Why should the images be censored? Regardless of how they are displayed or used, they are images that show the honest, actual result of abortion procedures. I get the feeling that the majority of KU students are uncomfortable seeing them. If they help take students' concepts of abortion out of a nice comfy, academic, philosophic realm and into reality, they do their job, however crudely.

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.

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.

So free speech only applies if it's something you agree with? Got it.

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.

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.

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!!!"

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."

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.

The kind of flawed logic in the previous post shows the most difficult problem people on the anti-abortion side face. Many people base their opinions about abortion on emotion and not logic. And you can't argue logically with a person who will not acknowledge logical bounds. Somehow the body of one person (the unborn child) has inherently less value than the body of the other (the mother) simply because of their situation?

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.

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

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.