Try charging a student with keeping the neighbours awake or smashing windows in publicly funded student housing and you'll be in all sorts of trouble.That's true, but could our opponents ever allow this to be about the right of free expression? Could any of them allow us to speak up without feeling threatened by what we say? The answer could be found in the very same article, just a few paragraphs above the ones I quoted:
Persecute a bunch of young women who believe that the unborn child is unique from the point of conception, with its own DNA and a genomic character that is entirely separate from any other person, and you are thought of as being liberal, caring and responsible.
But, again, it shouldn't be about abortion but about the right of free expression.
The pictures are disturbing, which leads one to conclude that abortion itself may be disturbing. It's about dead babies stupid — always has been, always will be.Michael Coren chooses not to elaborate on that statement, but it's obvious this is a primary reason why our opponents want no debate on abortion. After all, do they have any scientific arguments to prove that abortion is not about dead babies? I've never seen any so far.
They may try to pass their groundless claims that fetus is not a baby as scientific arguments. They may try to substitute scientific arguments with ideological ones, claiming that woman's implied right to destroy her baby before he's too big to get noticed takes precedence over her baby's right to live. Those may be acceptable for the abortion activists in the Supreme Court, but what weight will they have in an open debate where the emphasis is on facts, not on the ideology? So the pro-aborts have no choice but to declare ideology superior to facts and try to intimidate anyone who thinks otherwise into silence of self-censorship.