Have your say: Anti-abortion groups banned from becoming university societies Watch

Profesh
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 week ago
#61
The Voltaire Society have been curiously reticent on this issue.
0
quote
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 week ago
#62
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Amazing how many people who cry about "muh freeze peach" don't understand what it actually is. You may be entitled to your view, but the university/students Union is under no obligation to provide you with a platform and/or funding (as societies tend to get each year) as a result. Should the unions be funding anti-woman (they're not pro-life, no pro-life group has ever given a **** about fair treatment or quality of life once it's out the womb) groups? No.
the idea that pro-life people don't give a **** about women after they give birth... is an entirely unfounded claim thats banded around a lot..

I've never seen anyone actually justify it with an evidence or reasoning.. it just sounds good because right-wing = don't care.

But if we take the american context - as pro-life is an american thing.. I find it hard to believe its not true. After all its been well documented that right-wing people, and especially religious people (who make up most of the pro-lifers) give more to charity.. and are more involved in their local societies. There is also a large number of pro-life womens-health centres that offer support and help for free to women who need it. (anything except abortion that is)

So I don't get it? The only area that I can imagine pro-life = against babies after they are born.. is that I would bet there is a correlation between pro-life and and anti-single parent benefits.Because again the religious part..

But overall the whole 'they only care about them in the womb' - just seems like a trendy soundbite, and I am doubtful it has a lot of basis in reality.
4
quote
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 week ago
#63
(Original post by candokoala)
Here's where you can post a comment about our Anti-abortion groups banned from becoming official university societies article.

Read the full Anti-abortion groups banned from becoming official university societies article and join in the discussion by posting a message below.
Clearly they should be able to have a society if they want, how they conduct themselves such as accosting people going into clinics however shouldn’t be allowed
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
quote
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 week ago
#64
(Original post by SHallowvale)
When would abortion ever come up as a serious topic in a working environment? Never once have I ever spoken to a colleague about it and even if I did it wouldn't matter to the work I'm meant to be doing.

And again, you're assuming that because we don't allow certain groups to form societies that students will never be challenged with dealing with different opinions.
Did you get the impression I think you will be discussing abortion at work? Really? Or did I say something else entirely?.
0
quote
reply
jameswhughes
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 week ago
#65
(Original post by bubblecat)
I have never come across a Vegan society that demeans people the way anti-abortion groups do. Do you see Vegans saying that God is going to punish them for eating meat? All most of them do is cook Vegan meals and hang out. Trans-activists also arent demeaning or demonising anyone - all they’re doing is campaigning for equal rights.

Anti-abortion groups on the other hand are trying to take away a womans right simply because they dont agree with it and they’ll use awful methods to go about doing it - even though it doesnt have any affect on them whatsoever whether someone gets an abortion or not.

Your examples are in no way comparable to anti-abortion groups.
Yes, those nice tolerant vegans. :rofl:
0
quote
reply
NYU℠
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 week ago
#66
Not providing a society with money is not “censorship.” These groups/people are still free to hold these views, and they’re still free to speak about them.

It’s similar to the doctrine of government speech — under the 1st Amendment, the US government is allowed to provide money to speech it likes; it’s under no obligation to provide money to things it doesn’t like.

There seems to be a massive confusion here on the difference between an abridgment of free speech/censorship versus facilitating speech through resource contribution. Failure to provide resources that facilitate your speech is not censorship.
2
quote
reply
bubblecat
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 week ago
#67
uh huh uh huh, a uni society??????????

also my favourite thing is being linked to articles from The Sun of all newspapers 😂
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
quote
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 week ago
#68
(Original post by bubblecat)
uh huh uh huh, a uni society??????????

also my favourite thing is being linked to articles from The Sun of all newspapers 😂
Wot u got against tits mate? 😁
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
quote
reply
bubblecat
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 week ago
#69
(Original post by paul514)
Wot u got against tits mate? 😁
👍🏻
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
quote
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 week ago
#70
I'm not sure what the rules about this are, but I'm of the opinion that a university student body, which also gets its money from students, should be obliged to provide funding equally to student societies. All the student societies should have equal entitlement because they are part of the University, part of the Union, and all of them are paying school tuition and and Union dues. They should not be denying funding over conflicts in political beliefs. It's unethical and discriminatory.
0
quote
reply
NYU℠
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 week ago
#71
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
the idea that pro-life people don't give a **** about women after they give birth... is an entirely unfounded claim thats banded around a lot..

I've never seen anyone actually justify it with an evidence or reasoning.. it just sounds good because right-wing = don't care.

But if we take the american context - as pro-life is an american thing.. I find it hard to believe its not true. After all its been well documented that right-wing people, and especially religious people (who make up most of the pro-lifers) give more to charity.. and are more involved in their local societies. There is also a large number of pro-life womens-health centres that offer support and help for free to women who need it. (anything except abortion that is)

So I don't get it? The only area that I can imagine pro-life = against babies after they are born.. is that I would bet there is a correlation between pro-life and and anti-single parent benefits.Because again the religious part..

But overall the whole 'they only care about them in the womb' - just seems like a trendy soundbite, and I am doubtful it has a lot of basis in reality.
Then you’re woefully ignorant of American politics. The GOP is constantly trying to defund social welfare programs — literally, all the time. Money for needy families? Don’t want that. Food stamps? Don’t like those. Provision of healthcare for the poor? Would rather not.

Any traditional base GOPer hates social welfare programs. Their ideology is that you should provide for yourself, rather than the State stepping in to help those who are, for whatever reason, currently unable to do so.

Thus, the argument is perfectly sensible — the right-wing (GOP) pro-life position is actually simply just pro-birth. They could not care less what happens to the child after their born — especially if that child is put up for adoption.
0
quote
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 week ago
#72
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Amazing how many people who cry about "muh freeze peach" don't understand what it actually is. You may be entitled to your view, but the university/students Union is under no obligation to provide you with a platform and/or funding (as societies tend to get each year) as a result. Should the unions be funding anti-woman (they're not pro-life, no pro-life group has ever given a **** about fair treatment or quality of life once it's out the womb) groups? No.
They are if they are already using students' tuition and union dues to provide funding and platforms to students. These anti-abortion students are equally students of the University and members of the Union. Therefore, they should be entitled to all the same privileges and services regardless of their views, provided they aren't going to be breaking any rules or laws (and it was not made evident that they would be).

There is no evidence that this society is "anti-woman." Millions of women around the globe are anti-abortion. Enough of the slanderous rhetoric.
1
quote
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 week ago
#73
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Enough of the slanderous rhetoric.
Among student politicians it seems to be de rigueur to accuse your opponent of spreading hatred and of causing possible offence. It is the equivalent of shouting 'Blasphemy!' and pointing at a random passer-by (who happens to be your irritating neighbour) in Pakistan. It is guaranteed to have your opponent silenced.

it's all a bit ironic really as accusing someone falsely of spreading hatred is rather offensive, to say the least.
0
quote
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 week ago
#74
(Original post by Profesh)
The Voltaire Society have been curiously reticent on this issue.
Its members have all died, I'm afraid. I'm not anti-abortion though. I favour the law as it stands in the UK, which seems to me to balance the issue rather well.
Last edited by Good bloke; 1 week ago
0
quote
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 week ago
#75
(Original post by NYU℠)
Then you’re woefully ignorant of American politics. The GOP is constantly trying to defund social welfare programs — literally, all the time. Money for needy families? Don’t want that. Food stamps? Don’t like those. Provision of healthcare for the poor? Would rather not.

Any traditional base GOPer hates social welfare programs. Their ideology is that you should provide for yourself, rather than the State stepping in to help those who are, for whatever reason, currently unable to do so.

Thus, the argument is perfectly sensible — the right-wing (GOP) pro-life position is actually simply just pro-birth. They could not care less what happens to the child after their born — especially if that child is put up for adoption.
Why are you banging on about the GOP when this case is about 2 Scottish unis?
0
quote
reply
NYU℠
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#76
Report 1 week ago
#76
(Original post by Andrew97)
Why are you banging on about the GOP when this case is about 2 Scottish unis?
If you read the post I was responding to, then maybe you might have a clue.

Did you know that reading is key?
0
quote
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 week ago
#77
(Original post by NYU℠)
If you read the post I was responding to, then maybe you might have a clue.

Did you know that reading is key?
You could reply without being condensending you know, it is possible. Regardless in post 66 you start talking about the first amendment like it is somehow relevant.
1
quote
reply
NYU℠
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 week ago
#78
(Original post by Dandaman1)
They are if they are already using students' tuition and union dues to provide funding and platforms to students. These anti-abortion students are equally students of the University and members of the Union. Therefore, they should be entitled to all the same privileges and services regardless of their views, provided they aren't going to be breaking any rules or laws (and it was not made evident that they would be).

There is no evidence that this society is "anti-woman." Millions of women around the globe are anti-abortion. Enough of the slanderous rhetoric.
So I should be able to set up a Nazi association? An anti-black association? A white supremacist association? A society that encourages the creation of an ethno white state?

A Student Union — which is a separate entity from the University, and not bounded by the same laws in the same ways — should have no say in the determination of which societies may exist? Even when that SU is democratically elected?
0
quote
reply
NYU℠
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 week ago
#79
(Original post by Andrew97)
You could reply without being condensending you know, it is possible. Regardless in post 66 you start talking about the first amendment like it is somehow relevant.
You could read before replying, you know. It is possible.

I probably brought up the 1st Amendment because freedom of speech theory is very similar in common law jurisdictions — especially between the US, UK and Canada. And very similar rules apply. Shockingly government speech rules, almost identical to those under the 1st Amendment, exist under English law. Also, you’ll note that I used it as an analogous comparison, not a directly relevant point of law. People tend to be familiar with the 1st Amendment, thus it makes an easy point of comparison and for easier discussion; people tend to have substantially less familiarity with the rules governing speech in the UK because there is no constitution; and, as such, rules governing speech are found in multiple different statutes, the ECHR, and decisions from the HL, UKSC, ECtHR, and sometimes ECJ.
Last edited by NYU℠; 1 week ago
0
quote
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 week ago
#80
(Original post by NYU℠)
You could read before replying, you know. It is possible.

I probably brought up the 1st Amendment because freedom of speech theory is very similar in common law jurisdictions — especially between the US, UK and Canada. And very similar rules apply. Shockingly government speech rules, almost identical to those under the 1st Amendment, exist under English law. Also, you’ll note that I used it as an analogous comparison, not a directly relevant point of law. People tend to be familiar with the 1st Amendment, thus is makes an easy point of comparison and for easier discussion; people tend to have substantially less familiarity with the rules governing speech in the UK because there is no constitution; and, as such, rules governing speech are found in multiple different statutes, the ECHR, and decisions from the HL, UKSC, ECtHR, and sometimes ECJ.
Fair enough.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (77)
26.92%
No (209)
73.08%

Watched Threads

View All