I find it interesting that you couldn't take the high road and condemn Jacobsen without referring to others.

Your tone of superiority is insufferable.

The point is that people should organize and present their view, not destroy others' property.

Speaking of what I find repugnant, I certainly find the anti-choice "Class of 2010: 347 didn't make it" very distasteful. I'm glad that the other Princeton students organized something against it (rather than destroying said flags).

Both the Princeton “347 didn’t make it� & the cemetery of crosses are “distasteful�.
Thing is, that’s the whole point. Neither of these protests pictures the actual mutilated fetuses and graphically strewn body parts that the procedure actually produces. On the contrary each display merely alludes to the extent of the procedure and it toll. The students who erect such displays find it extremely distasteful, and one supposes that is why they are driven to erect such reminders.

I find it interesting that you couldn't take the high road and condemn Jacobsen without referring to others.

I did condemn her actions. What "others" are you talking about?

I don't condemn her (alleged) actions, in her position I would have been sorely tempted to do the same. But I don't think she acted very wisely, it would have been better to stage a counter-rally or to change the rules that let a group mount a semi-permanent and unattended display on campus.

I do support campus activism, but I think that it should be in the form of active demonstrations or debates or lectures. The installation that was set up on this campus is essentially an anonymous statement which doesn't promote constructive dialogue or reasonable thought, both of which are part of the raison-d'etre of academe. Unattended semi-permanent displays also transfer responsibility for the message onto the university itself, so if I were a member of the faculty I would see it as my right to have a say in the messages being promoted on campus.

I'm happy to condemn her (and/or her students') actions here. They were being immature and mean-spirited. Political activism is a lot more productive when it's carried out by grownups.

Eh, I rip down anti-choice flyers all the time.

I would think twice before doing this if I were faculty, especially if I were faculty in Kentucky, but not because it is so wrong, just because they would get really bent out of shape if you got caught.

Otherwise, I say we are in an outright war, and the other side isn't taking the mature high road, and I have no intention of doing this either.

I fully support what she did. It was illegal and childlish but I don't like the right to life movement and anything that pisses them off is fine by me.

the gross anti-choice “Class of 2010: 347 didn't make it� flags put up on campus.

What's so gross about that?

the gross anti-choice “Class of 2010: 347 didn't make it� flags put up on campus.

What's so gross about that?

347 an arbitrary number, and since university class sizes are capped, the whole concept has no basis in fact. It's really just designed for shock value, and in poor taste.

However, I think it's less offensive than an anti-choice protest a few of my male friends saw while driving to Mardi Gras in 2003. These people put their children (most looked about five years old) along the highway, holding large signs with pictures of aborted fetuses on them.

HONESTLY. I'm so glad we have people with such laudable parenting skills to tell everyone else that they should have children they don't want or can't support at that point in their lives.

I'd argue about the validity of the number myself, but I don't see anything "gross" about the concept. Dragging kids along to anti-abortion protests is scuggy. Dragging kids along to anti-anti-abortion protests is equally scuggy.

I personally applaud your condemnation of these actions. Destruction of property/media/whatever is not something that will ever be viewpoint specific -- if we condone tearing down anti-choice displays or posters, as offensive as we may find them, we condone tearing down pro-choice displays as well.

This kind of issue is actually where the N.O.W. lost my support -- there was a lawsuit a while back against a group of anti-choice protesters, wherein the NOW was trying to revoke their right to protest (I don't think they were actually blocking entryways to clinics or harrassing people, just protesting across the street or some such) and when they (predictably) lost the suit, they made some kind of statement about how it was this huge loss to women's rights. This kind of thinking just makes no sense to me... and in my opinion, ultimately women's rights and being pro-choice and feminist is a subset of advocating freedom and autonomy in general.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I have no problem with property destruction for political purposes, so I would never criticize her for that. Remember, if things keep going the way they are, things are gonna get a lot crazier than pulling up some crosses.

That said, I think that the action was strategically not very good, and that the consequences greatly outweighed the benefits.

Here's an excerpt from an email I just got from Planned Parenthood-- Do you think this is better or worse than tearing down some self-righteous undergraduate display?

The Story: An Indiana mother recently accompanied her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend to one of Indiana's Planned Parenthood clinics, but they unwittingly walked into a "crisis pregnancy center" run by an anti-abortion group — one that shared a parking lot with the real Planned Parenthood clinic, and was designed expressly to lure our patients and deceive them.

The group took down the girl's confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which they said would be in their "other office" (the real Planned Parenthood office nearby). When she arrived for her appointment, not only did the Planned Parenthood staff have no record of her, but the police were there — the "crisis pregnancy center" had called them, claiming that a minor was being forced to have an abortion against her will.

The "crisis pregnancy center" staff then proceeded to wage a campaign of intimidation and harassment over the following days, showing up at the girl's home and calling her father's workplace. Our clinic director reports that she was "scared to death to leave her house." They even went to her school and urged classmates to pressure her not to have an abortion.

Nice story, where's the proof? Or does everyone just lap it up because it supports there side?

Speaking of destroying property for "political purposes", I guess you think it's ok for either side to do that then? And what about violence to persons? Are you in favor of that?

Nice story, where's the proof? Or does everyone just lap it up because it supports your side?

Speaking of destroying property for "political purposes", I guess you think it's ok for either side to do that then? And what about violence to persons? Are you in favor of that?

Actually, abortion is not a reproductive rights issue. When you become pregnant, you've already reproduced.
Silly Liberals, get the facts straight!

Oh yeah, and as for your precious feminism, read this:
“No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life�

Susan B. Anthony

That's right. One of the early FEMINISTS.

Of course, if you truly hold pro-life moral convictions, you equally denounce the killing of innocents in wars - such as Iraq.

Too bad I never see pro-life advocates at anti-war rallies.

Actually, the pro-life display at Princton was also destroyed, although the student pro-choice group does deny involvement.
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/04/21/news/15337.shtml

Also, I was wondering anyone had more information on the Planned Parenthood email Dina mentioned. I have been unable to find anything about it in the news, and the scenario seems very unlikely. When would a crisis pregnancy center refer a girl to Planned Parenthood? Also, how would a person not be able to distinguish which office is Planned Parenthood's? Planned Parenthood must have some sort of sign, otherwise, how would anyone find it?

I can only find this story posted word for word on pro-choice/pro-abortion sites. I would hope that these sites would verify something before just copying and pasting. Have you verified it, Dina? Or is this yet another example of gullible, ignorant people being mislead by PP?

I support Diversity of tactics.

I think it's kind of repugnant to be putting someone who got arrested for actually doing something to oppose these types down for not being "actually productive" from your high horse on a blog on the inernet.