Tactfully talking about the pro- life vs. pro- choice groups at the uni - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

DOK · 09-24-2009, 05:29 PM

I just heard on the news that a group of pro-choice people set up shop in the same place that the group of pro-lifers usually set up, forcing them to set up in a lower traffic area.

I think that's pretty cool. A unique way to tell them they aren't wanted. I DO NOT want to start the pro-life vs. pro-choice argument here AT ALL, but rather continue the conversation on peaceful and legal demonstrations. Be known that the pro-life people were eventually kicked off school grounds and charged with trespassing last year. I'm not sure it will get so heated this time, but you never know.

Traditional_Ale · 09-24-2009, 05:53 PM

Esoteric · 09-24-2009, 06:40 PM

I signed the petition the Pro Choice group had going around, to get the Pro-Lifers to turn the signs in.

Figured it was a more peaceful way then attacking the displayed posters with coat hangers.

Dion · 09-24-2009, 06:44 PM

Nice to see the pro lifers booted from thier high traffic area.

wooohooo · 09-24-2009, 07:55 PM

What is with the hate for Pro-life? So what if they believe in that... isn't it their right to protest in a peaceful way?

It's the same with any other demonstration. Leave them be, if they have the right, let them exercise it.

Potty · 09-24-2009, 08:13 PM

I am a pro-lifer, but I cannot for the life of me understand the picketing other pro-lifers take part in.

If they really wanted to support their cause, would it not be 100% more effective if instead of holding up signs and yelling at college students, they volunteered for support groups for young pregnant women or young mothers who needed support?

flamesfan6 · 09-24-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wooohooo

What is with the hate for Pro-life? So what if they believe in that... isn't it their right to protest in a peaceful way?

It's the same with any other demonstration. Leave them be, if they have the right, let them exercise it.

its the way that they do it that is annoying, I've had this discussion with a friend who showed me clips of this person relating abortion to genocide.

i'm going to take no stance on which side, but there's ways to get your point out, and there are ways not to.

Cowboy89 · 09-24-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

its the way that they do it that is annoying, I've had this discussion with a friend who showed me clips of this person relating abortion to genocide.

i'm going to take no stance on which side, but there's ways to get your point out, and there are ways not to.

And one would hope that freedom of expression would include both "annoying and non-annoying" means of protest. There's something about this every year where posters who are normally free speech advocates do an about face with regards to these protesters.

flamesfan6 · 09-24-2009, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

And one would hope that freedom of expression would include both "annoying and non-annoying" means of protest. There's something about this every year where posters who are normally free speech advocates do an about face with regards to these protesters.

i guess i didnt mean annoying, poor way to say it. I meant that what they do seems to be over the border of appropriateness.

Azure · 09-24-2009, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

i guess i didnt mean annoying, poor way to say it. I meant that what they do seems to be over the border of appropriateness.

Which is your opinion.

Just like it is their opinion that they are justified to do so.

I do realize that they go over the line, and the world is hardly ever as black and white as they make it out to be, but I do still support their right to protest.

Cowboy89 · 09-24-2009, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Which is your opinion.

Just like it is their opinion that they are justified to do so.

I do realize that they go over the line, and the world is hardly ever as black and white as they make it out to be, but I do still support their right to protest.

My understanding of free speech is that there is no line!

KTown · 09-24-2009, 08:45 PM

I use to be impartial on this view but now that I have an 8 month old at home, I am totally pro-life, kids are super innocent. That being said I don't discriminate against others based on there views either.

Azure · 09-24-2009, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

My understanding of free speech is that there is no line!

Well, that is true too.

In my opinion, some of the protests I have seen, SOME....have been a bit on the extreme side.

When I talked to the people involved and asked them if it was really necessary to make their point like that, they said that the extreme methods gets attention, and that is what they want, attention.

I tend to be pro-life when it concerns me, but pro-choice when it concerns others, so I think I see both sides of the coin here.

Berger_4_ · 09-24-2009, 08:51 PM

Highlight of this was yesterday when somebody put a condom on a piece of paper with "Problem Solved" on it, and hung it on one of the warning boards.

IronDave · 09-24-2009, 09:02 PM

To me it is almost to the level of public indecency, but I was very glad to at least have them be forced to move. I get the feeling they ride on a pretty high horse getting all that attention while flexing their "constiutional rights".

flylock shox · 09-24-2009, 09:29 PM

This thread is way too civilized. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Someone insult someone else's intelligence already!

wooohooo · 09-24-2009, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flylock shox

This thread is way too civilized. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Someone insult someone else's intelligence already!

You're dumb

JiriHrdina · 09-24-2009, 09:32 PM

They have the right to do it - but as a protest it is ineffective and in fact I bet turns more people against them than it does to gain any support.

So it's not that they should be allowed to do it - just that it's kind of a dumb approach.

wooohooo · 09-24-2009, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDave

To me it is almost to the level of public indecency, but I was very glad to at least have them be forced to move. I get the feeling they ride on a pretty high horse getting all that attention while flexing their "constiutional rights".

What do you mean level of public indecency? What did they do? Run around naked? Fondle each other?

I don't think there's anything wrong with what they're doing. Unless they're forcing people to listen to what they say. If it's in their constitutional rights or charter of rights and freedoms, then they have every right to 'flex' them. It's there for a purpose. If people can protest for pro-choice, they have every right to protest for pro-life. However they do it, if it's legal, is okay with me.

starseed · 09-24-2009, 09:35 PM

They should be allowed to do it, but if I cannot walk around naked in public, then I see no reason why they can post up those images they post up publicly.

(I posted this before reading wooohooo's post)