• 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

Deuce said:
Biology isn't a matter of opinion. They were presenting models of what looked like fully developed babies and declaring this was what a fetus looks like at like 8 weeks.
Click to expand...

So the reaction is to ban those photos/posters? Better perhaps to just show the real deal and allow them to eat the crow. Should be pretty easy to do so in that case. By banning they put the posters in the highly attractive to teens conspiracy/forbidden knowledge category.
 
prometeus said:
Then it would be easy for you to cite the relevant decision.

Do not deflect. Gay sex sou;d be just as much free speech as pro-choice advocacy.
Click to expand...

i don't need to cite common knowledge. it has consistently been in the paper.
it isn't a deflection you committed a logical fallacy by bringing up gay sex that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

they are not showing any type of public display of sexual positions or demonstrations of such.
so if you can keep on point we can continue. if you can't then you have nothing to discuss.
 
Paxaeon said:
`

`
`
"The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."​
IF a school allows one group, Pro-life student group, without an opposing perspective such as a Pro-Choice student group, that is where the problem starts. In public K-12 schools, that is just crying for future litigation.

Public schools can routinely and legally ban any and all, non-academic groups.
`
Click to expand...

school are constantly sued of this and lose on a consistent basis. why? because they have to prove that said poster will cause a threat or actually induce physical violence of some kind. they cannot ban something simply because they have a feeling or don't like what is being said.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Ignoring the Bill of Rights on purpose, which is going against our founding fathers ideas of freedom, hence going against the United States, our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

There are many forms of tyranny, however they ALL have one thing in common - destroy classical liberalism.
Click to expand...

...but what did that have to do with my post. I dont recall endorsing tyranny.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I don't give one **** what you believe.
Click to expand...
No worries, neither do I and that is irrelevant as usual from you.

It is quite obvious you're incapable of understanding my position and only care about yours.
Click to expand...
But I do, at least as expressed by you in your posts. You see the world and the issues in it with the narrow focus of a limited knowledge that is mostly dogma driven.

Furthermore, only a desperate "collectivist" would break my posts up like you do.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that if not broken up the irrelevance would be somehow lost in the drivel?

I'm telling you NOT teaching you.
Click to expand...
Not much and you couldn't if you tried.
 
Paxaeon said:
`

`
`
"The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."​
IF a school allows one group, Pro-life student group, without an opposing perspective such as a Pro-Choice student group, that is where the problem starts. In public K-12 schools, that is just crying for future litigation.

Public schools can routinely and legally ban any and all, non-academic groups.
`
Click to expand...

How do you know pro-choice was forbidden? That was never mentioned. Though it still has nothing to do with religion.
 
Mr.Nick said:
If you want an intelligent argument go read the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
I did, the difference being that I actually understand it as opposed to you who need to rely on talking points and ignorance.

Oh yeah you never did nor did you embrace the US Constitution
Click to expand...
You are making again moronic assumptions for which you have no basis.
 
soccerboy22 said:
Pretty much this. Tinker pretty much said that public schools cannot restrict students’ expression, unless it would “materially and substantially interfere” with appropriate school discipline. However, there are still exceptions to the Tinker rule, like Hazelwood, Bethel, and Morse.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the supporting details showing that a non disruptive environment usually takes precedent over free speech rights.

As a side note, I think the Supreme Court recently rejected a "he said, she said" style argument where a teacher contended that the global citizenship and Buddhist material of New Agers and Buddhists was allowed more leeway in a designated free speech area than his U.S. centric Christian material was.

From a mathematical sense, the teacher appeared to have a point, but I dont think the Court wanted to get involved- especially as the teacher was allowed to post some material, though possibly not with the same ease and affirmation as the PC groups were.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
i don't need to cite common knowledge.
Click to expand...
In other words you have nothing and are spouting from a point of ignorance.

it isn't a deflection you committed a logical fallacy by bringing up gay sex that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Click to expand...
You need to learn what a logical fallacy is so you do not look foolish. If one group, under the guise of free speech, is allowed to promote an anti-abortion position then so should be another to promote gay sex.

they are not showing any type of public display of sexual positions or demonstrations of such.
Click to expand...
Free speech is not limited to content you like. That you support some contend and oppose other only demonstrates hypocrisy.
 
Gipper said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course it's not, because all schools are exactly the same, run by the same people. Obviously schools have no local influence, either in terms of community leaders or persuasion of school administrators, all schools are exactly the same. After all, we know what a liberal position "abstinence only" programs are, right?

Please do note the sarcasm in the above paragraph.

Why did I say it? Because your posting suggested it.
Ahlevah said:
The school's in Connecticut. That's all the evidence anyone should need. :wink:
Click to expand...
Right, of course. The fact it happened in a school is all most people need, schools and their "liberal agendas".
 
apdst said:
And if this were a group of gay students, you would be the first to scream about their right to free speech.
Click to expand...

A group of gay students wanting to disply models of fetuses at lunch time would also be banned.
 
ludin said:
school are constantly sued of this and lose on a consistent basis. why? because they have to prove that said poster will cause a threat or actually induce physical violence of some kind. they cannot ban something simply because they have a feeling or don't like what is being said.
Click to expand...

Consider the title of this thread; "Pro-Life High School Group Says Principal Banned Them From Using Life-Sized Fetus." The title appears to make this a "pro-life" issue. It is not. The principal stands on perfectly legal grounds in prohibiting certain activities student groups.
 
Ikari said:
How do you know pro-choice was forbidden? That was never mentioned. Though it still has nothing to do with religion.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was. But it is a fact that no pro-choice student group existed there. I agree though, this is not about religion.
 
Paxaeon said:
I didn't say it was. But it is a fact that no pro-choice student group existed there. I agree though, this is not about religion.
Click to expand...

OK, so you can cite a lack of a pro-choice group at school? Is there no pro-choice at school because the school denies it or lack of interest?
 
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...

That is not entirely correct...the SC did not say just in cases of disruption in the class or speech that will insight danger... The SC was not that specific.


In HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v. KUHLMEIER, The court ruled:

...Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
OK, so you can cite a lack of a pro-choice group at school? Is there no pro-choice at school because the school denies it or lack of interest?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter and is not a legal issue. The issue is, can a public school limit the expression of free speech from a sanctioned student group. In cases like this, a federal law must have been violated. The "Establishment Clause" seems most likely.
 
1750Texan said:
That is not entirely correct...the SC did not say just in cases of disruption in the class or speech that will insight danger... The SC was not that specific.


In HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v. KUHLMEIER, The court ruled:
Click to expand...

this is probably one of the founding cases
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

in your case it doesn't say what was written i would have to look it up.
the only reason and it was a 5-4 decision so evidently other justices thought otherwise. was that the paper was not an open forum or an actual paper so it had limited protection under the 1st amendment. had it been one of the other two then they would have won that case.

their is a burden on the school to show that this is going to cause great harm to someone.

since the students see much worse in biology class or will and that they probably see worse on TV or in the movies then i doubt the site of a baby in a womb is really going to disturb them that much.

while the SC has given leniency to the school they have not given full permission to squash all free speech.

personally i don't see this going anywhere as i don't see them getting a lawyer to sue the school just to much time and money unless an advocacy group picks it up which there are groups out there like that.

finally someone that can layout a reasonable argument.
 
Paxaeon said:
It doesn't matter and is not a legal issue. The issue is, can a public school limit the expression of free speech from a sanctioned student group. In cases like this, a federal law must have been violated. The "Establishment Clause" seems most likely.
Click to expand...

no law was broken. pro-life =/= religious.
 
Deuce said:
Biology isn't a matter of opinion. They were presenting models of what looked like fully developed babies and declaring this was what a fetus looks like at like 8 weeks.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so - I don't know - if so, then the responsible action on the part of the administration would be to ensure correct information is accessible to the students not a complete ban on the activity.
 
Paxaeon said:
It doesn't matter and is not a legal issue. The issue is, can a public school limit the expression of free speech from a sanctioned student group. In cases like this, a federal law must have been violated. The "Establishment Clause" seems most likely.
Click to expand...

And what I'm trying to get from you is an explanation as to how the Establishment Clause is violated. It seems to me that you're blindly grasping for anything here, but I want to know why. Why is the Establishment Clause violated, how has it been done? Or are we just blurting out random things as if we suffer from tourettes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom