Christ Church College, Oxford cancels abortion debate.
The Christ Church censors have declined to grant permission to Oxford Students For Life to hold a debate on the topic of “This House believes that abortion culture harms us all” tomorrow evening.
An email sent around the Christ Church JCR mailing list by JCR President Louise Revell stated that the decision of the censors has been not to grant OSFL permission to host the event in Christ Church, for the reason that “there was insufficient time between today and tomorrow to address some concerns they had about the meeting”.
The debate, which had the event description “Last year in Britain, over 185,000 abortions were carried out. What does this say about our national culture? Is it a sign of equality, or does it suggest we treat human life carelessly? Joining OSFL to debate the issue are two prominent journalists”, had been subject to heavy criticism from student activists.
http://oxfordstudent.com/2014/11/17/christ-church-cancels-abortion-debate/
An email sent around the Christ Church JCR mailing list by JCR President Louise Revell stated that the decision of the censors has been not to grant OSFL permission to host the event in Christ Church, for the reason that “there was insufficient time between today and tomorrow to address some concerns they had about the meeting”.
The debate, which had the event description “Last year in Britain, over 185,000 abortions were carried out. What does this say about our national culture? Is it a sign of equality, or does it suggest we treat human life carelessly? Joining OSFL to debate the issue are two prominent journalists”, had been subject to heavy criticism from student activists.
http://oxfordstudent.com/2014/11/17/christ-church-cancels-abortion-debate/
On the one hand, some people are outraged by what they feel to be a suppression of free speech, and movement towards a society in which any discussion of a controversial topic will result in being silenced by the protesting mob. (See the many comments in the link)
On the other hand, some are angered by the fact that two journalists (both men) were being given a platform to speak about abortion, when neither of them will ever be in the position of having to consider getting one. (See http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-helped-shut-down-an-abortion-debate-between-two-men-because-my-uterus-isnt-up-for-their-discussion-9867200.html )
I'd be interested in finding out about TSR's thoughts on the matter. Was it right and appropriate to ban a controversial debate about abortion? Or is this a symptom of a society moving towards a state where those who can claim to be "offended" are automatically given the upper hand?
I don't think it should have been banned, but I also think they should have made an active effort to include women in the debate and I'd have certainly boycotted a debate of two men about what I should or shouldn't be allowed to do with my own body.
It seems like some idiots who feel passionately about the subject decided to bully those who simply wanted a debate. Pathetic.
One of the prospective debaters is livid in the Spectator today.
Obviously abortion is a debate settled 50 years ago and any controversy today is probably just outrage imported from America.
I don't see why men can't talk about abortion though. They have half a hand in making babies and half own whatever comes out. To say only those with wombs (whence the medicalised "uteruses"?) are august enough to pronounce on this ineffable mystery is the height of essentialist chauvinism.
This short-sighted, entitled rubbish really discredits the image of young liberals who are actually progressive, rather than reactionary, with the sort of old fogeys who read the Spectator.
Of course, while students wrangle on about such precious rubbish, their wages drop, their rents rise and their future pensions are melting away like a dream in the morning.
Obviously abortion is a debate settled 50 years ago and any controversy today is probably just outrage imported from America.
I don't see why men can't talk about abortion though. They have half a hand in making babies and half own whatever comes out. To say only those with wombs (whence the medicalised "uteruses"?) are august enough to pronounce on this ineffable mystery is the height of essentialist chauvinism.
This short-sighted, entitled rubbish really discredits the image of young liberals who are actually progressive, rather than reactionary, with the sort of old fogeys who read the Spectator.
Of course, while students wrangle on about such precious rubbish, their wages drop, their rents rise and their future pensions are melting away like a dream in the morning.
Do remember when universities used to be places of open minds and liberal debates.
Original post by scrotgrot
One of the prospective debaters is livid in the Spectator today.
Obviously abortion is a debate settled 50 years ago and any controversy today is probably just outrage imported from America.
I don't see why men can't talk about abortion though. They have half a hand in making babies and half own whatever comes out. To say only those with wombs (whence the medicalised "uteruses"?) are august enough to pronounce on this ineffable mystery is the height of essentialist chauvinism.
This short-sighted, entitled rubbish really discredits the image of young liberals who are actually progressive, rather than reactionary, with the sort of old fogeys who read the Spectator.
Of course, while students wrangle on about such precious rubbish, their wages drop, their rents rise and their future pensions are melting away like a dream in the morning.
Obviously abortion is a debate settled 50 years ago and any controversy today is probably just outrage imported from America.
I don't see why men can't talk about abortion though. They have half a hand in making babies and half own whatever comes out. To say only those with wombs (whence the medicalised "uteruses"?) are august enough to pronounce on this ineffable mystery is the height of essentialist chauvinism.
This short-sighted, entitled rubbish really discredits the image of young liberals who are actually progressive, rather than reactionary, with the sort of old fogeys who read the Spectator.
Of course, while students wrangle on about such precious rubbish, their wages drop, their rents rise and their future pensions are melting away like a dream in the morning.
Original post by limetang
What does it matter that men are debating it? The arguments for and against abortion are true or false regardless of who is making them.
It's immaturity to decide there is no value in a debate because of who is making the arguments.
It's immaturity to decide there is no value in a debate because of who is making the arguments.
Women obviously have a different perspective to offer, on both sides of this debate. It isn't men who have to choose whether to get an abortion or not. It isn't men who are being told by some that they shouldn't be allowed to have a medical procedure done on their bodies. It isn't men who have to cope with the abortion procedure itself and the effects of it. So why is it that it's two men deemed most suitable to have such a debate?
Original post by Green_Pink
Women obviously have a different perspective to offer, on both sides of this debate. It isn't men who have to choose whether to get an abortion or not. It isn't men who are being told by some that they shouldn't be allowed to have a medical procedure done on their bodies. It isn't men who have to cope with the abortion procedure itself and the effects of it. So why is it that it's two men deemed most suitable to have such a debate?
Yes, as I said, a chauvinistic essentialist perspective.
Maybe we've discovered why feminists don't like talking about the plight of women in the Middle East: they don't feel qualified to speak for them, because they are not them?
I think you'll find that men are very much involved, as involved as biology allows them to be, in childbirth decisions and procedures in a mutually supportive couple. And - assuming he is supportive - no woman should ever make a unilateral decision without lengthy consultations with her partner. There is no way to impose equality here, however: women can only have the final say.
But to say that men can't even have a debate about abortion because of the terrible crime of not having wombs is I'm afraid fascist censorship of the highest order.
Can you really not see why?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
On the one hand, some people are outraged by what they feel to be a suppression of free speech, and movement towards a society in which any discussion of a controversial topic will result in being silenced by the protesting mob. (See the many comments in the link)
On the other hand, some are angered by the fact that two journalists (both men) were being given a platform to speak about abortion, when neither of them will ever be in the position of having to consider getting one. (See http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-helped-shut-down-an-abortion-debate-between-two-men-because-my-uterus-isnt-up-for-their-discussion-9867200.html )
I'd be interested in finding out about TSR's thoughts on the matter. Was it right and appropriate to ban a controversial debate about abortion? Or is this a symptom of a society moving towards a state where those who can claim to be "offended" are automatically given the upper hand?
On the other hand, some are angered by the fact that two journalists (both men) were being given a platform to speak about abortion, when neither of them will ever be in the position of having to consider getting one. (See http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-helped-shut-down-an-abortion-debate-between-two-men-because-my-uterus-isnt-up-for-their-discussion-9867200.html )
I'd be interested in finding out about TSR's thoughts on the matter. Was it right and appropriate to ban a controversial debate about abortion? Or is this a symptom of a society moving towards a state where those who can claim to be "offended" are automatically given the upper hand?
you can debate about capital punishment without being a murderer
Original post by Green_Pink
Women obviously have a different perspective to offer, on both sides of this debate. It isn't men who have to choose whether to get an abortion or not. It isn't men who are being told by some that they shouldn't be allowed to have a medical procedure done on their bodies. It isn't men who have to cope with the abortion procedure itself and the effects of it. So why is it that it's two men deemed most suitable to have such a debate?
I still don't understand. You don't have to be directly affected by a practice to talk about whether or not it's right or wrong (in fact sometimes it's better if you aren't directly affected by it as it can at times help lend some objectivity). I'm neither a murderer nor am I a murder victim, I'm STILL allowed to say it's wrong (for example).
Very few people are arguing against abortion on the grounds that it's wrong that women should be able to control their own bodies, they're arguing against it because they believe that as a procedure (to some degree or another) it infringes upon the rights of a human person to live.
Original post by Green_Pink
I don't think it should have been banned, but I also think they should have made an active effort to include women in the debate and I'd have certainly boycotted a debate of two men about what I should or shouldn't be allowed to do with my own body.
The issue under debate is not about what women should or shouldn't be allowed to do with their bodies. The issue is, whether it is indeed just the woman's body at stake, or whether there is another body involved (i.e. that of the child), which has rights of its own.
This is a scientific and philosophical matter, rather than one of having actually experienced pregnancy itself. So there's no reason why men would be any less capable of debating and offering a valid perspective on it than women.
Indeed, many women (especially on TSR) who debate about abortion have never been pregnant themselves either, and are certainly no better placed than men to comment on any aspect of it.
Original post by Green_Pink
Women obviously have a different perspective to offer, on both sides of this debate. It isn't men who have to choose whether to get an abortion or not. It isn't men who are being told by some that they shouldn't be allowed to have a medical procedure done on their bodies. It isn't men who have to cope with the abortion procedure itself and the effects of it. So why is it that it's two men deemed most suitable to have such a debate?
Why do two men not have the right to debate it? It doesn't negate the female perspective in any way, and the debate affects men, too.
Original post by TurboCretin
Why do two men not have the right to debate it? It doesn't negate the female perspective in any way, and the debate affects men, too.
They have the right to. All I said was that I don't think it's particularly good to have two men debating an issue that primarily effects women, and as such I wouldn't attend it.
Original post by Green_Pink
They have the right to. All I said was that I don't think it's particularly good to have two men debating an issue that primarily effects women, and as such I wouldn't attend it.
'Boycotting' does suggest a rejection of the debate on principle, though, rather than mere expression of a preference not to attend.
If a pro-choice man was debating this issue against a pro-life* woman, what would your stance be?
*I dislike this terminology myself - makes it sound like supporters of abortion are pro-death.
Original post by Green_Pink
I don't think it should have been banned, but I also think they should have made an active effort to include women in the debate and I'd have certainly boycotted a debate of two men about what I should or shouldn't be allowed to do with my own body.
While I think it a bit weird that there was no woman involved in the debate, I don't think a debate should be suppressed simply because the participants are male. Attitudes like that, that I observe are quite prevalent amongst students today, really want to make me vomit. It is entrenching the separation of people by gender (or race/sexuality) rather than minimising it.
As an ethnic minority, I would never dream of going on a hysterical demonstration and bandying around well-worn carefully calibrated phrases like 'I feel unsafe in this environment' if two white people, say, were to discuss the issue of crime in ethnic minority populations today - especially if there were opposing views on the subject being offered. White people - and anyone regardless of colour - can certainly contribute much of value to that topic, and men can offer much of value to the discussion of abortion.
I'm sick and tired of people internalising the dubious feminist notion of 'white male cis privilege' so deeply that they can't listen to anyone about something that affects them unless they come from the same 'box' as them, regardless of the validity of their argument - and not just not listen, but actively seek to suppress them.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Green_Pink
Women obviously have a different perspective to offer, on both sides of this debate. It isn't men who have to choose whether to get an abortion or not. It isn't men who are being told by some that they shouldn't be allowed to have a medical procedure done on their bodies. It isn't men who have to cope with the abortion procedure itself and the effects of it. So why is it that it's two men deemed most suitable to have such a debate?
I don't think it's that 2 men were deemed "most suitable", it's just that 2 men wanted to debate it.
If there was a debate on whether the UK should go to war with a certain country, would it be a useless debate if soldiers didn't participate? I certainly don't think so.
I don't think I'm the only one here sick of [feminist] student activists infecting discussions and crapping over absolutely everything as usual. If two men want to debate abortion, let them. It's called freedom of speech (something a number of vocal people ironically fail to understand).
As for it being about what a woman can do with her body, it's not just her body, is it? There's a child involved. Therefore I think any human being is qualified to discuss the ethics of this (and has a right to). Besides, two people should be allowed to discuss or debate anything they choose, whether it happens to concern them directly or not.
As for it being about what a woman can do with her body, it's not just her body, is it? There's a child involved. Therefore I think any human being is qualified to discuss the ethics of this (and has a right to). Besides, two people should be allowed to discuss or debate anything they choose, whether it happens to concern them directly or not.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
