Because it was THEIR ceremony. Does that little tidbit escape you? And I have no idea why you think UM not being the govt is even relevant.
Michigan Med school tells leftist cancel mob fascists to suck it.
- Thread starter FAUlty Gator
- Start date
So, there was unanimous decision on the part of all students and staff that this person should not be able to speak? I missed that in the article.
Why would unanimity be required? Was it unanimous that this person SHOULD speak? If it's important one way, why not the other? Should they have to cast about to find a speaker that every single attendee agreed on?
Your reasoning is...poor. At best.
Do you seriously not see that you are making my point. You simply aren’t able to look at it from both sides. When the next speaker is chosen, if the pro life student make a stink should they then cancel that speaker? What if they said they were “afraid” of the speaker like the pro choice students did?
Afraid? Of what? Good grief we are a nation of pussies.
Last edited:
Of course, they can protest. What a stupid question. And they are free to peacefully walk out. And they are "afraid"...they would think that the speaker is promoting murder. Of millions. If they weren't afraid, they're hypocrites. Do you seriously not see that you just made MY point?
BTW, it takes a lot more courage to peacefully protest what is seen as an erosion of basic rights than to just sit on your ass and do nothing.
There is nothing wrong with letting your faith inform your political views. Although I'm not fond of the picking and choosing that many people do.
Meh, maybe its about character and integrity. Have you called for the resignations of all of those who supported Jan 6th? Have you asked for resignations of representatives who questioned the integrity of the election. Is that why we have to listen to both sides even though one is egregiously wrong? Perhaps the long history of settled case law from multiple Supreme Courts, should have superceded the lone Supreme Court which was stacked by dubious means and then these students would have sat through her lecture.
Sometimes stands are worth taking.
You must not know me very well.
There is nothing I would love more than to see people like Hawley, Cruz, MTG, and Boebert charged and convicted alongside our un-esteemed former president for their role in trying to overthrow the government.
I don't know that I have specifically said they should resign but that's mostly because I know they won't. Not like they are going to see that Hoosier said they should resign and suddenly regret all of their previous choices and turn in their letters of resignations. So no I havn't called for their resignations, you've got me there. . . I have called for them to be tried for treason though.
As for the history of settled case law, just because a case law has been settled for a long time doesn't make it right.
It's crazy to me that the Supreme Court invents a right out of thin air in the 1970's, a right that never previously existed in this country, and in so doing overturns the state laws of all but 4 states and you think nothing of it. But when the Supreme court overturns that decision you suddenly think it's an "activist" court.
An activist court is one that overturns legislation without significant constitutional need. Not one that allows legislation to rule.
And also that guy was at a place where they where saying controversial stuff, AND he didn't walk out, he stayed there and listed and wasn't too impressed.
That's very different from this. This woman wasn't talking about anything controversial. They walked out because they had no respect for her as a person, due to her "wrong views".
1. I wore a mask for 2 years during COVID while no one else in my office wore one.
2. I didn't wear a Trump mask mostly because I think he's a terrible person with whom I would not want to be associated. I did not vote for him in 2016 or 2020.
3. I support the Affordable Care Act up until we implement universal healthcare
4. I am pro-life for the whole life
Faith, of course, informs political views. Those who oppose abortion are free to peacefully protest it. That, of course, doesn't include harassing and obstructing women from seeking their own personal reproductive care nor does it involve fire-bombing clinics or murdering doctors. Their right to protest ends - specifically - when they interfere with the free exercise of the rights of others.
The evangelical right (I refuse to call them Christians) have parlayed their control over a party into forcing their own minority personal "faith" on everyone. In the process, they have torn the country apart. At the very base, it is the Republican plan to turn right-wing evangelical support into political power - starting with Reagan - that has led to the overwhelming divisiveness in today's politics.
Those who prefer to give rights to women to control their own bodies also have the right to peacefully protest...even if YOU see the exercise of that particular right as "immature".
Again I'm not disputing their right to walk out. I am disputing that it was or should be considered socially acceptable. What hope to do we have if we can't even listen to someone with different views when they arn't even talking about something controversial?
It would be socially acceptable to leave if she was there to talk about abortion or started talking about abortion. But she wasn't and she didn't. So walking out on her showed hatred of her as a person and not of her views.
So they didn't walk out because they didn't want to listen to what she had to say about abortion. They walked out because they could not stand to be in the same room as her, a person they clearly looked down upon.
If you want to protest go protest the SCOTUS, go protest your state legislature or the national legislature. You could protest at the WH but the person currently residing there sympathizes with your views so it seems silly.
It is not ok for either side to break the law in support of their views. It doesn't matter how strongly one holds views if it leads people to the destruction of property, harassment, or even worse violence, it only leads to chaos.
Last edited:
So you think that's crazy? Shouldn't be done? Where is the "right" of marriage covered in the Constitution? A right for interracial couples to marry was just "invent[ed] out of thin air"?
As for abortion, it was legal everywhere in the early days of this country as has been demonstrated on HROT. A right to control your own body is certainly not invented out of thin air...that idea is preposterous.
LOL...if people waited to protest until it was "socially acceptable", no one would protest. I'm not even really sure what the heck that means. Socially acceptable to whom?? That YOU find their protest "socially unacceptable" - for the simple reason that you support the speaker's views - is the only reason you oppose what they did. I, OTOH, have no problem with what they did...therefore, I find it perfectly acceptable "socially". Additionally, I would have no problem were the roles reversed. Peacefully protesting someone whose views you find abhorrent should always be "socially acceptable".
And I'm sorry but "listening"? Seriously? Who isn't listening to those with different views here? No abortions allowed...EVEN in cases of rape or incest. Even if the victim of those crimes is a CHILD! You better clean up your own mess before you speak to others.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that all of those should have been done by legislation but also pragmatic enough to know that they wouldn't be.
However in this case even the liberal justices admitted that the state does have some legitimate interest the protection of the child. This ruling essentially just said that if the state has some interest in it then it may extend it's interest as far as the voters support through their legislatures.
The state on the other hand has no legitimate interest in preventing un-related adults from marrying.
When the shoe is on the other foot I also find it socially unacceptable. Notre Dame often invites sitting presidents to speak at their graduations and there is always a hissy fit and people walking out when the president is pro-choice. This is also immature. The only legitimate point they have is that ND is officially pro-life via it's connection with the Roman Catholic Church. (While Michigan State should be officially neutral being a state school). However even that point they make isn't sufficient when one considers that you have to learn to live in a world where not everyone shares your views. It's also hypocritical because the same students don't throw a hissy fit and walk out because the speaker is pro-capital punishment or anti-universal healthcare. Both well known views of Roman Catholic Social teaching.
Did she say these things or did you infer these things because someone else wrote laws which you interpret like that?
I will say the legislatures probably need to do a little clarification of what it means that the mother's life is at risk and I would support including a provision that automatically considers the mother's life to be at risk if the mother is younger than 14 years of age.
So…just to clarify…a 14-year-old raped by a member of her own family should have to carry a pregnancy to term? Or do you allow abortion in those cases?
If there is no other risk and the doctors determine it to be safe and the baby appears to not have a deformity which will take it's life within weeks of birth yes.
Terrible situation, but I don't believe that killing the child fixes the problem it attempts to combat an evil by committing another evil. Sort of like if someone kills your child and you go get them back by killing their child.
Complete bullshit. There are countless interpretations of the law made by the courts that act to define what is meant. This one didn't come "out of thin air", that's preposterous. I suppose you believe gay marriage, or interracial marriage rulings "came out of thin air" as well. Again, bullshit.
An activist court is one who, before confirmation, claims Roe v Wade is settled law and then, after confirmation, votes to overturn it. Not just activist, deceptive activism.
These people did nothing other than exercise their rights to leave, peacefully, and make a point. That you are up in arms about this demonstrates how far right you really are, despite your claims of being more moderate. You are just as dangerous as those on the fringes.
So now you want to dictate how and what people protest. How republican of you. JFC.
You will say that in hushed tones so no one that matters can hear you. And will still vote for the candidates that support even these most egregious restrictions.
Like most republicans, you care nothing for the 14 year old victim, just the fetus. Shameful.
No I care for both which means putting one's life ahead of the comfort of the other. It's not a great situation but I balance life over comfort.
Are you aware I voted straight D in 2020 and in 2018?
I didn't like it but I prioritized saving democracy.
I'm not up in arms about it. I just think it's immature and a sad statement about where our country is headed.
How can we continue as a country when future professionals can not listen to an uncontroversial speech by a person working in that profession without making some protest about the speaker's political views which where never a part of the speech?
If they found out one of their profs is pro-life are they going to refuse to take his/her class?
Bullshit. Nowhere is there a law that requires one person to put their life in danger to support another entity. You're willing to sacrifice the life of the 14 year old for an unborn fetus. To me, that's despicable.
Sure Jan. And the point was about making your objections known to people in power.
You are - no one who isn't up in arms about it carries this nonsense on for as long as you have.
And we're in the exact same place as we always have been - a country with the right not to listen if you don't want to. It's people like you who are trying to change that and force others into compliance. It's shameful.
Are you now suggesting a student should be forced to take a class? JFC.
I'm not suggesting that they be forced to do anything I'm suggesting the whole country needs better manners.
And I'm suggesting that they be forced to take a class if they want to graduate. Can't really opt out of certain classes and expect a degree at the end. But no they are free to not take the class and not graduate and not be doctors.
Sure there is, the law requires me to support my children and the only way to do that is to drive to work. . . daily. That is risking my life.
I would also say I'm at greater risk in 18 years of driving to work than a healthy 14 year old is in giving birth one time.
Ummm...whut? Why would a "deformity" matter? Is that not God's "plan"? Who are you to question that? And referring to an 8-week-old fetus as a "child" is a clear indication that you aren't open to any discussion on the matter. Forcing a 14-year-old child to carry a pregnancy to term - regardless of the source - is barbaric. Period.
Given your beliefs, if a ten-year-old can carry a pregnancy to term, who are YOU to decide that the "child" in the womb of an actual child deserves to die? Your stance is riddled with inconsistencies.
Here's your challenge. There are thousands of actual children in foster care in your state...wherever that is. EVERY SINGLE PERSON down to the age of, let's say 10, who opposes abortion or whose parents oppose abortion should enter a registry and when their name comes up they have to adopt a child. No right of refusal. What you get is what you get. You get zero support for that child unless you go on public assistance. It's going to impact your life? Too bad. You can't afford it? Too bad. Your own child isn't remotely close to being ready to parent a child of their own? Too bad. That is EXACTLY what you're forcing on others.
Until the hypocrites take care of the children already born, FULLY care for them, they've got no business talking about what others should do regarding childbirth.
No there is not. You do not have to keep your children. Others can care for your children. The sole person at risk is the mother. No amount of spin changes that.
And the notion that you're more at risk driving than a mother giving birth is completely ignorant of the facts.
At this point the discussion is worthless because you will say anything to twist the narrative.
I'm not so sure of that. What if my wife wants to keep the children and I don't. Does that mean I get to get out of child support?? Cause last I checked it doesn't.
Except I'm not forcing parenting on them, they can put their children up for adoption. This is preferable.
As for the deformity I'm considering it verses risk. While the risk of delivering a child is small especially if you have proper medical care (which if I had my way we'd have universal healthcare and that wouldn't be an issue.) I would argue that small risk is not necessarily worth it if the child can not live more than a few weeks.
A 10 year old is at an exceptionally high risk which might warrant it.
Like I said, you're at the point where you'll say anything. Now trying to conflate child support payments with giving birth. It's disgusting.
Child support is support which requires money which requires me to drive to work. Driving to work is risking your life. Being at work may be risking your life depending upon your occupation.
18 years of driving to work and being at work certainly exceeds the risk of death than delivering one child.
Therefore it is legal to force a father to risk his life for his children. The judge will not let me off child support because I don't want to risk my life driving to work.
Therefore asking a woman to put her life at small risk to deliver a child is not unheard of as parents are routinely required to put their lives at small risk to support their born children.
Completely ridiculous. You are grasping at straws and will say anything. It's pathetic.
Calling everything ridiculous does not qualify as a counter argument.
You said that no law required a person to risk their life for their children. I have proved that statement wrong.
Sorry...you're claiming it's ok to kill a "child" under YOUR circumstances. That's hypocritical. And adding another child - actually tens of thousands of them - to the hundreds of thousands across the country already waiting for adoption isn't a solution. That's your M.O. - protect them (though the girls and women likely will not get anything remotely close to adequate prenatal care) until they're born and then dump them into the system and forget about them. Sorry - I don't play. You and yours step up and adopt those kids - ALL of them - or STFU about the choices of others.
We have. . . not every single one of us but far more than your group.
Who Adopts the Most?
If you saw an adoptive parent on the street, would you recognize him or her? Probably not. Adoptive...
adoption.org
5 Things You Need to Know About Adoption - Barna Group
To commemorate National Adoption Awareness Month, Barna Group presents five things you should know about adoption—what Jedd Medefind, author of Barna FRAME Becoming Home, calls one of the most important ways Christians can demonstrate their love for God to a skeptical culture.
www.barna.com
Christians. According to EthicsDaily.com, 5 percent of practicing Christians in the United States have adopted, which is more than twice the number of all adults who have adopted. In addition, a survey showed that 38 percent of practicing Christians had seriously considered adoption, while only 26 percent of all adults had.
3) Practicing Christians are more than twice as likely to adopt than the general population.
While Christians have built a reputation for many of the things they are against, adoption and foster care are emerging as a cause they are for. While only 2% of all Americans have adopted, this rises to 5% among practicing Christians. Practicing Christians are much more likely than others to have seriously considered adoption—38% of practicing Christians say they have, compared to 26% of all adults.
Latest posts
-
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
-
