• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pro-Life High School Group Says Principal Banned Them From Using Life-Sized Fetus

Ikari said:
So by misrepresenenting abortion as religion, the government has expanded powers to discourage political activism in our youth. Yes, you've made yourself quite clear.
Click to expand...
That is a dishonest fabrication. No one claimed that abortion is misrepresented as religion. What yoyu have fail to grasp or acknowledge is that by far abortion opposition is religious dogma driven.
 
Ahlevah said:
We don't want anything except to get what we're paying for: educated, not brainwashed, kids. We support public schools not as a form of social welfare, but as an institution of civil society meant to provide citizens the tools--like the ability to read--to think for themselves.
Click to expand...

Political education is part of education as well. It seems to me that perhaps this group did think for themselves and that's why some of y'all are in a tizzy over it.
 
prometeus said:
That is a dishonest fabrication. No one claimed that abortion is misrepresented as religion. What yoyu have fail to grasp or acknowledge is that by far abortion opposition is religious dogma driven.
Click to expand...

To use the Establishment Clause against this, then yes you're going to have to represent abortion as a form of religion, necessarily tethered to it.

What you have failed to grasp or acknowledge is that abortion philosophy and opinion can be arrived at completely devoid of religious influence.
 
Ikari said:
To use the Establishment Clause against this, then yes you're going to have to represent abortion as a form of religion
Click to expand...
That is simply not true and it is silly at best. Everyone knows that abortion is not religion and everyone also knows that even though there are some atheist who oppose abortion, by far most abortion opposition comes from religious groups and their arguments being religion driven is enough to go against the establishment clause.
 
prometeus said:
That is simply not true and it is silly at best. Everyone knows that abortion is not religion and everyone also knows that even though there are some atheist who oppose abortion, by far most abortion opposition comes from religious groups and their arguments being religion driven is enough to go against the establishment clause.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Religion isn't the base in that situation. The Establishment Clause deals with government recognition and restriction of religion. The government may not establish religion or promote one over the other. That has nothing to do with abortion, which is not a religious topic. Atheists can be pro-life, for instance. Christians can be pro-choice. It's not based on religion, it's just that many people happen to be religious. Coincidence is not causation.

That shouldn't need to be stated.
 
Ikari said:
Political education is part of education as well. It seems to me that perhaps this group did think for themselves and that's why some of y'all are in a tizzy over it.
Click to expand...

Political education is one thing. I don't oppose teaching things like civics or political history at the appropriate age. But political indoctrination beyond the flag salute or reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is something else entirely.
 
Ikari said:
No, it's not. Religion isn't the base in that situation. The Establishment Clause deals with government recognition and restriction of religion. The government may not establish religion or promote one over the other. That has nothing to do with abortion, which is not a religious topic. Atheists can be pro-life, for instance. Christians can be pro-choice. It's not based on religion, it's just that many people happen to be religious. Coincidence is not causation.

That shouldn't need to be stated.
Click to expand...

Causation? I don't see the Establishment Clause being directly linked to abortion, pro or con. I agree with your point.

I think those who have subscribed to Canon Law might disagree with you about abortion not being a religious topic. Probably American Muslims would disagree. But neither of these religions (or any other religion in the U.S.) can impose legal consequences. So in that sense, religions are fairly impotent regarding abortion.

However...

In the U.S., I would say that "influence" is the word that might be more appropriate when bringing religion into discussions about abortion. No other social force in the U.S. has had more influence on legislation at state levels regarding abortion. And we're seeing religious influence rear its ugly head among the Royalty who reside in the Kingdom of Washington.

I suspect that there are those who would like to see religions in the U.S. have legal authority. In theocratic Muslim countries, that's a whole different ball game. There's pretty much always been severe to deadly legal penalties imposed based on the Qu'ran.
 
1750Texan said:
Would you advocate that High school biology be taught using terms like "Mommy", "belly", "baby", and "child", when discussing the Human gestation? Sorry..."Baby making".
Click to expand...

False equivalency, the group in question was not in a science class at the time.
 
Slyfox696 said:
*sigh* Was it in a controlled environment, moderated by a teacher? If not, then who cares, in relation to my post? I never said it wasn't. Is reading comprehension really so hard? I've had to say the same thing 34672049760923740689723489706274354260 different times now. Irrelevant to where I said it SHOULD be. Again, try reading... Pro life is a political position. It's not an assumption. I cannot begin to tell you how sad it makes me when someone who clearly has trouble with understanding what he read says something ridiculous like this.
Click to expand...

If you find yourself having to repeat yourself so much, then maybe the problem is you.
 
prometeus said:
It is not? How did you com ego that conclusion?
Click to expand...

By observing the system. Lines are not drawn on, religion alone. Even amongst the specific sects opinion is divided. Some atheists are pro-life, many theists pro-choice. These are not divided along strict religious lines.

It's obvious for anyone not partisan enough, not biased enough, to observe the aggregate system for what it is.
 
j-mac said:
If you find yourself having to repeat yourself so much, then maybe the problem is you.
Click to expand...
No, the problem is too many people opt for an emotional response to what they read, rather than taking the time to understand what is actually said. You ASSUME what is being said without taking the time to comprehend it.

That's not a me problem, that's a you problem. When you're arguing against something I either never said or clearly said differently, the fault lies not with me.
 
Slyfox696 said:
No, the problem is too many people opt for an emotional response to what they read, rather than taking the time to understand what is actually said. You ASSUME what is being said without taking the time to comprehend it.

That's not a me problem, that's a you problem. When you're arguing against something I either never said or clearly said differently, the fault lies not with me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah...I know it's everyone else...:roll:
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, yeah...I know it's everyone else...:roll:
Click to expand...
Do you deny you completely failed your reading comprehension test?

What an amazing mentality you seem to have. Even when you are too careless to comprehend my post, it's still my fault. But I guess that doesn't surprise me, I find people rarely take responsibility for their mistakes. I shouldn't expect you to be any different.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Do you deny you completely failed your reading comprehension test?

What an amazing mentality you seem to have. Even when you are too careless to comprehend my post, it's still my fault. But I guess that doesn't surprise me, I find people rarely take responsibility for their mistakes. I shouldn't expect you to be any different.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty elaborate dodge, and denial....I don't think I had a problem with anything you wrote...The problem we are having here is your own ability to have an honest conversation...Ah well...too bad.
 
j-mac said:
This is a pretty elaborate dodge, and denial
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree your post is a dodge and denial. You failed reading comprehension and then tried to blame me for it. Take responsibility for your failures, don't blame others.

....I don't think I had a problem with anything you wrote
Click to expand...
You mean except for your completely inability to understand it.

The problem we are having here is your own ability to have an honest conversation...Ah well...too bad.
Click to expand...
What's not honest about what I said? Or are you just saying random **** to distract from the fact you don't comprehend the written word well?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Yes, I agree your post is a dodge and denial. You failed reading comprehension and then tried to blame me for it. Take responsibility for your failures, don't blame others.
Click to expand...

*sigh* I swear, every time I try and give you a chance and attempt to engage you in conversation, you remind me of why that is a mistake....But this topic isn't you or I, so, if you are saying that I am not comprehending what you are saying, then I'll give it one more chance, tell me what I am not getting here....Now I mean it here, stop attacking me, and address the article. I want to understand your position...Here I'll even post the OP again so you can directly address it...

BRANFORD, Conn. (CBS Connecticut) — A high school student who founded a pro-life club says the principal banned her group from using life-sized fetus models as displays.Samantha Bailey-Loomis, a 17-year-old senior at Branford High School tells WWLP-TV that the school’s principal, Lee Panagoulias, refused to let them set up the fetus models during lunch.
“He tells us that this topic in particular is too controversial to be talked about in public school,” she explained to WWLP.

Pro-Life High School Group Says Principal Banned Them From Using Life-Sized Fetus Models « CBS Connecticut
Click to expand...

You mean except for your completely inability to understand it.
Click to expand...

Instead of simply attacking me, why don't you show me what I am not understanding about your position?

What's not honest about what I said? Or are you just saying random **** to distract from the fact you don't comprehend the written word well?
Click to expand...

Again, either show me what it is you think I am not addressing properly or I'll just assume that you are only in this thread to attack people.
 
j-mac said:
*sigh* I swear, every time I try and give you a chance and attempt to engage you in conversation, you remind me of why that is a mistake....But this topic isn't you or I, so, if you are saying that I am not comprehending what you are saying, then I'll give it one more chance, tell me what I am not getting here....Now I mean it here, stop attacking me, and address the article. I want to understand your position...Here I'll even post the OP again so you can directly address it...
Click to expand...
I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the fact you didn't comprehend what you read.

Instead of simply attacking me, why don't you show me what I am not understanding about your position?
Click to expand...
It is really clear if you simply read it.

Again, either show me what it is you think I am not addressing properly or I'll just assume that you are only in this thread to attack people.
Click to expand...
All you have to do is go back and read my posts. You want me to do extra work because you were sloppy or lazy the first time. That's asinine. Go back, read the posts, realize why this is NOT the hypocrisy you insinuated it was and realize when I said something is the appropriate time and place and when it's not.

I'm not going to do extra work simply because you didn't bother to read it the first time. I will help you out though, my first three of my first four posts in this thread were numbers 11, 36 and 113. Go.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I said something is the appropriate time and place and when it's not.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's concentrate on this....You did mention 'appropriate times, and or places', so let me ask, what was inappropriate about what they were displaying, or doing?
 
I am coming back to this post because you said that I didn't comprehend what you were saying, so let's break it down....

Slyfox696 said:
Do you have evidence THIS principal said it's okay to discuss homosexuality with kindergartners?
Click to expand...

I never said that THIS principle said that....What I was doing is making an analogy.

Unique people are unique.
Click to expand...

Obviously.

They are in different schools with different communities and different values.
Click to expand...

Can you demonstrate that the 'community' has values in line with the principle?

Trying to compare a school from one school from one town in one state to a different school in a different town in a different state is unfair.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think so...In that case then there wouldn't be a need for a Federal education system.

Furthermore, I agree with the principal's decision.
Click to expand...

Funny, because other than being identified as a "pro life student group" the article didn't go into any detail about what the display was.

The school should not take a position on either side of such a politically charged issue.
Click to expand...

Clearly they did though. By shutting down the display, they are defacto taking the choice side of the issue. But at the same time, it doesn't say what the display was. For all we know it could have been as simple as the different stages of growth of the baby inside the womb.

There's nothing wrong with discussing the political issue, but it should be done at the appropriate times, with fact based literature.
Click to expand...

Unless you can demonstrate that there was some misinformation being given out or discussed, then you are assuming something you don't know...

A student pro-life group setting up displays at lunch time does not meet those standards.
Click to expand...

Why not? Other student groups were allowed to set up their displays at lunch time.
 
j-mac said:
?...

Clearly they did though. By shutting down the display, they are defacto taking the choice side of the issue. But at the same time, it doesn't say what the display was. For all we know it could have been as simple as the different stages of growth of the baby inside the womb.

.
Click to expand...

Other articles stated that the group has had the display set up in the hall after school hours in the past.

Apparently , the principal thought the display should not be set up during the lunch hour.

The display was models of fetuses but they were not in a model of a womb.

They looked like miniature dolls made out of a plastic like material.
 
minnie616 said:
Other articles stated that the group has had the display set up in the hall after school hours in the past.

Apparently , the principal thought the display should not be set up during the lunch hour.

The display was models of fetuses but they were not in a model of a womb.

They looked like miniature dolls made out of a plastic like material.
Click to expand...

Ok, so? I mean it's not like they have the posters of babies murdered by abortion that you see in many protests set up....Why are pro choice folks so afraid of people seeing what a baby in the womb looks like?
 
j-mac said:
Ok, so? I mean it's not like they have the posters of babies murdered by abortion that you see in many protests set up....Why are pro choice folks so afraid of people seeing what a baby in the womb looks like?
Click to expand...

The fetus models were not in a womb model.

I am not afraid of the model fetuses and for all we know that might not really be the issue.

Perhaps the pamphlets they wanted to hand out during lunch was the real issue.

I don't know what the principal found objectionable but he is the principal of the school.

If the pro life group was unhappy with the decision they were welcome to take their case to the school board or the superintendent.
 
j-mac said:
I never said that THIS principle said that....What I was doing is making an analogy.
Click to expand...
But it wasn't an analogy, it was an accusation of hypocrisy. You stated public schools say it's okay to teach tolerance/acceptance of homosexuals, and suggested it was hypocrisy to believe high school students couldn't handle this. The problem is you have ZERO evidence THIS principal has said anything about homosexuality. This principal does not speak for the education system, only for his school. And he made a decision in the best interest of his school and what another principal at another school decides is best for their school is irrelevant..

Can you demonstrate that the 'community' has values in line with the principle?
Click to expand...
Don't have to, was only showing how ridiculous your premise was. What one community values is not the same as what another community values, so comparing one school district to another is pointless.

Oh, I don't think so...In that case then there wouldn't be a need for a Federal education system.
Click to expand...
If you don't think so, then you clearly have no idea about the educational system and should stop posting in this thread immediately. That's not me being a jackass, that's just a sincere recommendation.

Funny, because other than being identified as a "pro life student group" the article didn't go into any detail about what the display was.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what the display was, it is a political position in an environment which is not controlled and moderated.

Clearly they did though. By shutting down the display, they are defacto taking the choice side of the issue.
Click to expand...
That's stupid. No, really, that's stupid. Refusing the display says NOTHING about the position of the school or principal on the issue, only that they feel the issue did not belong in that particular place at that particular time. Lack of approval does not mean disapproval.

But at the same time, it doesn't say what the display was. For all we know it could have been as simple as the different stages of growth of the baby inside the womb.
Click to expand...
But we do know the principal said it was not appropriate at that time and place.

Unless you can demonstrate that there was some misinformation being given out or discussed, then you are assuming something you don't know...
Click to expand...
Seriously? Did you seriously say this same thing again? God damn...

I'm not assuming anything, I'm not even talking about this particular display. I'm talking about how a political issue should be presented in a school. It has nothing to do with THIS story at all...let's pretend we're talking about gun control for a second. ANY politically charged issue being discussed at school should be in a controlled and moderated environment, with fact based literature (not propaganda or emotion) driving the discussion.

I honestly have no idea how many times I have to say this before you'll understand it.

Why not? Other student groups were allowed to set up their displays at lunch time.
Click to expand...
No politically charged and highly emotional issues should be allowed at school unless under the situation I just described previously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom