Tolerance

Go Jeff, GO! Hit them! Hit them! Hit them again!

Wow-- how convenient!!! A referendum that took place when these college kids were toddlers somehow binds what they can and cannot say about abortion. I have a sneaky feeling that if the 1993 referendum had gone the other way, either it would not have impacted anybody's free speech on campus, or else it would have been re-voted on each year in an attempt to get the "correct" results.

That is amazing... and very sad. How close minded can liberals get!? They refuse to listen to any other perspective. Sadly I fear we will see far more of this kind of intolerant and close minded activity before we see it get any better. We need to keep praying for conversion of hearts! God bless! Padre Steve

This just in:
"Liberals become Stalinists when faced with dissent."

Film at 11.

It never ceases to amaze me how the "pro-choice" movement thinks they preserve choice by censoring information and options.

"...free, safe abortion on demand so all women have a genuine choice when faced with unwanted pregnancy.”

The key word here is not "choice".

It's "genuine".

And when liberals say "genuine" (or its synonym "authentic"), what they mean is, "in keeping with liberal orthodoxy."

Obviously, since abortion -- and indeed, liberalism itself -- is about neither freedom nor choice but power, the only "genuine" choice is the choice to exercise the power to kill which abortion represents.

Among sane people, the word "choice" implies alternatives to choose among. But to a liberal, the word "choice" is simply a euphemism for abortion, and so the only "genuine choice" can be to kill.

Oh. So much fun to be had here.

"We're not allowed to tell you that your life has value, and that someone cares for you and wants to help. We're not allowed to tell you that we can provide medical, financial, and personal assistance to you and your baby. We're not allowed to tell you that you can choose life.

"But if you want to come talk to us.... Well, I don't think you can suss out what we can do."

Um, maybe disaffiliation is just the ticket. Who wants to be a part of a student union that is pro-murder? Perhaps it's time the Newman Center strike a bold blow by turning their rear end towards these fools.

"The school’s Newman Society has been censored and threatened with disaffiliation from the student union"

Jeff, it's called freedom of association. It's a commonly practiced right as shown by the number of blogs that disaffiliated me through IP blocks, deleting of posts, and other measures.

Like I have said before when pro-lifers started to adopt all the children currently stranded in foster care, stop bitching about social spending for children by the government, or provide such assistance themselves, I will start to agree that their pro-life position isn't utter bullshit.

UAB... you mention all those children stranded in foster care, etc. Do you mean to say that you wish they were dead?

"Pro-life" in the sense of "anti-abortion" just means a person thinks it's not OK to murder babies. It's really a quite minimal position, as far as it goes. Beyond that you'll find a diversity of opinion in how society ought to take care of its own. Some people are under the mistaken impression that capitalism will do the trick, for example. They may be wrong about that but it's not an unreasonable position.

In Australian public universities (all but two of them), disassociation from the student union is akin to dissolution, as only organisations affiliated with the student representative body may hold functions on campus. Nevertheless, the Newman Society may have legal recourse in this situation as it is a near-obvious case of religious discrimination. Unfortunately, every single government at state and federal level is held by the pro-abort Labor party.

Before readers of this article judge the union president in his actions, you may not know that the union president's hands are tied by the current rules of the union.

As the uq union is a voluntary association, all materials produced by student clubs affiliated to the union need to be approved by the union president. If the union president approves material that is against union policy as previously determined by referendum then the president can be summarily dismissed from office.

In this case the Newman Society put the union president in a very difficult position. They didn't seek the approval of the president for their materials before they distributed them. Then when the president told them that the material could not go out with the official sanction of the union because it contravened settled policy, they cried foul.

It seems that this entire exercise was a cynical publicity stunt on behalf of the Newman Society to gain publicity by flagrantly violating rules for union-affiliated clubs - which they were clearly aware of. The Newman Society know full well that they could have distributed materials on campus as "UQ Catholics" or whatever.

However, what they really wanted to do was cause trouble for the conservative union exec and get some publicity out of the whole exercise. If the Newman Society REALLY felt passionate about this issue, they would assemble the 1500 signatures required to hold a new referendum instead of trying to manipulate the union president into breaking the very rules that he has to keep!

BTW, Anthony OPL wrote:

"In Australian public universities (all but two of them), disassociation from the student union is akin to dissolution, as only organisations affiliated with the student representative body may hold functions on campus..."

This is not the case at UQ. There are a number of non-union affiliated clubs & societies (eg sporting clubs, political groups) which are perfectly entitled to use university facilities. Given that the UQ Union has been pro-choice for over 15 years, why would the Newman Society want to be an affiliated member anyway?

when pro-choicers started to open up pregnancy centers to give assistance to women who find themselves in a difficult situation and need help, I will start to agree that choice isn't just a rhetorical device.

Yeah, that will never happen. Most of the time, when I mention the real, true, and genuine suffering of women (and men) post-abortion, they (literally or figuratively) stick their fingers in their ears and go "La, la, la! I can't hear you! And, besides, you're small experience with a few psychologically shattered individuals means nothing! Heartache and regret cannot stand in the way of 'choice'!"

"Authentic choice"...yeah, considering how rabidly pro-aborts fight to outlaw or restrict things like pre-abortion ultrasounds, information on fetal development and pain, and the like. I've had pro-aborts tell me fetal pain (and things like "Silent Scream") are made up by us pro-lifers to emotionally manipulate women.

Heaven help us that this horror continues.

Jeff, this post inspired my daughter to put up a Youtube video of a "choice" experience we had on th e sidewalk last Friday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xTMmUD-VlQ

thanks for the nudge.

Hans Kunng: "Given that the UQ Union has been pro-choice for over 15 years, why would the Newman Society want to be an affiliated member anyway?"

The Union's stale, 15 year old policy states that you are pro-choice but you aren't. If you wanted women to have a "genuine choice when faced with an unwanted pregnancy", you would allow all sides of the issue to be represented, and thus distribution of the Newman Society's "Pro-life" material. How can they make a genuine choice if half the debate is suppressed? Thus, the refusal to do so is not only religious discrimination and opposed to freedom of speech (a fundamental aspect of university life), it is also blatant hypocrisy.

The Pro-life-must-adopt canard is the latest canned sophistry in the pro-abortion playbook. Imagine a Southern slaver in 1860 saying, "Against slavery? Fine, give me a fair price for all my slaves and free them if you want and take them in. If you don't, all your anti-slavery rhetoric is bs."

Continuing with the apt slavery analogy, I imagine there were some abolitionists who did buy slaves in order to free them, but this is charity, not social justice--the two are related, but distinct. And confusion among these two have wreaked all kinds of havoc within our own camp. Charity is when you directly fill a need--feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, buy the slave and free him, adopt the baby. Social justice is doing things that address the cause of the evil. In the case of slavery and abortion, the elephant is the evil legitimized by the state. Sure, there should be more charity, but it doesn't exclude the social justice aspect. Of course there are things that give pregnant women support like Project Gabriel and others. Then it is a question of the balance between charity and social justice which is a worthwile discussion, but that would mean starting with the Truth of the evil of abortion, which the adopt-or-bs bombthrowers are not interested in.

Also, with the argument about pro-lifers not adopting all the unwanted babies, two things:

1) the admonition against abortion is not ONLY in favor of the child being a human being worthy of protection...it is also about protecting the character and soul of the would-be abortive parents, and the doctors performing the abortions...much like when people think denying thm communion is a punishment, when in fact it may keep them from adding sin upon sin receiving in an unworthy manner

2) to add to the slavery analogy above, I don't know if it's on the same level, but what about shoplifters/robbers..."When you give me all the stuff I want but can't buy, then I'll stop stealing...until then you really don't care about me, or about the people whose stuff I'm taking."

Like I have said before when pro-lifers started to adopt all the children currently stranded in foster care, stop bitching about social spending for children by the government, or provide such assistance themselves, I will start to agree that their pro-life position isn't utter bullshit.

What an utter straw man. Perhaps if our government didn't sock millions of dollars in the abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood, and rather put that money toward assisting people who want to adopt (like me), it wouldn't be an issue.

And, perhaps, if pro-aborts started respecting life from conception, it'd be easier to stomach their rhetoric about foster care and social programs "for the children" - pregnancy and infancy come before all that, after all. You can't say you care about children when you allow and encourage 3,000-plus to be murdered on a daily basis.

It's sad to think you believe being ripped apart in the womb is preferable to living in foster care.

Dear UAB:

I already provide financial support to women who chose to bear their children rather than abort them (and no, they are not my children). I don't complain about social spending. So I've started, which means pro-lifers have started (and I am not the only pro-life person to step up to the plate financially).

So -- you promised to start agreeing that pro-life has some merit. We're waiting to hear from you.

"The Pro-life-must-adopt canard is the latest canned sophistry in the pro-abortion playbook."

It's only a canard to you because it makes you look bad. For all your bitching about the value of children, the conservatives on this blog are among the first to bitch about social spending and welfare.

You claim that all children are value, let them languish in foster care. Why? because they are not valuable enough for you to be bothered with. After all, if Jeff here got his ass and adopted some children, well that'd interfere with his lifestyle choices. Fewer vacations, less blogging, more work.

He isn't pro-child enough to invest that kind of effort.

"What an utter straw man. Perhaps if our government didn't sock millions of dollars in the abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood, and rather put that money toward assisting people who want to adopt (like me), it wouldn't be an issue."

Stop your bitching and waiting on a government handout and do it yourself. God helps them who do it themselves, so get cracking.

Good Job Bill, your pro-life position isn't utter bullshit.

Guys and gals,
Arguing with UAB is an utter waste of time. IN fact , the only reason this half-wit know-it-all comes in here is to rile us up. Just get used to the fact that no argument, no matter how logical and well argued will dissaude our little hate filled animus from his ways. He seems all for the death of others...heck, he made it to be born...to heck with the voiceless who yearn for the same right...slice 'em, dice'em, use them for lab experiments!. AS is so like his type, he expects a degree of freedom of speech he has no intention of extending to others. Anything that varies slightly from his Mein Kampf/Margaret Sanger-esque ideology will be greeted with the scorn most closely associated with a Jr. High debutante who is presented with last year's fashions. Better to pray for this small individual and not respond to his lunatic raving from the nihilistic fringe.

I was aware of that FR BP. When I was answering, it was for the benefit of others, not to "win" against someone. Any fair reader can when someone cherry-picks one line from another's post and goes on a rant, leaving the substance and perfectly apt analogy of the reply untouched. I'm content to leave it to readers to decide who has a point and who is barfing up the usual platitudes.

As an affiliated club of long standing, this club knows FULL WELL that all club material must be approved by the Union President. This is a legal requirement as the Union is an unincorporated association and as such, the President is held to be PERSONALLY liable for all material produced by the union and its affiliates - ie. clubs and socs.

Every O Week the Newman Society gets all its materials approved by the union president. However, with regard to this occasion, this club specifically chose to NOT seek approval. Remember the Gospel of Matthew - “By their works, you shall know them.”

The clubs and socs committee (an elected body) of the union determined that your club failed to seek the approval of the president before this club distributed their materials. This rule applies to all club and societies - whether Christian, Muslim, atheist or socialist. Claimed ignorance on this matter is disingenuous as this club continued to distribute this material AFTER they were asked to seek the president’s approval.
Just as the Catholic church has canonical laws and theologies within which its members operate, so too the union. Freedom of sppech cannot be absolute because then speech that deliberately seeks to stifle others would be tolerated. A line has to be drawn somewhere. If the Catholic Students Club don’t like the union’s policies, they are free to disaffiliate!

Ok. That sounds like a quote. Is there a source?

Nevermind. It is from a combox exchange in that article. Is that axe sharp enough yet?