My pro-choice professor

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

We had a discussion in my written communications class over a story we had just finished reading. There is a passage having to do with miscarriage, that is rather disgusting. But i felt that i didn't need to express my disgust, because other students did.

I guess the teacher wanted to move the discussion into being that abortion is different from a miscarriage. And duh, obviously, we cannot object to a miscarriage, because it isn't immoral. She asked if anybody was pro-life, or pro-choice or whatever. I raised my hand.

Knowing that this is supposed to be a discussion, and not a debate, i just presented briefly, that the child in the mother's womb has a right to life that should be protected. I gave my case.

A couple students then ignorantly claimed that "it is just a clump of cells." So in order to clarify, i had said that i once seriously believed that, until i checked out some growth charts etc.

The professor then interrupted me. She went on to explain that there were abortions before it was legal. Of course (she even had the stupidity, as if to add to credibility, of a certain catholic hospital which had abortions, which i find rather silly). I thought, sure there will probably be abortions if it became illegal. (i was hoping that she was going to assert that society needs to change to the point that no abortions should be made, this is something else i could agree with) Then she moved onto the decrease of crime arguement. And she even used a graphic example of some crime that probably could have been committed if the murderers mother had an abortion.

I was going to affirm some of her comments, most namely, that yes, i think society has a responsibility to those who are in poverty, to improve their conditions, to lessen the temptation to abortion. And that government needs to shape society, to make it easier for children to have oppurunites. But she looked at me so sharply as to cut my throat, and said that she was not done yet.

Apparently, she had turned the discussion into a debate, where she gets the final say. Namely that only children who have the oppurtunity to be loved and nurtured properly, should be born.

I am obviously not convinced. Her arguements are filled with so much logical fallacies that i cannot sleep at night. If the discussion gets any responses, i will probably explain the fallacies in detail.

But i feel that she wasn't arguing with me, as much as she was arguing with the "conservative anti-abortionist anti-femist" she mistakenly belives me to be. Because, she seemed to be a bit angry, when she cut me off.

I do want to confront her during her office hours, and resolve this. I don't plan on going in there to "convince" her, because honestly i don't see she has a heart to accept it. I do want to let her know, that i feel that she didn't allow an open minded discussion, and that i feel that she has purposefully humiliated me in front of the class, and has misrepresented my position.

SHALOM

[phatcatholic]

yea, i definitely wouldn't go in there to continue the debate. however, i would voice my concern about a pro-choice argument being forced upon you in a [i][b]writing communcations[/b][/i] class. it was simply unprofessional of her to do what she did. what's funny is that universities are supposed to be all about "free thinking" and all that garbage......until you disgree w/ the all-wise and all-knowing english professor. haha, what a joke she obviously has a personal axe to grind, and she couldn't resist the urge to grind it, regardless of the setting. of course, you want to say all this much nice than i have. perhaps something like this:


"Hey, Mrs. Teacher. Can I talk to you for a sec?"

"Sure Billy, what can I do for you."

"Well, I wanted to talk about the conversation we had in class the other day about abortion. I promise I'm not here to change your mind or anything. I just wanted you to know that I was a little startled by how it all happened. I thought you wanted us to briefly give our opinions about the passage, but when I expressed mine you seemed to get kinda angry at me. I didn't mean to make you angry or anything. I guess I just want to know if it's still okay for me to raise my hand and comment on what we're reading, even if people might disagree with it."

"Oh, sure, sure, that's fine" (there's no way she would contradict "free thinking" even tho she might want to....).

"Ok, thank you Mrs. Teacher, see you on Monday!"

"Cya Billy"


i think approaching it this way will be good b/c it takes a more innocent and benign approach. plus, it'll make her at least think first before she flies off the handle.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Dreamweaver]

I agree with what Phatcatholic states. Meet with her outside of class to discuss how you feel. If she still continues to harass you, you could make an appointment with the department head.

Be careful with arguing with people who are in control of your grades! I almost got into an argument over calico cats with my Bio150 prof. Heh, I decided it wasn't worth it, even though I was right.

[phatcatholic]

of course you were right

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

If anybody was interested in analyzing the arguements she made, let me know. I can dissect them. Just as a matter of being ready for situations to reasonably discuss this with other people. (although my purpose to see the teacher, once again, is not to further discuss this issue)

And thanks phatcatholic for the response, that is probably what i needed a little script.

SHALOM

[Thy Geekdom Come]

What utter idiocy. What she really was arguing with the crime factor is a commonly veiled argument Margaret Sanger made when she said that we should have abortion clinics more commonly situated in largely minority controlled areas in order to wipe out minorities. Because that's so obviously objectionable nowadays, the argument switched to one of "crime control"...of course, it's just dumb. Human dignity is inherent in every human.

Ask your teacher if she's an advocate of this form of crime control:

A black man kills a white woman and runs away. The witnesses all testify that it was indeed a black man who committed the crime. The local authorities, however, cannot find him...so they grab a random black man and say that he did it, all in order to avoid violence and further crime.

This is what we call scapegoating and it is a grave violation of human rights. Anyone can see why.

Human dignity is something that goes far, far deeper. You can't kill someone because they "might be" a criminal now, or might have been one, or even might be in the future. It's just idiotic.

Besides, we all know that the women going into the clinics aren't thinking, "well, I'd be such a crappy parent anyway, and I'm the type who commits crimes, so I don't want to raise a criminal." That's not the reason she's going in to get the abortion.

What it comes down to is very simply that this argument is one designed to use a situational outcome (and a false one at that) and support an already existing evil by saying that it brings about good (it doesn't). Further, it ignores the even graver evil that occurs in the abortion. If people could stop lying to themselves about what abortion is and face the fact that it's murder, they might realize that the crimes which allegedly would be committed are by far preferable to the mass genocide of abortion.

In short, the ends don't justify the means.