thornbrugh: How can abortion be compared to slavery?
and the big question is Caitlin, WHY are you so offended? Get to the bottom of why you are offended and perhaps you will find that abortion is the dismembering of a baby - and while I agree, if your dog was hit by a car I may not scrape the body off the ground and deliver it to your door - but nonetheless your dog is dismembered and dead. Be offended for the LIFE the pictures portray that 'could' have been NOT for the photos themself.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID