UWSP ignores pro-abort student vandalism of pro-life display

The video below is incredible. It reenforces the fact that the rule of law applies to all but pro-aborts.

On May 1 pro-abort University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point students, led by UWSP Student Senator Roderick King, vandalized in broad daylight and while being filmed a pre-approved display by the UWSP pro-life group Pointers for Life.

uwsp.jpg

The display was rows of crosses called the Cemetery of the Innocents to commemorate babies killed by abortion....

Unbelievably, even after a university security guard showed up and told King to stop, he didn't, and the wimpy campus cop just let him continue ripping up crosses. King's illogical excuse was, "If there is a student on this campus that has had an abortion or that might be having an abortion, might be going through this, you want this up in front of them? Are you crazy?"

uwsp rip.jpgIllogical because if abortion is such a great right and a win-win (a win for moms offing unwanted babies and a win for unwanted babies being rescued from mad moms by death), what awful thing is there to "go through"? And if King actually believed that, was he not generating more abortion by trying to keep mothers ignorant of the ramifications?

Worse, despite a written complaint by PFL, the UWSP Student Government Association has not disciplined or removed King from SGA.

Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Bob Tomlinson apologized to PFL. Big whoop if there's not going to be justice.

I called UWSP Chancellor of Student Affairs Linda Bunnell at 715-346-2123 (email: lbunnell@uwst.edu) just now and was told she is in a meeting (what for, I wonder). The person answering the phone said the university will issue a statement on its website under "news" later today.

I asked whether UWSP would discipline King and was told any decision would be guarded by privacy laws.

In a written statement, Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life of America, got it right: "[C]ampus pro-life groups are being singled out and excluded from the guaranteed freedom of speech and expression on college campuses."

Here's the video [UPDATE, 5/13, 9:30a: The embed is disabled at the moment. View video here.]

BTW, good work on PFL's part for having a video camera with them. Pro-lifers should always have video cams with them when they engage in public dissent.

(See video on page 2.)

UPDATE, 2p: UWSP has issued a statement [HT: Kristan at SFL] calling King's behavior "unacceptable" and may be doing something ("University procedures are being followed") but won't say what.


Comments:

So much for choice...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2008 9:29 AM


Are you really that surprised?

UWSP is really...off. They're one of the crappier schools in the University of Wisconsin system...as they're an art/theater school.

Posted by: Rae at May 7, 2008 9:31 AM


Wow! All I can say is welcome to the abortion debate Canadian-style.
We can't protest or debate abortion in Canada because it's considered a basic human right (since when??). Never mind that the human baby doesn't have even the basic human right to life.
This man has serious anger problems. I wonder how many unborn baby skeletons he has in his closet...?

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 9:34 AM


UWSP is really...off. They're one of the crappier schools in the University of Wisconsin system...as they're an art/theater school.

Hey now! What's wrong with art/theater majors?? I'm hurt!

Just joking, I understand what you're saying, that Stevens Point is not the most highly regarded of the Wisconsin schools, right? Not that art/theater schools are crappy?

Anyway, I hope that Mr. King is disciplined and that the school realizes the message they are sending by not stopping him to begin with.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 7, 2008 10:29 AM


I echo what Patricia said: I wonder how many of HIS OWN children he allowed to be aborted.
Once again, the reality of what abortion is terrifies the pro-aborts when it's made public.

They recoil in horror and anger when we put reality in their faces.

Posted by: Mike at May 7, 2008 10:33 AM


^ anon was me, sorry.

Posted by: Samantha B. at May 7, 2008 10:34 AM


Patricia 934am
'We can't protest or debate abortion in Canada because it's considered a basic human right (since when??).'

Is that really true, you can't picket or protest at a PP type place? Kind of sad.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 7, 2008 10:36 AM


The 1036am Anonymous was me. Sorry, too.

Posted by: Andy at May 7, 2008 10:37 AM


Sadly, this is another classic case of viewpoint discrimination.

Posted by: Charles at May 7, 2008 10:48 AM


TR,

Prolifers picket and protest. If this gentleman had simply picketed or protested by setting up posters or using a megaphone to shout out something, there wouldn't be a story. Instead, he commits a criminal offense. This occurs regularly for prolifers (see the reception of the Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust on college campuses).

Find one video example of prolifers commiting crimes to property. And no, doing things you think are wrong (protesting at a person's house, for instance), doesn't count. In return, we can repost dozens of video examples of assault and property crimes against prolifers.

My point? Prolifers are regularly harassed and their property destroyed solely when demonstrated. The prochoicers do so with few if any repurcussions.

Posted by: Michael at May 7, 2008 10:55 AM


Again, TR, I must ask,
Are the chaps chaffing?
The boots too tight?
Your 10 gallon hat too small?

You seem like such an angry person. Why can't you ever debate without the use of name calling?

Posted by: Sandy at May 7, 2008 10:58 AM


I wonder how far pro-lifers would get tearing down a display booth set up by a pro-choice group on campus.

I also wonder how many of his own children met their fate at the abortuary.

If the crosses remind women how awful abortion is, then why doesn't he put his energies in vandalizing abortion clinics? Wouldn't an abortion clinic close to campus remind women of the horrors of their experience???

Posted by: Sandy at May 7, 2008 11:07 AM


This will be interesting to follow. I wam guessing this guy was in the process of trying to convince a girl on this campus to abort.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 11:10 AM


He's a douchebag, plain and simple. I could see there being no immediate disciplinary action taken by the security officer, because (as a former one myself) training dictates you must sometimes let the less damaging course of action continue. If he tried to arrest the guy, the dude was aggravated enough to possibly try resisting, in which case a whole new can of worms opens up. By documenting what happens and reporting it to the administration, the officer is most likely just following protocol (and saving himself a lot of paperwork).

Posted by: pro-life atheist at May 7, 2008 11:22 AM


Just to be clear, I wasn't referring to the security officer as a douchebag; that comment was directed at the fascist pulling the crosses up.

Posted by: pro-life atheist at May 7, 2008 11:24 AM


Did anyone happen to notice if Roderick King's boyfriend was in that video too? I just saw one person pulling the crosses.

Posted by: jasper at May 7, 2008 11:39 AM


*************
Your point is that you can rationalize and make excuses for anything antichoicers do. Vandalism, personal attacks, harassment, extortion are all just 'freedom of expression' according to you and the law should let antichoicers 'express' themselves without any restriction. Youre hypocritical.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 7, 2008 11:26 AM
***********************************

TR,

A few points.

First, please provide evidence/examples of prolife vandalism, personal attacks, or extortion. Please limit yourself to the legal definition of these crimes, not your personal desires.

Second, I'm not the one who said protests, demonstrations, and marches are "freedom of expression." Minor documents and institutions like the US Constitution and the Supreme Court have.

Finally, on the truly rare occasions when prolifers break the law, I condemn those actions. I don't rationalize them. Do you, TR condemn Mr. King's actions, which meet the definition of criminal damage to property? My support of legal, permitted demonstrations and condemnation of property destruction are not hypocritical, TR. They are very consistent.

Posted by: Michael at May 7, 2008 11:40 AM


Jasper, I thought the same thing!

Posted by: Kristen at May 7, 2008 11:57 AM


Jill -

I think the email you have in the article is incorrect. I emailed and it came back undeliverable. Maybe it's lbunnell@uwsp.edu? I tried that and it didn't come back - yet.

Also, I just checked under "NEWS" on the UWSP website and THIS is the first news item:

'Baby' staged by theatre, dance
A funny and touching musical about having a child, "Baby" will be staged by the UWSP Department of Theatre and Dance May 2-4 & 7-10 in the Jenkins Theatre.

Ironic. Don't you think?

Posted by: Kristen at May 7, 2008 12:05 PM


Michael,

Recently the Colorado legislature passed a bill intended to protect the public in their homes from anti-choice extremists and terrorists such as you, and those you defend.

Testimony before the legislature included:

1. The terrorist who parks his truck in residential neighborhoods with a huge poster of the Virginia Tech gunman with his weapons drawn and the message "Blood will flow in the streets".

2. Anonymous letters sent to over a hundred homes threatening to commit crimes and reduce property values.

3. Trespassing in over a hundred yards to place bloody fetus dolls in backyards for children to find.

4. Video surveillance and stalking of people in their homes.

5. Of course, the ever-present mutilated fetus trucks and posters.

6.The use of a person who has spent years in jail, has four involuntary mental commitments and at least four restraining orders for death threats as an "enforcer" to intimidate people in their homes.

Over 150 neighbors were threatened and subjected to this terrorism because one person in the subdivision was an employee of a company working on a PP facility.

I'm sure you consider this all wonderful and legal. This is why you and the anti-choice terrorists and extremists you defend are despised by normal people.

Posted by: Bystander at May 7, 2008 12:09 PM


TR, you're hilarious.

The first link to wiki sez:

"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Abortion-related violence************ in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings."

The other two links, forget it. Sort of a biased source, no?

Posted by: Andy at May 7, 2008 12:12 PM


From the SGA By-Laws:

D. Members of SGA shall be expected to treat all persons with respect regardless of personal disagreements, age, ancestry, color, creed, disability, gender, marital status, national origin, parentage, pregnancy, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Posted by: Charles at May 7, 2008 12:15 PM


Hilarity ensues. Link at Fair is over 10 years old. The religious tolerance link is from 2004 but the latest statistics are 2000.


TR you are pathetic, and hilarious.

Most pro lifers, myself included, do not tolerate violence. I abhor any violence done to anyone. I am pro life and anti death penalty. Always have been. Your attempts to portray pro lifers and violent is just not true. If you think you're convincing anyone with your childish tirades, think again.

Posted by: Andy at May 7, 2008 12:22 PM


Pro-abortionists have erected memorials to women who have died from illegal abortions. Pro-abortionists have erected displays of violence against clinics and abortionists.

Have pro-lifers ever attack these displays?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at May 7, 2008 12:26 PM


Kristen 12:05

I sent an email also, nothing's returned yet. I sent it 824am pacific and it's now 10:29am pacific. I also did the 'blink' on the 'baby' play. Thought it was ironic.

Posted by: Andy at May 7, 2008 12:29 PM


Pro-choicers have erected memorials to women who have died from illegal abortions. Pro-choicers have erected displays of violence against clinics and abortionists.

Have pro-lifers ever attack these displays?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at May 7, 2008 12:33 PM


Cranky Catholic- Look up "Army of God".

Posted by: Erin at May 7, 2008 12:35 PM


Andy, I don't think TexasRed is trying to portray all pro-lifers as violent. What TR is doing is showing that yes, "our side" of the movement has a well documented history of violent actions. The best way to respond is noting that the vast majority of the movement does not condone such actions, and that the violent fringe is just that - a fringe.

Posted by: pro-life atheist at May 7, 2008 12:43 PM


Yeah I looked at the website and couldn't find a pro-choice display being vandalized.

Besides. Army of God is NOT pro-life. They are pro-choice antiabortionists. Any antiabortionist who believes the ends justifies the means is pro-choice. No pro-lifer sides with these freaks.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at May 7, 2008 12:44 PM


Andy, Michael,
You have to realize that TR is post-abortive today. And slightly deranged.
You went to a institution of higher learning and you cite wiki?
What kind of diplomas did they give out TR? By mail?

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 12:58 PM


I should have added to my 12:09 post that all of the terrorist activities outlined in that post, were done within the past 6 months by or at the direction of Will Duffy, who is a contributor to this post (see "Who we Are") Jill regularly publicizes Will and his activities and clearly approves of his methods.

Posted by: Bystander at May 7, 2008 12:59 PM


Sorry prolife aethist, I disagree with this statement."What TR is doing is showing that yes, "our side" of the movement has a well documented history of violent actions"

The prolife movement is does not have a "history" of violence. There are fringe members who claim to be prolife but in fact are not. These people are usually loners with a history of problems.
The majority of prolife demonstrations and actions are very peaceful because they are attended by families and persons of good character who are genuinely concerned for the welfare of mothers and their babies.
The MSM would love to have everyone believe that prolifers are vitriolic, violent people. The only violence I've seen today is TR screaming and pouring forth her middle-aged venom on unsuspecting posters. And Jill banned Laura? Sheesh.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 1:02 PM


TR : You are excessively angry and charging around like a bull (Texas bull, that is) in a china shop.

Maybe you need to rethink posting on this board.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 1:07 PM


TR:
For your further edification:
The crimes committed in Canada were the work of ONE man, an American who was only on the fringe of the prolife organizations in the US. In fact, many people knew him by face only but not by name. He was eventually charged and convicted.
AS for the Morgentaler incident, the police were never able to charge anyone with this crime. It is generally well known up in Canada that this was the work of the proaborts and was an inside job.
Like I said, gotta watch those sources, honey.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 1:15 PM


TR:
Well maybe she'll show her cowardly side again and bann you sweet pea. You realize that by ranting and raving you are the one coming across as vitriolic, violent and like an unhinged woman.

Despite all, God does love you, TR. And he wants you to face the truth of what abortion is.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 1:18 PM


I know this may be bad of me to be thinking..but that video kind of made me laugh..mostly cause the only person who looked crazy and irrational was THAT GUY!

Oh man, what a laugh.

It would have been funnier if there was somebody following right behind him putting up the exact same cross he had just taken down.

Posted by: Elizabeth at May 7, 2008 1:33 PM


Andy, since the links to ACTUAL EVENTS don't suffice, I'll tell you of the things that I've experienced in my own life...

When I was 9, the girlfriend of one of my dad's coworkers, Shannon Lowney , was killed by John Salvi. She was just a receptionist. She worked at a clinic in Brookline Mass. She was shot to death, along with anoter receptionist, and 5 others were wounded. She was the first person I ever knew in my life to be murdered. She was murderd by a pro-lifer.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/reports/1996/03/a960319.9.html

When I was in middle school, my youth group participated in a local fundraising walk for women's shelters and other domestic violence prevention measures. Planned Parenthood was an active participant in the walk, so Pro Lifers picketed it. I was in SIXTH GRADE, and yet when we walked by the picket line, I was screamed at that every step I took supported murdering babies.

When I was in college, I had 6 weeks of training at the Planned Parenthood in Brooklyn before I could run my classes (for girls who were keeping their babies, ironically enough). During those 6 weeks, I was called a slut, a whore, told that I should be raped and burn in hell, and had my tires slashed.

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 1:45 PM


Patrica,
The only violence I've seen today is TR screaming and pouring forth her middle-aged venom on unsuspecting posters. And Jill banned Laura? Sheesh.
Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 1:02 PM

AMEN AMEN AMEN to that!!!!!

Posted by: mk at May 7, 2008 1:53 PM


The study analyzed data from the Feminist Majority Foundation's 2000 National Clinic Violence Survey Report. For the survey, carried out at the end of 2000, FMF mailed forms to 798 abortion providers in all 50 states. The response rate was 45 percent. The 2000 report was used because the survey was done in the same year as the decennial census, allowing better measures of other state characteristics in the same year as the victimization data. All of the FMF reports can be seen at http://www.feminist.org/rrights/clinicsurvey.html.


HELLLLLLOOO...I could write a report tomorrow which would be dated 2008, but it wouldn't change the fact that the report was about incidents THAT HAPPENED IN THE YEAR 2000!!!!!

Do you even read what you post?

Posted by: mk at May 7, 2008 1:57 PM


I have already said I condemn the violence that a few individuals have committed in the name of "pro-life," including the ones listed on your links, TR.

What you have noticably failed to say is whether or not you support the actions of this man. You silence belies your answer.

Posted by: Michael at May 7, 2008 1:59 PM


Eeesh, Amanda..that's horrible. I, as a pro-lifer, would never do or stand around while someone did ANY of those things you've experienced.

Posted by: Elizabeth at May 7, 2008 2:00 PM


Actually, there were two ;)

You are correct though, that one person can't represent an entire group. Many groups are stereotyped in such a way...like atheists ;) We're not all pompous jerks.

Posted by: pro-life atheist at May 7, 2008 2:08 PM


I was just looking at a little mailing I received from Nebraskans United for Life, and they noted that a pregnancy care center was Vandalized - a brick thrown through a window and then a few hundred dollars of counseling dvds were stolen.

Sounds like someone who hates that pro-lifers offer love, care, support and alternatives to abortion.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 7, 2008 2:19 PM


So is Roderick King's behavior justified because of violence against clinics and abortionists?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at May 7, 2008 2:23 PM


UWSP statement in response to a
May 1 incident on campus

The University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point has received several communications regarding the May 1, 2008, display by the student organization, Pointers for Life, and the disruption of that display by an opposing student.

The university values free expression and the open exchange of ideas. Pointers for Life is a recognized student organization that followed university procedure in staging its event.

The student who disrupted the display not only exhibited inappropriate behavior, but demonstrated intolerance that is unacceptable on the UWSP campus.

University procedures are being followed. In accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which protects our students from disclosure of their educational records, results of those procedures will not be made public.

For more information, contact Stephen Ward, Executive Director of University Relations and Communications, at (715) 346-3827 or sward@uwsp.edu

Posted by: Charles at May 7, 2008 2:26 PM


"Many groups are stereotyped in such a way...like atheists ;) We're not all pompous jerks."

You are a breath of fresh air to me, P.L.A :)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2008 2:40 PM


P.L.A- being a pro-choice atheist doesn't make you a pompous jerk.

Posted by: Erin at May 7, 2008 2:58 PM


Pro Life Athiest:

Have you ever visited http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

This guy is awesome. I love his site and have commented from time to time.

Posted by: Andy at May 7, 2008 2:59 PM


Guys, I REALLY don't want to go to work.

I don't feel like providing an excellent dining experience today. I feel like sitting out in the backyard with a book, sweet tea, and a hammock.

Life is SOOOO unfair.

Posted by: Erin at May 7, 2008 2:59 PM


I'll trade ya, Erin. I'll work at your restaurant, and you find the relation between the Samelson product and the Whitehead product. I have Whitehead's book if that'll help :)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2008 3:10 PM


Even if I provided you with pictures and an article in the paper regarding the vandalism, including the police report, you would not believe me, TR.

Was this young man who vandalized the display African American? Perhaps he needs to know that abortion has wiped out a LOT of blacks, because Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a known radical racist who was quoted as saying "we don't want it to get out that we want to eliminate the negro race".


This was a harmless memorial display. Had this been a display in memory of the fallen in the Iraq conflict, this wouldn't have happened.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 7, 2008 3:23 PM


Erin, I didn't mean to imply that, if you are saying that I did.

Andy, thanks for the link!

Posted by: pro-life atheist at May 7, 2008 3:56 PM


"Dr. Henry Morgentaler, a gynecologist whose insistence on performing abortions led Canada's Supreme Court to legalize abortion fully in 1988, said last week that this violence has had a chilling effect on doctors. In Canada, abortion is not available in Prince Edward Island and access has been reduced in five provinces. Recently, he said, two doctors in Guelph, Ontario, a university city, stopped performing abortions.

TR your quotes are beyond the pale! they are laughable. Everyone knows the Morgentaler is a total wingbat. He's been telling everyone for years about how crazy prolifers are and how violent they are.
Well, you know what, I was on campus at UWO when he was conferred the laughable honorary LLB degree. The night before as I sat in class, HUNDREDS of SWAT teams in black scoured the university buildings looking to flush out potential prolife terrorists. Thousands and thousands of dollars were wasted. We couldn't even go out into the hallway at break time to get food and drink. Little did they know, lurking in a library class was a staunch 5'2" prolifer, just waiting to pounce.
When Morgie got his degree, with guards everywhere, police dogs on patrol, the campus sealed off, even he was very embarrassed. He admitted later that he and the police had OVER-REACTED. Much like you TR. The media made much of the quiet polite prolifers who prayed or remained silent.
You are so filled with hate you don't have a clue as to what you are writing. I feel sorry for you that you feel you have to spew this much venom at people on this board.
IF you are quoting media sources from Canada then you are getting a biased account of everything. The media is well known to be proabort liberal biased in Canada. That's why they hate you American's so very much. There's still much to hope for in your society - you have free speech and open debate. We do not.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 4:14 PM


LizFromNebraska
Obviously this innocuous display deeply disturbed this very troubled man.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 4:16 PM


Last year, about 115,000 abortions were performed in Canada. One conservative commentator, Ted Byfield, wrote last month that Canada's Liberal government, instead of promoting the immigration of 200,000 people a year, should rejuvenate Canada's aging population by encouraging women to bring unwanted pregnancies to term and to place the babies up for adoption.

There is nothing wrong with this suggestion that you find so offensive TR. Why murder these babies when there are many people looking to adopt. Isn't that what you proaborts wanted on the other post, a few days ago. Help the babies that are already in existence.

Also for those of you Americans on this board, this article is very dated. Stockwell Day is not the leader of any party in Canada. Stephen Harper is the Prime MInister of Canada and head of the Conservative Party. A fact that proaborts here cannot believe happened. The Alliance Party no longer exists.

Although Harper is not prolife, he is slightly more supportive of families and family-friendly policies. He regularly takes a pummelling from our liberal media who of course don't like the fact that he's faithfully married (to a woman), has children and attends church (yikes!!).

Take TR's posts with a grain of salt. She has no idea what she's posting - the glare of hate blinds her.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 4:26 PM


This was a harmless memorial display. Had this been a display in memory of the fallen in the Iraq conflict, this wouldn't have happened.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 7, 2008 3:23 PM

But if it did it would be all over the news and the creep would go to jail...

Posted by: mk at May 7, 2008 4:29 PM


I hate to admit it but that is my undergrad. This is the same school that in 2004 after the elections had an article printed in the University newspaper that said that republicans should be fair game for being beat up and shot and killed or something to that effect b/c the democrats were so angry about the outcome of the election. I'l be interested to see how they handle this. If it's anything like the last case it's just one more reason not to send my money to Point...

Posted by: sam at May 7, 2008 5:17 PM


Too bad, Sam :( God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2008 5:28 PM


Hi everyone,
I'm a long time follower of this blog, but this is the first time I've been compelled to post 'cuz UWSP is my alma mater. The pro-life group on campus does this every year, but to my knowledge this is the first time someone has actually attacked it.
Also, I agree that UWSP is one of the crappier schools, but now because of the art and theater. (Hey, I was an art major!) It's crappy because it's in the middle of nowhere and filled with north woods hicks.

Posted by: Ampersand at May 7, 2008 6:11 PM


Ampersand,
Oh dear. My alma mater ain't so good these days either.
Sam if you decide not to contribute to your alma mater, you should let them know!
In Canada, UWO lost alot of alumni support as well as support from current faculty who were aghast that a proabort doctor received an honorary LLB. Apparently, such degrees must be approved by the senate but it was never sent for a vote and simply ramroded through - they knew it wouldn't get it otherwise.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 6:36 PM


Don't feed the troll

Posted by: Gerry at May 7, 2008 7:08 PM


Just specifically for TR:
In case you THOUGHT that proaborts are innocent lambs who have soooo much violence perpetrated upon them,
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08042603.html

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 8:44 PM


Don't worry I plan on writing another letter to them as I did after the last instance. I plan on telling them about this as well when they call asking for money...

Posted by: sam at May 8, 2008 6:12 AM


Did anyone else notice what musical was being promoted at the bottom of the announcement that the Administration put out?

"Baby", a musical about an older couple not particularly wanting a child getting pregnant, a middle aged couple desperately trying to get pregnant and a college aged couple facing an unplanned pregnancy.

Not to be too cynical but I wonder if this was done deliberately!

Posted by: sam at May 8, 2008 6:30 AM


TR:

I think you would reject a letter from your grandmother as a valid source, if you could. Please don't bother to call me a liar or any other silly names. It doesn't matter.

Posted by: Janet at May 8, 2008 4:38 PM


What's the problem here? Yeah there's freedom of speech but anti-choice idiocy shouldn't be tolerated. If you defend this with free speech would you defend a club that put up a public display saying we should repeal the 19th amendment so women don't have the right to vote, or the 13th and 14th amendments so that African-Americans can be slaves again? That is exact same thing anti-choicers want to do by overturning Roe v Wade. Freedom of speech doesn't cover attempts by vigilantes to use public demonstrations to further their efforts to take away other's rights. If anything, it could be argued that King was acting in self-defense of a third party, the party being all American women.

Posted by: Rick Rogers at May 8, 2008 10:23 PM


I think you would reject a letter from your grandmother as a valid source, if you could.

I would too, from a journalist's perspective. At least at first, but then if whatever she said in the letter checked out, then I might believe her. No one is a valid source at first. They gain credibility through their work and from having statements that routinely check out with other people's statements and facts.

Oh, and I don't quote family members or friends either, so she's DEFINITELY not a source to me!

"If your mother tells you she loves you... check it out!"

Posted by: Edyt at May 9, 2008 12:37 AM


Edyt,

You know that's not what I meant. If her Grandmother wrote and told her the roses in her backyard were blooming and beautiful, she'd accuse her Grandmother of being a liar, and ask for sources.

Posted by: Janet at May 9, 2008 12:46 AM


Hmmm, blooming could be checked out (she'd ask for photo evidence, I'd assume) but beautiful?

I think that because it's her grandma's garden, her grandma's biased and I wouldn't believe her on the beautiful part. I think in such a claim should be verified by a neighbor. Preferably not a neighbor who is also biased by thinking her OWN garden is prettier, since she might skew the facts and say "well, your grandma's roses are okay" so you might want to find someone who is nonbiased.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Posted by: Edyt at May 9, 2008 12:58 AM


P.S. I'm being playful, you don't have to respond! :)

Posted by: Edyt at May 9, 2008 12:59 AM


"That is exact same thing anti-choicers want to do by overturning Roe v Wade. Freedom of speech doesn't cover attempts by vigilantes to use public demonstrations to further their efforts to take away other's rights.

Roger,
Since WHEN has the killing another person, in this case, unborn children EVER been a RIGHT? Abortion is not a RIGHT for women. The unborn a human people who also have the RIGHT to LIFE. To compare the repeal of Roe vs Wade with the removal of women's right to vote is illogical. We are talking here about the most basic of rights, the right to be born, once conceived. Without this right, the right to vote for women is moot, because some of them will never get the chance to exercise this right, having been aborted in the womb.
Roe vs. Wade is a travesty of justice - based on a legal case that was from the get-go, a sham. You proaborts know it as well as the activist judiciary which brought in this judgement.

If anything, it could be argued that King was acting in self-defense of a third party, the party being all American women.

Posted by: Rick Rogers at May 8, 2008 10:23 PM

Likewise, we could also justify any action on prolifers part, by arguing that we are acting in self-defense of a third party, the unborn children of America.

You can't have it only YOUR way, you know.

Posted by: Patricia at May 9, 2008 7:32 AM


Whatever happened to respectful dissent?

If you disagree with something, do so in a respectful manner. They were not harming anyone. This shows a lack of intelligence and of the infamous word "tolerance" those of Mr. King's caliber so dramatically espouse and parade ad nauseum.

What was done was an act of vandalism, not free speech. Simply because he calls it free speech, (by tearing down a university-accepted display), is akin to me tearing down every United Sexualities poster on that campus or overturning their display booth while draping myself in the flag of "free speech."

He can call it what he wants and the university can pander and play centrist any way they can, but the bottom line is he should be fined for vandalizing school property and issue both a verbal and written apology to the group whose proerty he destroyed.

Posted by: TB at May 9, 2008 1:19 PM


Yeah there's freedom of speech but anti-choice idiocy shouldn't be tolerated.

So, there's freedom of speech, but only when you think the speech is acceptable?

Obviously, I don't accept your premise that opposing abortion is like opposing the rights of women or African-Americans to vote. But even if you were right, it wouldn't matter. Freedom of speech is meaningless if it only protects noncontroversial speech that doesn't need protecting.

Also, people legally putting up a simple display are not "vigilantes".

Posted by: Jen R at May 9, 2008 8:37 PM


Angela moyer fort http://angela-moyer.barerube.cn >moyer Angela tolbert

Posted by: rackleff Angela moyer at May 10, 2008 12:53 AM


web cams 2 teen http://rollyo.com/teen-web-cams >free teen cams web

Posted by: pakistani web teen cams at May 27, 2008 3:20 AM


what's the difference between force other people to give birth then they clearly don't wants to, and force other people to become Christian? after all not all religion believes that the fetus is a human being, so why do they have to give up what ever they believe in and follow what ever you think is right? and what are you going to do next? jail all those who are not Christan? so no one can disobey you again?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 1, 2008 11:09 AM