• 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

CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

i haven't seen what they were posting but this is a link to a 4d sonogram of a baby at 8 weeks.
https://www.prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures/

there is nothing gross or disturbing about those pictures. looks like a baby to me.
not sure why people would be afraid of these pictures. brings me a warm feeling i always like seeing my kids show up on the monitor.

in fact this is probably where they got the pictures from.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Subsequesnt rulings by court since Tinker have given power back to the schools to restrict speech.

There was an interesting case a few years back that may be analogus to student speech. An elemetry student wanted to preach the bible durring class hours. The school forbade the child from doing so sighting that the student could do so on his free time. The parents sued the district claiming the student's freedom of speech and religion were being restricted.

Some would say that the student's rights were being violated; some will argue that the purpose of the school is education and the rules of the school must be adhered to to provide all students the opportunity to an education.

Rights vs rights.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is inccorect. The burden is on the pro-life students to show that their rights were violated. The party that is harmed brings suit.
 
Ikari said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, since you phrase it that way, I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. You obviously are unaware of what the "Establishment Clause" is and I've already explained why (in my opinion) I think this is a Prima facie constitutional case.
 
Paxaeon said:
Well, since you phrase it that way, I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. You obviously are unaware of what the "Establishment Clause" is and I've already explained why (in my opinion) I think this is a Prima facie constitutional case.
Click to expand...

So ad homs are your recourse? So sad.

The Establishment Clause relates to religion and pro-life/pro-choice have nothing to do with religion. You yourself stated so. Ergo, I'm still awaiting your explanation. A proper explanation, please leave the insults and deflections out of it this time.
 
1750Texan said:
That is inccorect. The burden is on the pro-life students to show that their rights were violated. The party that is harmed brings suit.
Click to expand...

please see other previous rulings on this. tinker case is still used. there also was a case in texas where a group tried to prohibit the cheerleaders from using bible verses on their sign. that was shot down as it violated their 1st amendment rights.

so far the standard of whether something has been allowed or not is if the school can show reasonable harm or that it will have reasonable harm.
a student standing in class and reading bible verses would be a disturbance to the class and others. the school does have the right to maintain control.

the school in this case allows other groups to use poster boards and other items when they want.

this is why schools lose so many free speech cases because they cannot overcome that burden of proof.
 
Ikari said:
So ad homs are your recourse? So sad.

The Establishment Clause relates to religion and pro-life/pro-choice have nothing to do with religion. You yourself stated so. Ergo, I'm still awaiting your explanation. A proper explanation, please leave the insults and deflections out of it this time.
Click to expand...

Excuse me put you started the insults: It seems to me that you're blindly grasping for anything here. You didn't even try to logically negate what I said and then announced, without knowing me and my intentions, you assume I am "grasping" for things. Sorry but either you present your argument honestly or you don't. You follow the latter.

I provided you with a legitimate source. Your failure to comprehend it is not my problem.

Please restate your inquiry in the form of an honest question.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Right, of course. The fact it happened in a school is all most people need, schools and their "liberal agendas".
Click to expand...

No, I said Connecticut, which is more "progressive" (liberal) than some other states. Of course, I can't speak to that particular school, hence the "wink."
 
prometeus said:
Where was it established that this was a sanctioned group?
Click to expand...

The word "sanction" means "give official permission or approval for." . The school gave official permission for the group to exist on public grounds, using public facilities.
 
Paxaeon said:
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.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Click to expand...

And the aswer is: Yes, they can if they deem the speech to be disruptive. Just because the group is sanctioned, does not mean that they have absolute free speech at the school.

At the end of the day, schools are not total free speech areas. My guess is that courts are reluctant to get involved in minutia about whether an individual principal is being completely fair or not regarding what speech he allows.

In short, I bet this pro life group (and I am involved in pro life) needs to show that the principal was relentlessly suppressing all pro life speech at the school while sponsoring / allowing a mountain of pro choice speech. They cant show that. At best, they can show the principal has a mild progressive bias. I doubt this will be good enough as the courts dont want to second guess every principal in America.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
In short, I bet this pro life group (and I am involved in pro life) needs to show that the principal was relentlessly suppressing all pro life speech at the school while allowing a mountain of pro choice speech. They cant show that. At best, they can show the principal has a mild progressive bias. I doubt this will be good enough as the courts dont want to second guess every principal in America.
Click to expand...

They would probably not even have to show that. Just show that it wasn't disruptive to the normal operation of the school. This is all assuming the court wouldn't find any of the pictures as lewd (From Bethel), which I doubt they would and as long as it is not a schools sponsor expressive activity (fromHazelwood).
 
Cryptic said:
And the aswer is: Yes, they can if they deem the speech to be disruptive. Just because the group is sanctioned, does not mean that they have absolute free speech at the school.

At the end of the day, schools are not total free speech areas. my guess is that courts are reluctant to get involved in minutia about whether an individual principal is being completely fair or not.

In short, I bet this pro life group (and I am involved in pro life) needs to show that the principal was relentlessly suppressing all pro life speech at the school while allowing a mountain of pro choice speech. They cant show that. At best, they can show the principal has a mild progressive bias. I doubt this will be good enough as the courts dont want to second guess every principal in America.
Click to expand...


The question is; does such a group even belong in a public school? I don't know. I will say I'd like to see the suit IF it heads to federal court.
 
soccerboy22 said:
They would probably not even have to show that. Just show that it wasn't disruptive to the normal operation of the school. This is all assuming the court wouldn't find any of the pictures as lewd (From Bethel), which I doubt they would and as long as it is not a schools sponsor expressive activity (fromHazelwood).
Click to expand...

While I do respect your knowledge, and I hope you are correct, are you sure that the school must permit a particular speech at a particular time simply because it was not truly dusruptive?

My guess is that so long as the principal was willing to allow some pro life speech and a pro life group to be formed, the courts are going to give him some leeway on what he defines as "disruptive". Of course, the real reason for the censorship in this case is that the pro life speech was too effective, but I doubt the courts will take that step.
Paxaeon said:
The question is; does such a group even belong in a public school? I don't know. I will say I'd like to see the suit IF it heads to federal court.
Click to expand...

Well, if progressive political groups are allowed at that school, I dont see a valid reason to reject a pro life group just because they are pro life. As a side note, atheists can be pro life and a certain number are.
 
Paxaeon said:
Excuse me put you started the insults: It seems to me that you're blindly grasping for anything here. You didn't even try to logically negate what I said and then announced, without knowing me and my intentions, you assume I am "grasping" for things. Sorry but either you present your argument honestly or you don't. You follow the latter.

I provided you with a legitimate source. Your failure to comprehend it is not my problem.

Please restate your inquiry in the form of an honest question.
Click to expand...

There was nothing to logically negate, that was merely an honest assessment of your argument. Your argument is a mess built on "a federal law must have been violated", and "The "Establishment Clause" seems most likely". That's grasping. Because none of that is an actual argument. You feel that a federal law must have been violated. You have no proof one was, you have no argument one was. Just you think one must have been. Great...well there's a crap argument if ever a crap argument existed. The second part is also NOT AN ARGUMENT. It seems likely that the Establishment Clause has been violated. Why? How? Again, no poof, no evidence, no argument.

It's not a personal insult to say that it seems to me that you're blinding grasping for anything because your post appears to be blinding grasping for anything. There's no meat, there's no substance, there's no argument, no proof, no evidence. Nothing. You think that a federal law must have been violated and it seems that the Establishment Clause is the most likely one. Explain. How so? The only thing you've provided to me was links to Wikipedia that don't support your case.

So slower now, just for you, to hear the honest question that you have responded to only with hostility and deflection up to this point.

The Establishment Clause deals with government endorsement or establishment of a particular religion over the rest. Abortion is not a religious issue. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, by your own admission, not religious. So how is it that a clause meant to protect against religious tyranny is in play for non-religious causes. How is the Establishment Clause violated in this instance.

There is your honest question, now maybe you'll indulge me with an honest answer.
 
Cryptic said:
While I do respect your knowledge, and I hope you are correct, are you sure that the school must permit a particular speech at a particular time simply because it was not truly dusruptive?

My guess is that so long as the principal was willing to allow some pro life speech and a pro life group to be formed, the courts are going to give him some leeway on what he defines as "disruptive". Of course, the real reason for the censorship in this case is that the pro life speech was too effective, but I doubt the courts will take that step.
Click to expand...

I will say this. The only exceptions off the top of my head to the Tinker rule are lewd speech, speech that promotes illegal substance/crimes, or when it is school sponsored (like a school newspaper). My guess is, if I remember the story correctly, that since the pictures were during lunch then it was distributive in that sense since kids could get sick seeing some pictures depending on what they show. Now I can say that if a principal shows that a group has a history of being disruptive then a court will probably give the principal leeway because there is a history.
 
Last edited:
prometeus said:
No worries, neither do I and that is irrelevant as usual from you.

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.

Do you believe that if not broken up the irrelevance would be somehow lost in the drivel?

Not much and you couldn't if you tried.
Click to expand...

What the **** is this? psychological logic in an attempt to defend your position?
 
From my experience kids only hear the pro-abortion argument (at least, I never heard an anti-abortion argument in school, only pro)

Considering the consequence, ending a life, it's probably good to get their minds working and let them decide based on the facts: are you killing a child through abortion, or not?

Any attempt to block facts from people is wrong, so both sides of the argument should be well represented without obfuscation.

In my opinion, show them a video of an abortion procedure for each stage of development, and let them decide on the killing issue.

Conversely make it clear that women will 'coat hanger' themselves if it's made illegal.
 
Last edited:
1750Texan said:
All rights have restrictions. This Nation has NEVER had absolute rights without restriction or regulation. Every right has had caveats.
Click to expand...

There are no restrictions on political speech, nor should there be.
 
Ikari said:
There was nothing to logically negate, that was merely an honest assessment of your argument. a) Your argument is a mess built on "a federal law must have been violated", and "The "Establishment Clause" seems most likely". That's grasping. Because none of that is an actual argument. b) You feel that a federal law must have been violated. You have no proof one was, you have no argument one was. Just you think one must have been. Great...well there's a crap argument if ever a crap argument existed. The second part is also NOT AN ARGUMENT. c) It seems likely that the Establishment Clause has been violated. Why? How? Again, no poof, no evidence, no argument.

d) It's not a personal insult to say that it seems to me that you're blinding grasping for anything because your post appears to be blinding grasping for anything. There's no meat, there's no substance, there's no argument, no proof, no evidence. Nothing. You think that a federal law must have been violated and it seems that the Establishment Clause is the most likely one. Explain. How so? The only thing you've provided to me was links to Wikipedia that don't support your case.

So slower now, just for you, to hear the honest question that you have responded to only with hostility and deflection up to this point.

The Establishment Clause deals with government endorsement or establishment of a particular religion over the rest. e) Abortion is not a religious issue. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, by your own admission, not religious. So how is it that a clause meant to protect against religious tyranny is in play for non-religious causes. How is the Establishment Clause violated in this instance.

There is your honest question, now maybe you'll indulge me with an honest answer.
Click to expand...


a) That is a straight assessment, NOT grasping for straws. I reject your opinion on this as unqualified.

b) Your inability to decern my argument is your problem, not mime.

c) Please READ what the establishment clause is. I am not sure you understand its implications.

d) In the same token, I could call your present reply to me a rhetorical babble and highlights your failure to understand the greater legal argument here.

e) Abortion is BOTH a political and religious issue. Another source.

All you have done is give me your opinions without one iota of fact or logic to qualify them. You have failed to understand that this issue has not yet even reached the first step of a lawsuit. I presented my opinion that is will and why it will. If the student, Samantha Bailey-Loomis, who initially brought this to the public's attention fails to bring suit, then the principals decision stands, which makes my opinion on this issue, moot. I am not sure what you are getting at as your reply was too gibberish.
 
Ahlevah said:
No, I said Connecticut, which is more "progressive" (liberal) than some other states. Of course, I can't speak to that particular school, hence the "wink."
Click to expand...
And I was mocking the idea of using broad perception to associate with specific example.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Exactly - Thumbs up.

Progressives apparently have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

Yes, progressives have a problem with lying to people. Thumbs up.
 
Paxaeon said:
a) That is a straight assessment, NOT grasping for straws. I reject your opinion on this as unqualified.

b) Your inability to decern my argument is your problem, not mime.

c) Please READ what the establishment clause is. I am not sure you understand its implications.

d) In the same token, I could call your present reply to me a rhetorical babble and highlights your failure to understand the greater legal argument here.

e) Abortion is BOTH a political and religious issue. Another source.

All you have done is give me your opinions without one iota of fact or logic to qualify them. You have failed to understand that this issue has not yet even reached the first step of a lawsuit. I presented my opinion that is will and why it will. If the student, Samantha Bailey-Loomis, who initially brought this to the public's attention fails to bring suit, then the principals decision stands, which makes my opinion on this issue, moot. I am not sure what you are getting at as your reply was too gibberish.
Click to expand...

Again, no arguments just insults. This is rather pathetic, you cannot even back up your own statements with real argument. Abortion is not a religious issue, that seems to be the crux of your problem in this stretch to claim that Establishment is violated (not that you've presented any argument as to how it was violated).

I have yet to see you construct an argument that actually deals with any of your claims. Maybe you'll be able to answer the question as to how this case has violated the Establishment Clause. Can you?
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Again, no arguments just insults. This is rather pathetic, you cannot even back up your own statements with real argument. Abortion is not a religious issue, that seems to be the crux of your problem in this stretch to claim that Establishment is violated (not that you've presented any argument as to how it was violated).

I have yet to see you construct an argument that actually deals with any of your claims. Maybe you'll be able to answer the question as to how this case has violated the Establishment Clause. Can you?
Click to expand...


The problem is not mine, it's yours. If you have no wish to have a constructive dialog, using standard informal debate techniques, then please state so. I will not, nor should anyone, be forced to bend to the will of one persons definition of terms, as in your case. If you just don't understand something, ASK, don't assume.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom