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

ludin · Mar 18, 2014

Aunt Spiker said:
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.

They don't have to Rule on a specific case. they have already ruled on subsequent cases that apply in the same regard.
right their action do but that doesn't mean you can suppress those action just because you think they might happen.

They hadn't crossed any lines.

that is your opinion 1st amendment trumps your opinion.

Mr.Nick · Mar 18, 2014

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.

You do hate the constitution and Bill of Rights don't you?

In what universe does the Bill of Rights NOT apply to every living and breathing US citizen? oh yeah that's right - progressive judges gave schools the right to treat their students like they're prisoners in a Gulag under Stalin.

Oh, then progressives turn around and allow 17-year-olds to vote - preferably for a Stalinesque progressive.

So basically a 17-year-old is intelligent enough to vote, yet cant be confronted with reality in effigy?

Now you see why "liberalism" is absolute bull**** that makes no ****ing sense whatsoever?

ludin · Mar 18, 2014

prometeus said:
No I am not and no one said that students give up anything, much less rights in school. Please stay on topic.

i am students have a 1st amendment right to free speech. the SCOTUS has ruled on this numerous times that students do not give up their rights when they enter a school
therefore the students had the right to put the poster up. just because the school might think that something might cause an issue is not grounds to ban something another SCOTUS ruling.

the sign is not different than a rock band t-shirt or pro-gun shirt. they are all covered under the 1st amendment and allowable.

prometeus · Mar 18, 2014

Mr.Nick said:
You do hate the constitution and Bill of Rights don't you?

In what universe does the Bill of Rights NOT apply to every living and breathing US citizen? oh yeah that's right - progressive judges gave schools the right to treat their students like they're prisoners in a Gulag under Stalin.

Oh, then progressives turn around and allow 17-year-olds to vote - preferably for a Stalinesque progressive.

So basically a 17-year-old is intelligent enough to vote, yet cant be confronted with reality in effigy?

Now you see why "liberalism" is absolute bull**** that makes no ****ing sense whatsoever?

That is really funny, not to mention the hypocrisy. Why do you hate the truth?

Mr.Nick · Mar 18, 2014

prometeus said:
No more than conservatives for the very same reasons.

No it is not allowed because it is in the wrong environment.

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.

You are deluding yourself again.

Except those where religion was the driving force eh?

LOL, what you're trying to do here is rationalize tyranny as something logical.

What, you cant deal with the notion that abortion is murder? so students should be forbidden from seeing a ****ing baby in the hopes that it will inspire future progressives to murder their own fetus - which is the progressive way?

Funny how you progressives talk all kinds of **** but cant deal with the repercussions.

Truth is progressives hate humans and humanity.

prometeus · Mar 18, 2014

ludin said:
i am students have a 1st amendment right to free speech.

Yes they do.

the SCOTUS has ruled on this numerous times that students do not give up their rights when they enter a school

Nobody said they had to give up anything, but please cite the cases you so adamantly believe that support your position. By your logic people give up their rights when they go into a theater.

therefore the students had the right to put the poster

No they did not.

just because the school might think that something might cause an issue is not grounds to ban something another SCOTUS ruling.

It has nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling and everything to do with what is appropriate in school and at a what age.

Would you be OK if students put on a gay sex demonstration as the school your kids attend?

Mr.Nick · Mar 18, 2014

prometeus said:
That is really funny, not to mention the hypocrisy. Why do you hate the truth?

No, you hate the truth - this whole thread proves this.

The problem is that you just cant rationalize the results of your actions - which is why you're siding with the school here. YOU dont WANT TO KNOW THE RESULTS OF YOUR ACTIONS AND ACTIONS THAT YOU SUPPORT. and there isn't a damn thing you can say to me that will change that fact.

prometeus · Mar 18, 2014

Mr.Nick said:
LOL, what you're trying to do here is rationalize tyranny as something logical.

Tyranny is never logical, but it seems that religious tyranny is acceptable to you.

What, you cant deal with the notion that abortion is murder?

I can deal with anything, that still does not make abortion murder, but you are free to believe anything.

so students should be forbidden from seeing a ****ing baby

Its not a ****ing baby it is a ****ing fetus and the fact that you are unable to tell the difference demonstrates that you are really not well equipped for they debate.

Truth is progressives hate humans and humanity.

No, just willful ignorance and morality coercion.

ludin · Mar 18, 2014

prometeus said:
Yes they do.

Nobody said they had to give up any hint, but please cite the cases you so adamantly believe that support your position. By your logic people give up their rights when they go into a theater.

No they did not.

It has nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling and everything to do with what is appropriate in school and at a what age.

Would you be OK if students put on a gay sex demonstration as the school your kids attend?

again you are wrong and the SCOTUS has ruled on these very things before.
we are not talking gay sex that is a strawman but that is all you can come up with.

actually it does because the SCOTUS says they can so it has a lot to do with the SCOTUS.

jmotivator · Mar 18, 2014

prometeus said:
Hardly a universal truth.

Well sure, but then if you aren't reacting emotionally to the image then you also aren't likely to be offended by it. I am speaking of the people who the school believes they are protecting by their actions.

and?

Many people keep their support for abortion only by ignoring what abortion actually is. For many of those people the sight of a human baby in the womb, or a dead baby out of the womb creates a cogitative dissonance in them that manifests as outrage towards the presenter.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.” ― Don Marquis

The picture of the fetus forces many people to think.

The "abortion industry" another figment of your imagination, hardly needs whitewashing.

1.2 million "services" provided and $300+ million in income annually sure sounds like an industry to me.

prometeus · Mar 18, 2014

Mr.Nick said:
No, you hate the truth - this whole thread proves this.

Really? How so?

The problem is that you just cant rationalize the results of your actions

Actually I can and quite well. That you do not like it or do not agree hardly makes your accusation be more than drivel born out of frustration.

which is why you're siding with the school here.

I am siding with the school because it is the right thing to do and because liekj you amply are demonstrating here, the so called pro-life agenda is based on ignorance and morality coercion, none of which have a place in school.

YOU dont WANT TO KNOW THE RESULTS OF YOUR ACTIONS AND ACTIONS THAT YOU SUPPORT.

Actually I know exactly the results on my actions, my well being depends on that too often to leave it to chance.

and there isn't a damn thing you can say to me that will change that fact.

I am not interested in changing what you think, which by the way does not amount to facts anywhere but your own little world. You more than amply have demonstrated a closed mind so attempts would be futile and I do not do futile.

prometeus · Mar 18, 2014

ludin said:
again you are wrong and the SCOTUS has ruled on these very things before.

Then it would be easy for you to cite the relevant decision.

we are not talking gay sex that is a strawman but that is all you can come up with.

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

Cryptic · Mar 18, 2014

iguanaman said:
Most certainly and correctly, especially if the speech would be disrupting to the school environment.

ludin said:
i am students have a 1st amendment right to free speech. the SCOTUS has ruled on this numerous times that students do not give up their rights when they enter a school

they are all covered under the 1st amendment and allowable.

No, to the contrary, the courts have strongly decided schools are not absolute free speech zones-especially in regards to political (not religous) speech and that the concept of avoiding school disruption takes precedence. As a result, the courts dont really spend alot of time analyzing arguments that:

We are butt hurt because Principal "P" is biased against speech "S" and ordered us to stop speaking while at the same time, he allows his "cool" friends from socio political group "G" to have alot more leeway!

In the end, the courts are usually not going to second guess the principal - even if that means allowing biased decisions to stand. It does not matter if those who are butt hurt are progressives or conservative.

Mr.Nick · Mar 18, 2014

prometeus said:
Yes they do.

Nobody said they had to give up any hint, but please cite the cases you so adamantly believe that support your position. By your logic people give up their rights when they go into a theater.

No they did not.

It has nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling and everything to do with what is appropriate in school and at a what age.

Would you be OK if students put on a gay sex demonstration as the school your kids attend?

This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with depriving a living being the right to life.

Apparently you don't understand the concept of murder.

You do realize what the courts say is bull**** on a stick? you know that "honor killings" are perfectly fine in Islamic nations? so beyond the legality of the issue - murder is immoral and highly unethical beyond protecting yourself.

Also, do you know if a crazy lunatic shot a pregnant woman, resulting in the death of her "fetus" the shooter can and will be charged with murder?

So how the hell can a fetus have no rights if said fetus is treated like a person in a homicide case? what, the mother decides if the fetus is viable or not? in what universe is that even logical?

prometeus · Mar 18, 2014

jmotivator said:
Well sure, but then if you aren't reacting emotionally to the image then you also aren't likely to be offended by it.

The place in question was a lunch room, with students of all ages, even considering that it was a high school, and students can be offended. It does not take rocket science to figure out that the place and venue are not appropriate.

Many people keep their support for abortion only by ignoring what abortion actually is.

No one is ignoring anything, it is the termination of a pregnancy, but you clearly have to make more of it to further your agenda.

For many of those people the sight of a human baby in the womb, or a dead baby out of the womb creates a cogitative dissonance in them that manifests as outrage towards the presenter.

It is a ****ing fetus. Do you even have a clue what a first trimester fetus looks like?

1.2 million "services" provided and $300+ million in income annually sure sounds like an industry to me.

Verifiable source?

Mr.Nick · Mar 18, 2014

Cryptic said:
Good point. I think the courts have strongly decided that this concept takes precedence.
As a result, the courts dont really spend alot of time analyzing arguments that:

Principal "P" is biased against speech "S" and ordered us to stop speaking while at the same time, he allows his friends from socio political group "G" to have alot more leeway!

In the end, the courts are not going to second guess the principal - even if that means allowing biased decisions to stand.

The courts - especially district and SCOTUS are full of **** and only rule on emotion.

They don't interpret the constitutions - they rule on their own opinions.

We don't need idiots interpreting a document that is blunt in its writings.

prometeus · Mar 18, 2014

Mr.Nick said:
This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with depriving a living being the right to life.

Bull ****. It has everything to do with religion and there is no right to life.

Apparently you don't understand the concept of murder.

I do, buy obviously you have no clue.

You do realize what the courts say is bull**** on a stick?

Really? Cite a case.

you know that "honor killings" are perfectly fine in Islamic nations?

Another bunch of religious fanatics. Have you ever been there? Do you understand why they do it or you just like to throw emotional tripe because yo lack intelligent and coherent, not to mention relevant arguments?

so beyond the legality of the issue - murder is immoral and highly unethical beyond protecting yourself.

No **** and you came dup with this all by yourself? What do you call people who die as collateral damage?

Also, do you know if a crazy lunatic shot a pregnant woman, resulting in the death of her "fetus" the shooter can and will be charged with murder?

Not everywhere. Do you have any clue how many states have fetal homicide laws and how are they worded?

So how the hell can a fetus have no rights if said fetus is treated like a person in a homicide case?

It seems you do not understand even your own words. Treated like is not the same as "being it" the same way as a driver waiting in a car outside while an accomplice goes into a place and holds it up and shoots someone. The driver will face the same murder charge eve though he did not commit the killing or may not even know about it.

sangha · Mar 18, 2014

wrt 1st Amendment: Because they are minors, and because the school is acting in loco parentis, schools are allowed to limit the speech of students. However, there are limits on their ability to restrict speech.

IOW, arguing for the extreme positions at either end is just hyperbole

prometeus · Mar 18, 2014

Mr.Nick said:
The courts - especially district and SCOTUS are full of **** and only rule on emotion.

They don't interpret the constitutions - they rule on their own opinions.

We don't need idiots interpreting a document that is blunt in its writings.

Of course and we have your good expertise to rely on instead. Sorry, but no thanks.

Mr.Nick · Mar 18, 2014

prometeus said:
Really? How so?

Actually I can and quite well. That you do not like it or do not agree hardly makes your accusation be more than drivel born out of frustration.

I am siding with the school because it is the right thing to do and because liekj you amply are demonstrating here, the so called pro-life agenda is based on ignorance and morality coercion, none of which have a place in school.

Actually I know exactly the results on my actions, my well being depends on that too often to leave it to chance.

I am not interested in changing what you think, which by the way does not amount to facts anywhere but your own little world. You more than amply have demonstrated a closed mind so attempts would be futile and I do not do futile.

Yes you deny reality and the only reason you're siding with the school is because schools are authoritarian in nature - and progressives love authoritarianism, just as long as their politics are being implemented.

You see - you want your politics to be enforced by law.

Also, I don't give two ****s what you think about me - to me progressives don't matter and I could give a rats ass what they think because it's always wrong. And I'm no republican either - the RINO's are your friends and I'm not one of them.

You see - I don't consult my "politics" on issues such as these to come to a moral or ethical conclusion - you do. I live my life acknowledging what's ethical and moral - you live your life by what a bunch of idiots tell you how you SHOULD live your life, which is why you're arguing with me in the first place.

Paxaeon · Mar 18, 2014

Aunt Spiker said:
Sweet ****ing jesus.

Okay - whatever. Suddenly kids can say whatever they want AT SCHOOL. :roll:

The Freedom of Speech is many times misunderstood. It is a constitutional proscription that prohibits the government from stopping, preventing or otherwise censoring speech on public grounds. Having said that, Freedom of Speech is NOT absolute. The Supreme Court has ruled many times that free speech has it's limitation.

A public school is on "public grounds" so it would appear natural that Free Speech would be unilaterally tolerated. Legally, it is not that clear cut. When and if this case goes to a Federal court, the issue will not about abortion, but rather, whether the school violated the Establishment Clause by allowing, and thereby sanctioning, a pro-life student group on their campus.

soccerboy22 · Mar 18, 2014

Cryptic said:
No, to the contrary, the courts have strongly decided schools are not absolute free speech zones-especially in regards to political (not religous) speech and that the concept of avoiding school disruption takes precedence. As a result, the courts dont really spend alot of time analyzing arguments that:

We are butt hurt because Principal "P" is biased against speech "S" and ordered us to stop speaking while at the same time, he allows his "cool" friends from socio political group "G" to have alot more leeway!

In the end, the courts are usually not going to second guess the principal - even if that means allowing biased decisions to stand. It does not matter if those who are butt hurt are progressives or conservative.

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.

jmotivator · Mar 18, 2014

prometeus said:
The place in question was a lunch room, with students of all ages, even considering that it was a high school, and students can be offended. It does not take rocket science to figure out that the place and venue are not appropriate.

The choice seemed very appropriate if you think it got more attention.

No one is ignoring anything, it is the termination of a pregnancy, but you clearly have to make more of it to further your agenda.

It's the death of a human being.

It is a ****ing fetus. Do you even have a clue what a first trimester fetus looks like?

Yes, I do. It looks like a growing human being. By the late 1st trimester it has hands and eyes and everything else that would tell the unscientific, superficial people that it is human. The rest of us know it was human well before that.

Verifiable source?

US Census

And Prochoice.org

If you take the low estimate of $350 and multiply in by the 1.2 million you actually get $420 million annually. But it is likely much higher. It's an industry either way.

Mr.Nick · Mar 18, 2014

prometeus said:
Of course and we have your good expertise to rely on instead. Sorry, but no thanks.

I've been there and done that my entire life - my life has been so ****ed up I could write a book about it, however understand and accepting what is right and what is wrong and living by those standards is more difficult than not, and you're not living that lifestyle - you just rationalize your murder and theft as something "good" - something progressive - only because it benefits you. In short you're a selfish person that promotes murder in this case.

Abortion is wrong - you are NOT God, and if you don't believe in God abortion is immoral and unethical, while you're trying to mainstream baby genocide.

No intelligent concerned and moral human would ever buy what you're selling here.

Ikari · Mar 18, 2014

Paxaeon said:
The Freedom of Speech is many times misunderstood. It is a constitutional proscription that prohibits the government from stopping, preventing or otherwise censoring speech on public grounds. Having said that, Freedom of Speech is NOT absolute. The Supreme Court has ruled many times that free speech has it's limitation.

A public school is on "public grounds" so it would appear natural that Free Speech would be unilaterally tolerated. Legally, it is not that clear cut. When and if this case goes to a Federal court, the issue will not about abortion, but rather, whether the school violated the Establishment Clause by allowing, and thereby sanctioning, a pro-life student group on their campus.

The day that students engaging in political exercise is considered a violation of anything is the day we've really lost our political future.

How the heck is allowing a pro-life group to exist in school violating the Establishment clause? That's for religion.

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

ludin

Mr.Nick

ludin

prometeus

Mr.Nick

prometeus

Mr.Nick

prometeus

ludin

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

prometeus

prometeus

Cryptic

Mr.Nick

prometeus

Mr.Nick

prometeus

sangha

prometeus

Mr.Nick

Paxaeon

soccerboy22

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

Mr.Nick

Ikari