• 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

Aunt Spiker said:
This is not discussing political speech. I was discussing the potential for both pro-life groups and pro-choice groups to be a source of student harassment, ridicule, and divisive peer pressure.

All three are unacceptable in schools and are met with consequences.
Click to expand...

The supreme court has ruled numerous times that students do not give up their 1st amendment rights when they walk into school. Schools can only limit speech when it comes to if it is going to cause a classroom disruption (which at lunch it isn't) or they can prove that it will cause physical harm.

i can understand this principle but he overstepped his bounds. according to the supreme court just because something might be controversial doesn't mean that you can limit the speech of the student.
 
prometeus said:
No it does not.

Oh I understand what the First says, too bad you have no clue what it means and where it applies.
Click to expand...

you would be wrong and the SCOTUS has also said that you are not correct. students do not lose their 1st amendment rights when they walk into a school.
 
apdst said:
That's no excuse to violate someone's rights.
Click to expand...

Yet we do it all the time in schools. Many schools have dress codes, gang colors are banned, rights of free assembly are denied etc. The right to an education trumps a lot of other "rights". These are children you know. I would also be concerned that outside influence is behind this display of intolerance.
 
Gipper said:
Not against me. I'm pro-choice (well, in the first trimester anyway).

Perhaps that "Libertarian" tag over to the left is confusing to you? Libertarians are typically pro-choice. They're against lifers, not me.
Click to expand...

Well in his world if you're not pro-choice, you have nothing to say about the issue, certainly nothing factual..........and therefore should just stifle yourself. Let the government determine what's factual, because in a moderate world the govt is always right.
 
jmotivator said:
I think it is "controversial" because it reminds a lot of people that a fetus is a human being and that makes them uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
Actually it does no such thing. That may be your belief, as unfounded as it is and it is precisely the spreading of that mostly religious belief that is wrong.
 
American said:
Well in his world if you're not pro-choice, you have nothing to say about the issue, certainly nothing factual..........and therefore should just stifle yourself. Let the government determine what's factual, because in a moderate world the govt is always right.
Click to expand...

He's no moderate. We have extensive arguments on DP about how people lie about leans.

He (and most others) do not share the opinions of Voltaire, who may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it "to the death". I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, and I got pissed about the extensive smoking bans in many of the big cities, along with the wildly excessive Pigouvian taxes involved with them.

Libertarians defend rights - even rights they don't share personally. Liberty isn't for those you agree with.
 
ludin said:
The supreme court has ruled numerous times that students do not give up their 1st amendment rights when they walk into school. Schools can only limit speech when it comes to if it is going to cause a classroom disruption (which at lunch it isn't) or they can prove that it will cause physical harm.

i can understand this principle but he overstepped his bounds. according to the supreme court just because something might be controversial doesn't mean that you can limit the speech of the student.
Click to expand...

And so: if permitting a group leads to harassment of students then it's seen as a problem, yes?

That's my point. The potential for these types of issues.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
And so: if permitting a group leads to harassment of students then it's seen as a problem, yes?

That's my point.
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter if they think it will lead to. that does not fly as an argument to stop them. it actually has to result in a actual action.
the SCOTUS has ruled on this plenty of times.
 
Gipper said:
Not against me. I'm pro-choice (well, in the first trimester anyway).

Perhaps that "Libertarian" tag over to the left is confusing to you? Libertarians are typically pro-choice. They're against lifers, not me.
Click to expand...
No, nothing confused me, it was just pretty clear from your posting. It has really has nothing to do with your political lean, though I'm amused you thought it did.
 
apdst said:
Show me where it says it doesn't apply to school kids. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
You are straining and you may hurt yourself, but if you are that much interested it is right next to not being allowed to shout fire in a theater.
 
ludin said:
you would be wrong and the SCOTUS has also said that you are not correct. students do not lose their 1st amendment rights when they walk into a school.
Click to expand...
Actually I am not wrong and no one is taking away their rights.
 
ludin said:
it doesn't matter if they think it will lead to. that does not fly as an argument to stop them. it actually has to result in a actual action.
the SCOTUS has ruled on this plenty of times.
Click to expand...

The scotus hasn't ruled on *this* in particular and thus it's open to concern and discussion. What's the purpose of the group: to inform or to harass? Anyway - I think their behavior, attitudes, and actions are what would make it tolerable or not. If they cross lines it's obvious they shouldn't be allowed to carry on.

Either way: I think it's distasteful to display anything pertaining to bodily functions or gore in a lunch hall (regardless of what it is). Outside of an eating area: I don't care so much.
 
Slyfox696 said:
No, nothing confused me, it was just pretty clear from your posting. It has really has nothing to do with your political lean, though I'm amused you thought it did.
Click to expand...

Very well...then why say it? Were you under the impression that I was pro-life?

I'm not against liberal agendas in schools. I'm against the hypocrisy involved, where conservatives aren't afforded those same rights. If you have the "rainbow brigade" in one room and the "ABORTION IS MURDER!" crowd in the next room, I'm good with it. However, we both know that it's not the case.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Either way: I think it's distasteful to display anything pertaining to bodily functions or gore in a lunch hall (regardless of what it is). Outside of an eating area: I don't care so much.
Click to expand...
Not only that but the astounding hypocrisy demonstrated in some of these arguments buy those who will vehemently oppose sex ed in schools but care less about who or what aged kids will be exposed to a display that has not academic sanctioning or control of any sort only because it furthers their anti-choice agenda.
 
prometeus said:
Not only that but the astounding hypocrisy demonstrated in some of these arguments buy those who will vehemently oppose sex ed in schools but care less about who or what aged kids will be exposed to a display that has not academic sanctioning or control of any sort only because it furthers their anti-choice agenda.
Click to expand...

That raises the concern: if a group's intent is to guide someone's health choices and concerns like parenting, is that even tolerable?

If the school cannot teach it because they're governed by law then can students take on that role? What sets the standard, here? At what point is a student just voicing their opinion and at what point are they taking on the role of being a sanctioned type of 'teacher'.
 
prometeus said:
Actually it does no such thing. That may be your belief, as unfounded as it is and it is precisely the spreading of that mostly religious belief that is wrong.
Click to expand...

That's my observation. I have seen too many people who are just fine with dead animals get repulsed by such images to brush it off. Most wouldn't admit to that being the reason because they are too heavily invested in whitewashing the abortion industry.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Do you have evidence THIS principal said it's okay to discuss homosexuality with kindergartners?
Click to expand...

The school's in Connecticut. That's all the evidence anyone should need. ;)
 
j-mac said:
Ok, there are a few things obviously left out of this dust up at this school, and the reporting of it...

1. What's wrong with showing the development of a baby?

2. What was on the poster boards?

3. Don't groups sanctioned within a high school have teacher advisers?

The article leaves questions, such as

1. What was the display depicting?

2. Were the students just educating on the levels of gestation?

3. Why is the development of a child in the womb, "controversial"?

It certainly is told to us that it is fine to broach subjects like homosexuality to kindergartners, are we to think that high school students aren't equipped to see how a baby in the womb develops?
Click to expand...

Progressives hate it when they're shown a) the consequences of their actions and b) real life images of those they destroy with their smug politics.

So of course they're not going to allow it.... The last thing a progressive wants to see is an image of a baby they support murdering.

Remember, progressives don't understand the consequences of their actions. These pro-choice progressives have supported more murder than all wars combined through their advocacy of abortion - or genocide.
 
iguanaman said:
Yet we do it all the time in schools. Many schools have dress codes, gang colors are banned, rights of free assembly are denied etc. The right to an education trumps a lot of other "rights". These are children you know. I would also be concerned that outside influence is behind this display of intolerance.
Click to expand...

So, ALL speech, in school, is restricted?
 
jmotivator said:
That's my observation.
Click to expand...
Hardly a universal truth.

I have seen too many people who are just fine with dead animals get repulsed by such images to brush it off.
Click to expand...
and?

Most wouldn't admit to that being the reason because they are too heavily invested in whitewashing the abortion industry.
Click to expand...
The "abortion industry" another figment of your imagination, hardly needs whitewashing.
 
prometeus said:
Actually I am not wrong and no one is taking away their rights.
Click to expand...

yes you are the SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that students do not give up their 1st amendment rights when they walk into a school building.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Progressives hate it when they're shown a) the consequences of their actions and b) real life images of those they destroy with their smug politics.
Click to expand...
No more than conservatives for the very same reasons.

So of course they're not going to allow it....
Click to expand...
No it is not allowed because it is in the wrong environment.

The last thing a progressive wants to see is an image of a baby they support murdering.
Click to expand...
You see this is the very reason it is not allowed, because like you most so called pro-lifers rely on ignorance and emotional tripe, hardly something students need in their lunch room.

Remember, progressives don't understand the consequences of their actions.
Click to expand...
You are deluding yourself again.

These pro-choice progressives have supported more murder than all wars combined through their advocacy of abortion - or genocide.
Click to expand...
Except those where religion was the driving force eh?
 
ludin said:
yes you are the SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that students do not give up their 1st amendment rights when they walk into a school building.
Click to expand...
No I am not and no one said that students give up anything, much less rights in school. Please stay on topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom