Response to Reinier's letter re U of C wasting money

Dear Reinier,




Whether we are talking about abortion or free speech, the essential premises of the pro-life group are based on the following aphorisms:
1. human life begins with conception
2. there is a human being from the moment there is human life.

Syllogism 1 (Abortion).
Human beings have a right to life.
This foetus is a human being,
Therefore this foetus has a right to life.

Syllogism 2 (Free speech)
Human beings have a right to be heard.
All those foetuses (fetuses,foeti) about to be aborted are human beings,
Therefore all those foetuses have a right to be heard.


Obviously my presentation of the pro-life premise is heavily flavoured by my faith as a Roman Catholic but I believe that this, purely and simply, is the crux of the great divide. If pro-choicers are basing their conclusions on premises contradictory to these then all discussion on the conclusions will sound like a discussion with the Mad Hatter.

It seems to me that people are spending too much time debating, arguing, fighting, whatever, over conclusions to syllogisms based on different or contradictory premises instead of discussing the differences between the critical premise. (For readers who don't know, a syllogism is a conclusion based on two propositions called premises, e.g.: all dogs are mammals; Lassie is a dog; therefore Lassie is a mammal.)

Before going on further down this road I would like to get your response to the above. Also, I have presented you with what I believe to be, at least the Catholic cohort's version of, the essential premise of the pro-life movement. I would be curious to know how you would state the essential axioms and premise(s) of pro-choicers.

Best regards
Terry

A response to "U of C wasting money"

On Feb 3 I posted an article published by the Calgary Herald, U of C wasting money.  My brother-in-law in Scotland, Reinier, sent me an email expressing reservations and defending the university's position. Reinier and I have had many debates and discussions on many things. I love him dearly, as he does me, and we have a deep respect for each other. We simply do not agree on some issues - this being one of them. With his permission I post his response here. The photos are nothing to do with the article or Reinier's response but were taken when Ingrid, Judith and I visited Glasgow two years ago. The one on the left is Judith, Maya, Reinier and Ingrid walking along the bonnie banks o' Loch Lomond. On the right is Fleshmarket Close in Edinburgh where Ian Rankin had somebody murdered in his book of the same name.

Hi Terry

I, too, expected you to disagree with me. But, perhaps, both of us are wrong to’expect’ these stances from one another. On second reflection, me, you, and people generally are far more complex in their emotions and reactions to life’s challenges than we would credit.

I know that the ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ debates conjure the most bitter and emotionally-charged arguments. Your  blog entry and links to the U of Calgary and their SU webpage (I’m sorry! …don’t know how to do these links!) reveals an abundance of opinions regarding the rights and wrongs of abortion. 

The issue regarding banning the particular group, though, seems to be about the rights and wrongs of free speech. And the right – if that is claimed – of a group of people to confront very vulnarable women regarding their fucundacy or pregnancy. I believe that’s wrong - and if you go to the U of C website and read the comments I think you’ll agree that, at the very least, the pro-life campaign is problematic.

Of course you are welcome to publish my response. Like, you – even if from the opposite angle – I would welcome further debate. 

Fond regards,

Reinier

University of Calgary trampling on free speech

The following is taken from today's online edition of the Calgary Herald

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/wasting+money/1246995/story.html

U of C wasting money

In pursuing trespassing charges against students who set up a pro-life display on campus last fall, the University of Calgary is not only trampling on free speech, it is wasting money on an expensive court case at a time when the global economic crisis has cost the university $78 million of its endowment fund. The money the U of C is about to fritter away on lawyers and court costs in its oppression of students whose only "crime" is publicly espousing pro-life views, could be better directed to research, infrastructure, scholarships for underprivileged students or other practical purposes.

The university's hypocrisy is appalling and not just because a university by its very nature is supposed to be a forum for free speech, dissent and debate. As the Campus Pro-Life club points out, theirs is the only group whose graphic display the university ordered turned inward so passersby couldn't see it. A bare 30 metres from the pro-life display, graphic pictures of atrocities inflicted on members of Falun Gong by the Chinese government were al-lowed to be on display with nary a word of protest from university authorities. The university clearly appears to be muzzling views with which it does not agree -- a shameful stance for any institution worthy of the name "university" to take.

Last November, the club received a letter from Paul Beke, the U of C's lawyer, claiming that the university is private property and has a right to control what happens on that property. The university, in reality, is a publicly funded institution, and students who have paid tuition to attend the U of C cannot be accused of trespassing when they're on campus. They also have a right to express their views, regardless of how unpopular those views may be with the administration.

A court must rule on the side of freedom of expression, for if students' opinions are successfully muzzled today, then perhaps tomorrow the university's professors need to start looking over their shoulders, too.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald