The Shawano (Wisconsin) High School’s student newspaper decided to publish a “Pro vs. Con” feature on the contentious issue of gay couples adopting children. A student wrote a column advocating each position.
In his column headlined “Should Gay Couples Be Allowed To Adopt?” student Brandon Wegner catalogued various arguments against gay adoption, and included this:
“If one is a practicing Christian, Jesus states in the Bible that homosexuality is (a) detestable act and sin which makes adopting wrong for homosexuals because you would be raising the child in a sin-filled environment….A child adopted into homosexuality will get confused because everyone else will have two different-gendered parents that can give them the correct amount of motherly nurturing and fatherly structure. In a Christian society, allowing homosexual couples to adopt is an abomination.”
A male couple raising a child who goes to the school saw the paper, and strenuously objected to school administrators, saying that the piece was hateful and would encourage bullying. Naturally, the school district immediately caved and threw the student, the paper and the column under a metaphorical bus, because that’s what school administrators do. If an anti-gay bigot had objected to the pro-gay adoption feature, it is even money that the school would have done the same.
An official mea culpa was immediately released:
“The Shawano School District would like to apologize for a recent article printed in the Hawks Post newspaper. Proper judgment that reflects school district policies needs to be exercised with articles printed in our school newspaper. Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District. We sincerely apologize to anyone we may have offended and are taking steps to prevent items of this nature from happening in the future.”
This is how political correctness restricts enlightened and open debate, undermines education, and makes a mockery of both free speech and free thought. It also shows how intellectually and institutionally ill-equipped schools are to deal with complex issues.
Fact: a large segment of the American population containing citizens of intelligence and good character believe that gay adoptions are wrong, and the primary reason for that is the Bible. These people believe that homosexuality is immoral, because God said so, the Bible is His Word, and that is what they have been taught, what their community believes, what they are teaching their children, and what they think should be reflected in the nations laws and policies. I think that these citizens are tragically, harmfully, archaically misguided, but it is impossible to fairly discuss the pros and cons of gay adoption, gay marriage and society’s acceptance of gay Americans generally without referencing the Bible passages and the Fundamentalist Christian beliefs that Brandon’s article did, because that is the heart of the dispute.
Brandon, though I disagree with his conclusions, did his job thoroughly and courageously, in marked contrast to school authorities. He should not be impugned or attacked by school officials for making a good faith effort to explain why many people object to gay adoptions in a piece approved by the school paper’s management. Yet the school district’s release, without naming him, stated that he was “cultivating a negative environment of disrespect.” If Brandon was, so is the school: it is cultivating an environment of disrespect against Christians who believe as Brandon does, and with a vengeance: Brandon is just one student giving his opinion as part of a feature assignment, while the authority of the entire school system is attacking Brandon’s beliefs (or his explication of the beliefs of others) as “offensive.”
Gee, why are they offensive? Well, because the school has decreed it so, and all right thinking people will fall into line. Now there’s education, inquiry and encouragement of free thought for you! Hey, you know what might help explain the school’s position? How about a pro and con exchange in which each side of the controversy lays out its opinion and then rebuts the other? Yes!! That would be…wait, no, can’t do that, because one side is offensive.
Yes, it is the official Shawano School District policy that the Bible is offensive.
Explain to us again how the separation of church and state in public schools dictate a neutral stance towards all religions. Explain to me how this isn’t anti-Christian. Explain to us again how a school district declaring that it is terribly wrong for a student to cite the religious text millions of other Americans have been raised to honor, in the context of a policy debate where it is undeniably not only relevant but central, is not a per se interference with a citizen’s right to the free exercise of religion.
Then, to compound its mishandling of this incident, the school superintendent labeled the column a form of “bullying” in a Fox News interview. Outrageous. This is a stark example of how the anti-bullying hysteria is being used to stifle core freedoms. As Eugene Volokh writes:
“bullying,”… is speech that schools often ban even outside the school’s own newspaper, that schools often try to restrict even when it is said outside school, and that legislatures sometimes even try to criminalize. Indeed, the Shawano School District’s bullying policy provides that “bullying” may lead to “warning, suspension, exclusion, pre-expulsion, expulsion, transfer, remediation, termination, or discharge. Disciplinary consequences will be sufficiently severe to try to deter violations and to appropriately discipline prohibited behavior.”
And what was the bullying in this case? An essay defending a widely held social policy position using the Holy Bible, among other sources, and not aimed at any individual at all. The school’s attack, however, was aimed at an identifiable individual, whom it vilified on national television.
Who is the bully here?
I can completely understand any school’s decision that such an emotional and contentious issue as gay adoption is too hot for a school newspaper, in which case Shawano’s complaint is with the faculty advisor of the paper, not the students. I also think that the feature was a courageous one, and that with competent teachers and proper moderation, it could have led to a better understanding of why this is such a difficult subject. Instead, political correctness took over, saying, “There’s no debate: your position is cruel, hateful, stupid and bigoted, and that is that. Shut up.”
You know, they have a point, right?. What religions do is just declare something wrong because a deity says do…there’s no arguing or analysis any more. That’s morality, a system of right and wrong based on authority. And it’s offensive and disrespectful to use morality to argue for an unpopular position.
After all, the School District says so, and that’s all the students need to know!
Any questions?
Ethics Alarms 
I know this is about free speech but, as far as gays adopting, how about letting the states decide along with gay marriage,abortion and other things? This shouldn’t be a Federal issue as the Fed has limited,defined power. We could avoid all the fighting amongst ourselves this way I would think.
It’s not about free speech, though, because students’ speech can be abridged legally. This about pretending to have free and balanced debate, and then demonizing someone for making an unpopular argument. It’s about choosing to denigrate religion rather than arguing with it. And it is about fundamental unfairness, a bait and switch where the rules were changed on a student and he was made a villain for doing his job.
Jack,didn’t you do an article on schools being institutions of indoctrination? If it is so,that they are,then debate wouldn’t be an option.
I don’t recall writing that. I recall writing that schools should not be indoctrinating anyone. Like here and here. In this case, a student newspaper, not the school itself, attempted honest debate, and was slapped down by the school for doing it honestly.
I am not gay and I am a Christian. I really like the open debate idea. There is plenty of information to debate in science and the Bible. I see your point, Jack, about the public school system failing our kids. And it just isn’t about political correctness.
This is not new. I remember the indoctrination when I was in school. Even though I was in very conservative areas, it always had a liberal slant. Abortion was good, Christianity was bad (or for the uneducated), the Rosenbergs were innocent, only bigots are against affirmative action, etc. The difference now is that the schools have more police powers. If you challenge the ordained orthodox positions, the the teachers can write you a ticket for a public disturbance and you will have to pay it in court. They can punish you for your actions and speech off of school grounds.
A few years ago, our son asked me why we needed to learn Spanish. When I asked him what he meant, he said that his teacher told him that everyone in the US needed to learn Spanish because it is arrogant and racist to expect immigrants to learn English. I asked him “But what about immigrants from China, Poland, Vietnam, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran… “. I told him that having everyone EXCEPT immigrants learn new languages so immigrants don’t have to is stupid and unworkable. I then found out that the “bilingual education is good” is part of education orthodoxy. I told him to go along with it. It is too dangerous to let people like that know you are a heretic against the state orthodoxy.
I am not gay and I am a recovering Catholic. I am all for free and open debate. But the Anti-Gay adoption opinion has to get his “facts” straight. To the best of my knowledge, there is nowhere in the New Testament where “Jesus states in the Bible that homosexuality is (a) detestable act and sin..” Where are these so-called “Christians” getting their info?
All throughout the gospel of John, We find all of the references to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in the book of John (John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2 and John 21:7, John 21:20). While the Gospel of John does not specifically identify its author, and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is nowhere explicitly named in Scripture. But who is to say that this particular disciple didn’t have a romantic relationship with Jesus? It can’t be proven either way by modern means – unless there are new or suppressed scriptures that come into the debate that prove otherwise.
What I have come to learn in my short life here is that “History is shaped by those who control the debate, who frame the argument and who beat their drum the loudest. This poor kid has been for lack of a better word “brainwashed” by those that want to use Homosexuality as a wedge issue, nothing more. Those that protest too much about being gay usually have those feelings themselves. Any loving environment does a fantastic job of raising what we would deem a “normal” upbringing, period, with certain variables of exceptions.
I also agree that the school board is 100% wrong for coming down on this kid, as completely clueless as he is.
Great comment, and the Comment of the Day.
I wonder why this line of argument applies only to homosexuality.
Are those who strongly oppose Catholics have secret Catholic feelings?
Does the MADD leadership have secret feelings in favor of drunk driving?
Is the Southern Poverty law Center led by people with secret racist feelings?
Was Code Pink led by people with secret pro-war feelings?
Point taken. It’s not one of my favorite arguments.
Different arguments. “it is wicked and evil for anyone to do X, even though there is no harm from X” is very different from “catholocism contradicts the evidence”
You defend the kid by attacking him for his beliefs? And you call him clueless?
Can someone please explain to me how anybody can justify why a kid can be punished for writing the con half of a pro/con article? I don’t care what the topic was – this was an exercise in debate, giving both sides of a controversial subject and giving the reader the freedom to think for him/herself. Talk about brainwashing!
From this point on, this posting devolves from a commentary on how the young man in question was “had,” to yet another apology for homosexuality and attack on Christian beliefs. Yet the problem is about neither; it is about the right to one’s own beliefs and values and the right to express them freely without being judged by the listener/reader. The listener/reader likewise must have the freedom to accept or reject those values and beliefs. Period.
1. You’re right; it can’t be justified.
2. It is certainly fair to attack his argument, and the position he was supporting, whether or not he believes it himself.
3. As you say, the issue isn’t concerned with homosexuality at all.
4. That said, the moral position against homosexuality is completely anachronistic, transferring a reasonable tribal taboo that could once be justified under a “what if everybody did it?” rationale into pure bigotry without reason. Bryan’s column cited the Bible’s endorsement of the killing of homosexuals, which everyone agrees is archaic and wrong, yet the Bible is still used as an authority on the status of homosexuality. Why? Isn’t there ample proof that the book is full of superstition, ancient biases and social rules that no longer make sense in an enlightened society?
The Bible did nort endorse the killing of homosexuals on the basis of sexual orientation; rather, it endorsed execution of persons found guilty of certain sexual practices. Homosexuals who were not found guilty of breaking these laws were not subject to execution.
Here is a short proof by contradiction that the execution of persons found guilty of engaging in illegal sexual conduct is not always wrong.
If it was always wrong to execute people convicted of having sex with others of the same sex, then it is always wrong to authorize, advise, or mandate such executions.
Thus, it was wrong for God to authorize such executions.
But God is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, He does as He pleases, and His might makes right. That means whatever He does is right. That is a contradiction, and as such it is not always wrong to execute people found guilty of engaging in certain sexual practices.
Q.E.D.
That is, of course, the ultimate circular argument, and if you don’t watch out, I’ll sic tgt on you.
Jack! This begs the question. Do you sic tgt on me?
Never. Actually, he doesn’t need any direction, but its fun to pretend.
You’re saying that God can’t do evil. God can do anything, but by doing something, it’s automatically good… no matter what it is. If God feels like killing babies, then it’s good to kill babies. That’s not morality; it’s the absence of morality.
Morality is God’s might making right.
Ah…playground logic.
…Anyone want to ask again why justifying faith is dangerous? I’m calling this exhibit A.
Come on—there has to be a less generic name for it than THAT!
tgt, humans claim the right to kill babies,in utero so far. Why should it be immoral for God to? That is, if He were inclined to do that.
You equivocated on the word baby.
Anyway, I meant in general. Even for a fetus, willy-nilly killing is going to be unethical.
5,000 abortions are performed late term (after 24 weeks)each year. That’s a baby,child,unborn mammal,whatever. It’s human.
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-24-weeks
5000,give or take,late term (after 24 weeks) abortions are performed every year. They look like babies to me,human too.
5000,give or take,late term (after 24 weeks) abortions are performed every year.
For perspective, more than 100 million babies are born each year.
They look like babies to me,human too.
Therefore, they must be human babies. Honey badgers look like a wonderful pet to me. I’m sure that means they won’t kill me.
For perspective, more than 100 million babies are born each year.
So killing a few in utero won’t matter
They look like babies to me,human too.
Therefore, they must be human babies.
tgt,are you serious? What other species would humans be pregnant with?
So killing a few in utero won’t matter
That wasn’t my implication. I was just point out that your 5000 number was improperly scary.
tgt,are you serious? What other species would humans be pregnant with?
You missed the point. Fetuses are not babies. They are fetuses. A human fetus is not a human baby. At later stages, a human fetus looks like a human baby, but that doesn’t make it a baby. A human fetus looks like a soccer ball and a fish at different points in its development, by your logic, it must be a soccer ball, then a fish, then a human baby.
Your inaccurate language is misleading. A baby is a baby. A fetus is a fetus. Got it?
” A human fetus looks like a soccer ball and a fish at different points in its development, by your logic, it must be a soccer ball, then a fish, then a human baby.”
I was being sarcastic.
Posts got reordered. I’m going to start a new thread to reply.
1. Little if anything is served by having such a debate in the pages of the school newspaper. Both sides will merely preach to the converted. Sensationalist “journalism” at the expense of actual reporting starts early. But the school paper’s editors seem at least sincere in their attempt to present both sides of a contentious issue.
2. “Jesus states in the Bible that homosexuality is (a) detestable act and sin” is a factually incorrect statement. Such attitudes are expressed in the Old Testament and by Paul, but never by Jesus. Perhaps young Mr. Wegner would do well to read the book he cites as the ultimate source for his argument.
3. We do not live in a “Christian society,” although there are those who would wish it otherwise. That is, what passes muster with Mr. Wegner’s interpretation of religion has legitimacy in those terms, but American society is founded on inclusion, and is specifically not about any one religion’s perspective, let alone an adolescent kid’s perception of that religion’s world view.
All that said…
4. The school board’s actions are themselves far closer to bullying than Mr. Wegner’s article is. It may or may not be true that Mr. Wegner is a bully in other ways (I doubt it, but it’s a possibility), but actually making a case he was (presumably) asked to make is hardly to be condemned. I think his argumentation is terrible, and that he’s wrong in manifold ways. Silencing him–or others whose views on a variety of issues might differ from mine–is not the way to prove that.
I would say that Rick is being at least as misleading in point 3 as Mr. Wenger was (as explained in point 3). American society has been vitally shaped by Christian tradition. As an outgrowth of European society, with the Catholic church as its moral center for over 1000 years, it cannot be helped. Add in the Reformation and its effects on early American history and the traditional overwhelming dominance of Christianity over all other religions in the United States and the statement that the United States is a Christian nation makes more sense that stating that it is not. The Confrontational church was the official, established, state supported church in several states until the mid 19th century. If you ask people in other countries “Is the United States a Christian nation or not?”, what answer do you think you will get?
Michael, I don’t accept the “Christian society” argument and “Christian nation” argument, and never have.
This isn’t a theocracy, and the Founders drew a hard line to distinguish the US from England, which was unequivocally linked to Christianity. Indeed, given the homogeneity of early America, it is remarkable that it wasn’t designed as a Christian nation. If you are talking about cultural foundation, absolutely, Christian cultural traditions and values are core. But that’s like saying that Western culture is Greek in 2012. But just as the fact that humans evolved from apes doesn’t mean that humans are apes, the fact that the US culture evolved from substantially Christian roots cannot be used to assert that the nation is Christian. Calling the Founders Christian is a stretch; you do not find references to Jesus in the founding documents, and the religious faith of people like Adams, Jefferson and Franklin appears as expedient as it is anything else. Asking how the US is perceived is not germane to what it is: Egypt and Syria are not perceived by most of the US public as being African. So what?
The main objection to the Christian nation trope, however, is that it presents Christians as First Citizens, with a special claim to special status and influence, making Jews, Muslims, atheists and others outsiders, interlopers,”the opposition” and inherently unwelcome. There is absolutely no doubt THAT is contrary to core American philosophy, and therefore I regard it as toxic, inherently divisive and right up there with a person claiming special status because their relatives came over on the Mayflower. It’s also a lazy argument. The US embraces independence, individual rights, self-determination, freedom, family, dignity, kindness, justice and other core beliefs not because they are Christian, but because they work, they celebrate the human spirit, they are good and they are right. And values and traditions that meet those standards should always be welcome here whether theiy are Christian or not, and whatever their origins.
Jack,
the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It had upheld a law on the basis that it imposed sanctions on a practice that was “contrary to
the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity
has produced in the western world.” Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890)
Uh-huh. You might as well cite Dred Scott. The rule of thumb is that if you have to go back over a hundred years for a SCOTUS precedent, you’re in desperate straits.
How so? Marbury v. Madison ,5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803), was decided over two hundred years ago; it’s precedential force is at least as strong now as it was then, if not stronger. Supreme Court decisions do not have expiration dates; they control until the Supreme Court overrules then. Mormon Church was not overruled, and as such it is still good law.
What you were refencing was reasoning, not a decision. Supreme Court reasoning is non precedental. There have been 120 years of cases since then that could have been determined based on the spirit of Christianity. That they aren’t anymore is prima facie evidence that this is no longer considered valid reasoning by the court.
Two different situations. One is a landmark case that has been used for the basis of judicial review. The other is an outlier and an outdated case that hasn’t been cited by the court in over half a century, and they just haven’t bothered to over-rule it. One doesn’t need to cite Marshall’s opinion, because there are literally hundreds of subsequent opinions relying on it. That’s why I said “If you have to…” There are many valid old cases, but newer cases reiterate their holdings. If there aren’t such recent cases, the old case is a dud.
I nominate this for COTD.
It is a bad statement either way, but I am saying that there is more to support The United States as a Christian nation than there is to support that the United States is not a Christian nation. When people state that the United States is not a Christian nation, the subtext is that is a nation of athiests, or that Christianity has had no influence on American society or culture, which is much less true. I was supporting ‘a’ as the answer to the following question.
The United States is (choose the best answer from below)
(a) a Christian nation
(b) an athiestic nation
(c) a Muslim nation
(d) a Jewish nation
(e) a Buddhist nation
(f) an agnostic nation
(g) a Hindu nation
(h) an LDS nation
(i) a nation of Scientologists
The question was raised, it is a bad question, but if you must choose one answer. Which is it?
How about “the US is a Secular Nation, where everyone has the freedom to believe whatever they want to believe as long as it does no harm to any other earthing?” You trying to label “freedom” is where you are having a disconnect. At least that is how it comes across to me.
When people state that the United States is not a Christian nation, the subtext is that is a nation of athiests, or that Christianity has had no influence on American society or culture, which is much less true.
That subtext is not true. It does not follow, especially when the statment is in direct response to a claim that the US is a Christian Nation.
The question was raised, it is a bad question, but if you must choose one answer. Which is it?
(j) none of the above.
That’s the only proper answer. Just because a question is raised doesn’t mean it’s worth answering in your particular limits. For example:
Michael is (choose the best answer from below)
(a) a tomato.
(b) a pear.
(c) an apple.
(d) a cucumber.
(e) a potato.
(f) a kiwi.
Tgt’s answer couldn’t be better. Which of these equally wrong answers would you choose if you had no other choice? What difference does it make? They are all wrong answers.
Jack, not all Christians who have trouble with gays adopting children are fundamentalists. The Catholic Church, anything but fundamentalist, is nonetheless opoosed to the practice. Numerous Protestant churches, also non-fundamentalist, take the same position. I do think it fairly safe to say, however that while all fundamentalists are opposed to gays adopting, not all people opposing gay adoptions are fundamentalists.
Agreed; I couldn’t come up with a properly inclusive category for those who use the Bible or religion as the basis for the position. Suggestions welcome.
Andrew Sullivan would call them “Christianists,” but that seems to be based disagreement with his pet beliefs about what christianity should be.
I wonder what would happen if the Marquart girl, who is the granddaughter of the Shawano mayor, was done in this manner by Christians who were offended at her article?
Pingback: The Shawno School District of Wisconsin Teaches Bad Citizenship | Popehat
When my children attended school in this district (from 2006-2009), they had “Gay Day”, where the children were to dress as if they were gay. My kids were against that idea and didn’t want to go. I called the school and told them that my children wouldn’t be attending that day and was told, “well, they don’t have to participate”. True, but I was offended and felt that it distracted from the learning opportunities they were to provide for my children. They seemed to feel that I was just overreacting.
Good heavens! That’s astounding. How did that stay out of the news?
Um… what does one wear to “dress as if … gay”? Dressing according to some ignorant stereotype (apologies for redundancy) of what gay people wear, with lots of mauve and glitter? Or wearing what a considerable number of, you know, actual gay people wear, which is indistinguishable from everyone else’s wardrobe?
Fascinating question. So instead of being a brain-dead, anti-gay stunt, it was really a subtle, “See? Gays are no different from anyone else!” stunt! Brilliant! Actually, that would make more sense than the former….but somehow I doubt it.
So dressing gay—The Village People? Ru Paul? Richard Simmons? Elton John? Barney Frank?
James Buchanan?
Oscar Wilde would be kind of fun. Roy Cohn, not so much.
America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the “land of the free”. Andrew Shepard (“American President”)
This might be just a movie but seems like a good quote, and the Superintendent needs to understand about free speech and blame the student advisor instead of the student for letting the artical to be printed
Good quote. Too bad you missed the point of it. Your lessen says “have intermediaries stop flag burning and blood boiling speach” when it should be “Stand up for the flag burners and blood boiling speakers”
My point was instead of jumping on the young man. He should of questioned the person in charge of the student paper. After all someone was in charge of letting the article go to press. If he disagreed with the article it was not the authors fault that it got printed, it was the person in charge of the paper. The young man is entitled to his view as well as the young lady that wrote the other side of the article. The Superintendent caved in to an angry parent with out thinking who was really responsable for the paper and once it was printed should not have thrown the student under the bus for his views. It may seem like i am believing in censorship, I do not. Once the article was published he should of defended it as right of free speech, but he didn’t. We all know not everything that is written is published because of editors views and beliefs, they are the ones who have to in the end be held accountable, not the people who write their opinion to be published. In Shawano people are talking about the young man and the Superintendent and forgetting there is also someone in between that made the choice to have it printed. Was the either the young man or young lady wrong? No. Was the Superintendent? Yes for over reacting and not talking to the person in charge of editing the student paper.
You really don’t understand what you quoted.
You believe in censorship. You just believe the censors should actively keep people from saying what they want to say. If speech that isn’t liked gets out, it’s someone’s fault, and they need to be held accountable.
I don’t use this word very much, but your belief is atrocious.
Are you saying that the news media isn’t cencored or slanted to the owner of that particular media point of view? Is it right no but is it happening, of course it is. All one has to do is listen to Fox or MNBC to see that. In any form of the media there is censorship in one form or another. I am only saying don’t blame the kid for what he wrote. he has a right to his beliefs. just as you have the right to believe my belief are artocous
Are you saying that the news media isn’t cencored or slanted to the owner of that particular media point of view?
No. It shouldn’t be, but of course it is. What I don’t understand is how that has any bearing on your statement: “[The superintendent] should [have] questioned the person in charge of the student paper.”
We know that a school paper isn’t a public forum, or even a limited public forum, but you’re advocating for censorship here. If the school paper’s advisor gets punished for a completely appropriate pro-con, do you think the paper is going to print any more pro-cons?
No what I am saying these students were told to write this article. They didn’t choose the subject.their advisor did. So the Superintendent should not be jumping on the student for doing the work. To call the student to task is crazy. As the article above states “I can completely understand any school’s decision that such an emotional and contentious issue as gay adoption is too hot for a school newspaper, in which case Shawano’s beef is with the faculty advisor of the paper, not the students”. Keep in mind the faculty advisor is a employee of the schools and should know what the school deems appropriate and what it doesn’t
Just because the Superintendent’s beef should have been with the faculty advisor does not mean that his beef is ethical.
Going back so you don’t move the goalposts on me:
This might be just a movie but seems like a good quote, and the Superintendent needs to understand about free speech and blame the student advisor instead of the student for letting the artical to be printed[.]
The point of the quote is that we should defend free speech, not that we should figure out who is responsible for it and blame them. There’s nothing to blame.
I messed up my cite tag. the last paragraph is me. The third paragraph is the quote that stated your opinion.
The point I was trying to make is that the students should not be punished for doing what was expected of them
Good, sane position.
You do realize that had nothing to do with the movie quote, right?
Yes I do the quote is a good quote, I also come from Shawano so I have a inside view of what is happening here
tgt & W.A.E. – Nice job debating your opinions in a logical, civilized manner – pleasure to read..!
5,000 abortions are performed late term (after 24 weeks)each year. That’s a baby,child,unborn mammal,whatever. It’s human.
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-24-weeks
Restating your original statement doesn’t answer my complaints. You claimed it was a baby because it looks like a baby. By this logic, a fetus is also a soccer ball and a fish at different times. Are you up for agreeing that fish-fetuses and soccer ball-fetuses can be aborted? Some people say killing fish is immoral unless you eat them, so we have to eat these aborted fetuses, right?
Oh shut up tgt! You are so funny! ❤
I can’t take the credit. I just apply logic to the arguments you give me.
And flawed logic it is. Do you have a sense of humor,teeg? I need one or I’d have to strangle you!
What flawed logic?
I said that fetuses aren’t babies and that the abortions aren’t ethical if they’re willy nilly.
You said that fetuses are babies, and supported it by saying they look like babies to you. They’re babies because they look like babies. That makes them wrong to abort. When those same fetuses look like soccer balls, there’s no argument left…but you still consider them babies, right? Clearly, that more developed fetuses look like babies wasn’t the reason you are against abortion. It was a smokescreen, and I pointed that out quite nicely.
You also noted that 5,000 of these 24 week plus abortions occur a year. I assume that was in my response to the willy-nilly comment. Those 5,000 abortions is less than 1 in 20,000 births (I think I’m greatly underestimating births here, so it’s likely even lower than that). It seems like if there was a pattern of willy nilly abortions, that would be much higher. Also, I didn’t say that their aren’t unethical people in the world and unethical decisions to abort, so it’s not like your data even could have countered my argument.
I’m responding to another comment elsewhere here, as it seems to fit:
” A human fetus looks like a soccer ball and a fish at different points in its development, by your logic, it must be a soccer ball, then a fish, then a human baby.”
I was being sarcastic.
You were being sarcastic when you said a fetus is a baby because it looks like a baby or when you said I was funny? If it was the latter, my response to you assumed that. If it was the former, I’d be glad to welcome you to the sane position. If it was anything else, I’m lost.
Yes but do you have a sense of humor?
I’m sorry…what was this article about? Threads take on a life of their own.