Tough call

Pro-life display elicits mixed reaction, moral conflicts

Editor's Note: The Daily Collegian Board of Opinion, much like the rest of the University community, was strongly divided on the issue of the pro-life demonstration on campus last week. Though the board agreed on the group's First Amendment right to demonstrate on campus, it was split as to whether it is appropriate to question the tactics or logic behind the display. The following presents the two separate viewpoints on the issue:

n Absolute free speech

The display last week on campus protesting abortion touched many people who saw or heard about it.

Despite all of the personal feelings evoked by this display and the issues surrounding it, the group sponsoring the demonstration had a right to do everything it did.

The First Amendment, one of the best things about living in this country, protects any speech, no matter how offensive it may be to others.

We may or may not agree with the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform on any level -- its stance on abortion or its methods for getting its point across.

If this group's speech were to be restricted -- by individuals, the University or the government -- it would set a dangerous precedent for the future. No one should be able to decide what speech is permitted in the free marketplace of ideas.

No matter what anyone thinks about abortion or the week-long demonstration, it cannot be disputed that the display and the issue generated discussion throughout much of the community.

And if the group had been stopped from sharing its thoughts and views with the rest of the community, that discussion would not have occurred. If nothing else, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and its display made the majority of us think.

n Sensitive free speech

While we agree that the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform can and should exercise its First Amendment right, we question its logic.

Abortion is the topic at hand, not lynching, not the Holocaust and not animal rights. Why equate abortion to these events?

The photographs of aborted fetuses could stand alone and cause people to think or react, but correlation to past events only stands to offend people that have been affected by theses past circumstances.

Consider Tuvia Abramson, director of HILLEL: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, he was not concerned with abortion or whether it is right or wrong in his objections to the protest.

He was concerned with the honor of the Holocaust survivor and guest speaker at the University Elie Wiesel and the six million Jewish citizens that died during World War II.

Abramson objected to their deaths being used for the political gain of a current organization.

Theses images may have changed the minds of a few or the minds of many people on campus about abortion.

But are a few changed opinions about abortion worth offending the Jewish and black members of our community?