Catholic School Suspends Students For Being Pro-Choice

Some students at publicly-funded-despite-being-Catholic St. Patrick High School in Ontario, Canada recently participated in the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity. They wore red tape with the word “LIFE” written on it and “didn’t talk for the day to display their belief in the injustice of abortion.”

It’s a student-run event, similar in nature to the Day of Silence for allies of the GLBT community. Completely legal.

Sophomore Alexandria Szeglet wasn’t a fan of that message, though, so she decided to do something about it.

She got some green tape and wrote the word “CHOICE” on it.

And then she passed along the green tape to several other students so they could join her in silent protest. (How fucking awesome is that?) But it quickly came to an end…

“I respect the Catholic beliefs and I respect everything the school is going for,” said the 15-year-old Alexandria. “I wanted to show my opinion whether it was a Catholic belief or not.”

…

After handing out at least 25 pieces of the green tape to fellow students, Alexandria was told to take off the tape or speak to someone in the school’s office.

Because the idea of giving women that much decision-making power over her own body is anathema to the Church.

But Alexandria stood her ground.

“… I had to take [the tape] off or go home and then I went home,” she said. “I did it because it was what I thought was right.

“I think everyone should have a right to show their opinion and do what they need and what they want instead of being told that no you have to keep the baby instead of doing what you feel is right for yourself.”

It gets better. Other students followed in her footsteps and took the hit:

Phone calls into the newsroom claimed that as many as 35 students were issued two-day suspensions, while another 100 were sent home for the day for wearing the green “choice” tape on their uniforms.

John de Faveri, Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board director of education, disputes those numbers. He said about 12 to 15 students were sent home from the school for the day while another two or three were issued two-day suspensions.

Even if the numbers are slightly exaggerated, the point is that she wasn’t alone. Students were willing to get suspended because they believed this issue was worth fighting for.

At least we have de Faveri to set the record straight:

The students who were sent home for the day were not removed from school for wearing the sticker, but for not taking it off, he said.

Men in the Catholic Church… always wanting the kids to take it off.

Cheap joke aside, this was a respectful way to show dissent and the school put a stop to it because they didn’t ask for permission beforehand. What exactly are they teaching the kids? To keep quiet when they have a differing opinion?

Alexandria wasn’t displaying any sort of hatred against the pro-life students. She wasn’t bullying them. She wasn’t saying they were evil or sinners or wicked. She wasn’t putting others down (unlike the Day of Silence opponents whose shirts say “Be Happy, Not Gay“).

She deserves to be commended. She’s the type of student any other school would be lucky to have.

Ian Bushfield puts this situation in its unfortunate context:

Apparently this is a bad year for Catholic education in Canada, after numerous bans on gay-straight alliances in Ontario surfaced and secular parents in Morinville, Alberta began to revolt for lack of a non-Catholic option in their town.

(via Canadian Atheist)

…

***Update***: A graduate of the high school made this comment on Reddit explaining why the students were suspended:

With regards to this specific event there is no argument that the school violated any rules, as they did not. The official reason for sending the students home was that they had not requested permission to wear the tape prior to the event, and as such the tape constituted a uniform violation. Those wearing red tape were not reprimanded because it had been requested prior to the actual day. However that shouldn’t stop people from expressing their opinions on this if they think it is unjust.

M.

injustice of abortion

Oh, that’s rich. Injustice is your self-determination as a patient restricted by religious authority and politicians. So is the irony in silencing females for “pro-life” solidarity.

Unfortunately the rest of my family has yet to break with organized religion or religion altogether, but all of them, including my mother who is also a doctor in a Catholic hospital, support choice. http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

After all, a Bible that celebrates infanticide that frequently can’t possibly be “pro-life.”
hoverfrog

What a shame that the students who wore the green stickers hadn’t arranged to do so beforehand.

Still, I do think that the suspension is an extreme reaction. If the anti-choicers hadn’t requested permission would they have been sent home? I expect that the school would say yes but I am dubious.
Custador

I love the concept that they weren’t punished for wearing green “choice” tape – they were punished for not taking it off! Um – this might be a semantic distinction that I’m not getting , but what, effectively, is thh smegging difference?!?!?
Silent Service

What exactly are they teaching the kids? To keep quiet when they have a differing opinion?

That is exactly what the church wants students to learn.
Stephan

You can blame it on the dress code, but do you think they would have gotten permission in time to do this on the same day as the day of silence?
Demonhype

@Stephan:

Good point. I’ll go one better. I don’t believe they would have gotten permission at all, any day. Faith schools, whether publicly funded in other countries or privately funded in the USofA, are all about indoctrination and enforcement of Church authority. Allowing opposing opinions to exist openly is anathema to that goal. Zero tolerance for anything and everything that might even suggest that anyone in the world might possibly disagree with the Church and Pope–or whatever that particular religion calls its men with the dresses and funny hats.

I speak having attended one from K-8. Hell, I remember being bashed with misinformation at Catholic school about abortion, and I found a crayoned picture I’d drawn in about fifth or sixth grade about those horrible whores who look at their poor precious babbie as an inconvenience and make such a light decision to horribly murder their innocent child. It featured a very late-term pregnant woman getting a bottle of pills* from an off-screen person making some flippant remark about making that little baby “history!” We were supposed to illustrate our “opinions” on the subject, though we had been given much in emotional propaganda and next to nothing in facts or even a representative opposing view**. I also remember hearing one adult ask about back-alley abortions and whether it wasn’t important to prevent those by providing safe alternatives, and another of the adults sneered “good for the whores, if they want to murder their poor precious child they should bleed to death among the garbage!” Such vile righteous hatred and inhumanity made a profound impact on me, though it still wouldn’t lead to pro-choice views until much later. All this in Catholic school.

*As you can see, they were pretty big on the indoctrination and propaganda and emotional manipulation, but not so good on even the most mundane of facts. Mostly limited to the principle “these women are callous whores” stretched out to fill a class session.

**Do you really think there would have been any tolerance for a pro-choice opinion in that class? It would have been a one-way ticket to a suspension or expulsion–and that’s just supposing any of us kids managed to have an opposing view through the lies and misinformation and emotionalism they’d wiped all over the subject.
Denise

How much $ ya wanna bet that if the request was made, it would’ve been denied?
Ali

The update is crap, by the way. The students weren’t penalized because they didn’t seek approval beforehand. As per the article:

“On the issue, pro-life is part of the Catholic stand,” said de Faveri during a phone interview with Dougall Media Thursday afternoon. “The pro-choice students were not appropriate in the context of a Catholic school.”

So it really was about the overall message of Pro-choice, not about the approval.
Christophe Thill

The students who were sent home for the day were not removed from school for wearing the sticker, but for not taking it off, he said.

Wonderful Jesuitic logic !!!
Ben

This is where the students give the the middle finger and say “Fuuuuuck you!”
cass_m

They wouldn’t have been given permission and I’m happy to see that not only did they take the hit of suspension but *did not* complain in the media how unfair it was that they got suspended. Separate school boards are a waste of Canadian education funds and should be de-funded. The Vatican can buy the schools and create an openly private system if they want that privilege.
Mandi

So I have to wonder then… if the “Choice” students had opted to use red tape as well, would they have gotten in trouble? After all, the red tape was approved prior.
Eric Pommer

The existence of publicly funded religious schools in Canada is an embarrassment. It’s our version of the 2nd Amendment–something that doesn’t make any sense in the modern world, but is so deeply entrenched that it’s too difficult to get rid of.
Sarah TX.

Violating the rules on school uniforms in this manner is an act of non-violent civil disobedience. I wish I was this informed and level-headed as a high-schooler!
Jonas

The official reason for sending the students home was that they had not requested permission to wear the tape prior to the event, and as such the tape constituted a uniform violation.

rich: Hi I’d like to express an opinion 100% in line with Catholic teaching. — Of course they’d say yes. Express an opinion opposite that opinion, what if the school had said no?

Further they weren’t stereotyping the pro-life students. — Hell if it’s safe for the woman, I’d take adoption over abortion, and involve the father. — But if the baby’s father is abusive, or via incest the mother’s father then it’s a different story. — Likewise if the mother’s life is in danger from the pregnancy.

Stereotyping the pro-life position would be something like “Women – Screw em, we can always have more”
Lost Left Coaster

Students who are willing to do things like this when they are in high school will later grow up to be the type of justice-seeking, freethinking adults that our world so desperately needs. Cheers all around!
martha

What better way to reinforce her free thinking than to punish her for it! She will always remember the injustice.
Christy

@Custador

Yeah, that jumped out at me too. My first reaction is that only a Catholic brain could come up with that logic.

But there was a case a few years ago of a judge ordering someone to attend some religious program, or go to jail. The judge defended his action by saying that the defendant wasn’t being forced by a government entity to attend the program – he had a CHOICE – attend or go to jail. Seems like similar “reasoning.”
Fed up!

Once the suspension is served, the students should get themselves to the school’s office and officially request whatever it is they need to request in order redo “green tape day”, but with approval for altering school uniform. (bring a reporter with you Alexandria). I for one would love to hear the results of that meeting.
The “Eh”theist

It was a cheap joke. 🙁

That said, this story again shows the religious scrambling to find a defensible position when they get caught doing something wrong. Realizing they had no publicly defensible motive based on belief they’ve switched to a claim of rules violation, in spite of there being no evidence to support the contention that it was their original concern.

Funny how this doesn’t compute for them as lying.

On a positive note, a few more escapades like this and the public in Ontario will be ready to support the constitutional amendment needed to stop publicly funding catholic schools.
schnauzermom

The Catholic Church telling women to shut up or go away?
Who’d a thunk it…
CanadianNihilist

Nice way to be a douche bag and get rid of them on a uniform technicality.
I feel ashamed that this would happen in Canada, even though it’s a Catholic school it’s not privately funded and this shit should not happen.
I wonder if the red tape brigade would have got the same treatment if they didn’t ask beforehand, or would the school have let it slide?

But it brings up an obvious point that people have been missing recently. If you’re able to think for yourself and you’re not going to blindly follow everything the church says don’t go to a religious school or university!
Cortex

Here’s what I find interesting. Only pro-life protests are allowed, so how is it even a protest? It’s a Catholic High School’s version of a military parade, an opportunity for the most faithful to be celebrated and praised so that all the others take notice – this is what we value, and dissent makes you a traitor.

Although I do appreciate pro-lifers being silent. Maybe we could convince them to engage in an extended protest?
Anna

They’re lucky they don’t attend this Catholic school in Kentucky. According to the school handbook, girls who admit to being pro-choice can be expelled, not simply suspended, and not just if they stage a school-wide protest.

Consistent with its proactive position on the sacredness of all life, Notre Dame Academy, in support of the teaching of the Church, does not view abortion as a viable alternative or a moral option. Any student who publicly supports abortion or has been reported to have had an abortion is referred to the administration. The administration has the right to require counseling or take other appropriate measures as deemed necessary.

If a student who has chosen an abortion as a means to terminate a pregnancy, confirms this action to a member of the school administration, faculty, staff, or members of the school, they are encouraged to offer compassion and assist her in seeking emotional, physical and spiritual help. A mandatory meeting will be held with the student, parent/guardian, and the appropriate school personnel to establish a follow-up program. After all measures have been taken, the administration has the right to institute suitable disciplinary action, including dismissal.

Ah, yes, expulsion from school. There’s no greater way to show compassion.
Ian

Thanks for the link Hemant!
Miko

The official reason for sending the students home was that they had not requested permission to wear the tape prior to the event, and as such the tape constituted a uniform violation.

If they had asked, the permission would likely have been denied. Chances are that the punishment for doing it this way will be less severe than it would have been if they had done it after specifically being told not to, so I’d say they were correct to not seek the permission.

She wasn’t putting others down (unlike the Day of Silence opponents whose shirts say “Be Happy, Not Gay“).

Not so. Don’t forget that from a pro-lifers perspective abortion is murder. So, to them her message was essentially “let’s go murder children.” By contrast, saying “don’t be gay” wasn’t putting others down so much as it was offering really stupid advice. If you try to justify free speech by saying “it’s okay because I approve of this particular message,” you’re going to have a tough time of it. Free speech can only ever be justified by saying “the message is irrelevant; the important thing is the right to spread it.”
Demonhype

*sigh*

Hell if it’s safe for the woman, I’d take adoption over abortion, and involve the father. — But if the baby’s father is abusive, or via incest the mother’s father then it’s a different story. — Likewise if the mother’s life is in danger from the pregnancy.

Problem is that pregnancy is never “safe”, in the popular usage of the word. Pregnancy has all manner of complications, both long and short term, that are often far more harmful than early-term abortion (which is when the majority of non-medically necessary abortions take place anyway). Pro-choice simply means that no one but the woman in question has the right to make a decision about whether an abortion is “right” in her circumstances or whether she wants to face the risks of pregnancy and then keep the kid or put it up for adoption, because it is something that is happening to her body and something that she will have to live with. No one else. So essentially, pro-lifers really are saying “Women. Screw em.” Because they think that another person’s medical decisions should be taken out of their hands, because those people are women and women, as we all know, are just too stupid to be able to make their own decisions about anything.

For example, if I was pregnant I would abort early term and never look back. Adoption, on the other hand, I would regret for the rest of my life (and women tend to regret adoption far more than having an early-term abortion). And I would resent the child if I kept it. It is unbelievably appalling to hear anyone say “well if it’s safe, then I would choose adoption over abortion for her”, as if anyone has the right to make that decision for me about what happens to my body and in my life. What you are saying is “I have the right to choose what course of action a woman takes with her pregnancy. I get to decide which situations merit abortion and which do not and whether the pregnancy risk is acceptable or not, and other people should be have to abide by the decisions I have made for them, while I remain unaffected by those decisions.”

Sorry for the rant, but very few things piss me off as quickly as comments like “I think that, outside of some catastrophe, you should have to carry the pregnancy to term and then dump the resulting child with strangers, because I have a greater right to make that decision for you than you do.” It’s just as obscene as the “I think you that you should have to carry that pregnancy to term and in the event of a catastrophe you should die with it like God intended.” Because the basic assumptions remain the same–the pregnant woman does not have a right to make this choice for herself, but I do.

This is probably rhetorical, but I’ll ask anyway: Why is it so hard to understand that this decision belongs only to the individual woman who will be affected by the decision? That is the essence of pro-choice, which is why I refuse to call the opposite anything but anti-choice. One side stands for individual women making their own decisions, the other side reserves the right to glibly make decisions for others then go on with their own lives unaffected by those decisions. The operative word from the beginning has been “choice” and all this “life” BS has been nothing but a smoke-screen.

Okay, rant off.
Cortex

@Demonhype

women tend to regret adoption far more than having an early-term abortion

I’d love to have a source for this in my SIWOTI arsenal.
Gretchen

Whether they would have gotten permission or not, student freedom of expression shouldn’t require permission. I think they should sue.
AxeGrrl

The “Eh”theist wrote:

On a positive note, a few more escapades like this and the public in Ontario will be ready to support the constitutional amendment needed to stop publicly funding catholic schools.

That’s precisely what I was left thinking (and hoping) after reading about this.
Garren

Green is not an approved color here at St. Patrick’s.
Edmond

I’m sorry, they were suspended for a UNIFORM violation? Their “uniforms” are frigging T-SHIRTS! What kind of standard of decorum are they trying to set? For special occasions, do they put on their dressiest tank tops?
CGD

I don’t know the legal distinctions that might enter into public v private education (or private-but-publicly-funded education?), but I immediately thought of Tinker v Des Moines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District
Gretchen

I thought that too CGD, but it’s a Canadian school. They laugh at our Tinker v. Des Moines.
Carlie

Garren wins.
CGD

Oops! And I noted it was Ontario, too, before completely forgetting that fact. 😐
Canadian, Eh?

I have attended catholic schools in Thunder Bay for years and years. My entire life. I’m 18 now and I’m a student at St. Pats and I think that if they are allowing people to wear red tape with “LIFE” written across it, they are allowing an injustice itself to take place. There are people who have had abortions that walk through the halls each day and, on that day, will be reminded of what happened. Some of those people could have been in a terrible situation that you can only imagine. The point is, everyone has a reason for doing what they do and sometimes there are circumstances in which certain things need to happen in order to make sure you are able to FIRST take care of yourself before you are able to take care of anyone else. Furthermore, if people are going to be UNWILLINGLY subjected to negativity because of things beyond their control, why shouldn’t a person be allowed to stand up for that? Aren’t we all about equality and fairness and, oh yeah, what about the ability to keep an open mind and understand that some people have different morals and values.

I’m an Atheist, in case anyone is wondering. But since I learned what abortion was, I really started to lean towards pro-choice. I am all for the RIGHT to do what you feel is best for your own body, health and emotional reasons. All I’m simply asking is for other people to realize that they should not be subjected to torment and should be allowed to stand up for it. After all, our school enforces an extremely strict and important(or so they claim… hypocritical?) expectation of zero-tolerance bullying. It’s confusing to me.

I’d also like to add(though this is long…) that I dislike how people involve themselves and actually claim to have been somehow effected by abortion. Abortion usually involves 1 or 2 people, and is in no way harming society or anything. In fact, if you think about it, if you were to have forced those women to keep the babies, there would be a strikingly higher percentage of poverty/increase in foster care which could be ultimately damaging to the child “pro life” people are so focused on saving. When you examine the big picture first, it’s easy to make a judgement. But if you are in the situation yourself (and lol, No I have never had an abortion, but I know people who have.) it’s a lot more complicated than anything you can imagine. Examining the details and every little pro and con becomes important, but do you realize, a childd is a LIFETIME responsibility that some people aren’t able to commit to at the time? It’s easy to keep your eyes blind to the reality of pregnancy, but surely ignorance isn’t something to be proudly associated with.
Jonas

Double Sigh:

This is probably rhetorical, but I’ll ask anyway: Why is it so hard to understand that this decision belongs only to the individual woman who will be affected by the decision?

Some time back I was reading about the TV Series “St. Elsewhere” in it, the article commented that every time in the stories someone considered an abortion they decided for it. — I recall one episode specifically where both parents were contemplating giving birth to a down syndrome child. – In the end the father reversed position, and wanted the child, while the mother went off and had the procedure done behind his back.

My problem with “Decision is Only the Woman’s” argument is quite frankly, we are not the Dracs from “Enemy Mine” and nobody just automatically becomes pregnant. The decision may rest finally with the woman, but never just with the woman. The decision to or not to is not made in a vacuum, and whatever the decision is either way there are always consequences.

Part Two:

Problem is that pregnancy is never “safe”, in the popular usage of the word. Pregnancy has all manner of complications, both long and short term, that are often far more harmful than early-term abortion

By this argument we should all fear pregnancy, and just not procreate. I’m not for abortion as primary birth control, and I never said I was against it, or anti-choice. In the popular usage ‘safe’ means ‘safe enough’ Driving isn’t 100% safe, Walking isn’t safe – You could slip and fall. This is why we have insurance. Fine if it’s not safe enough for a high school student to carry a baby to term, Ok. but that would apply to one particular circumstance. Don’t go scaring away everyone with propagandistic fears about the pre-birth dangers of adoption.
ash

My problem with “Decision is Only the Woman’s” argument is quite frankly, we are not the Dracs from “Enemy Mine” and nobody just automatically becomes pregnant.

Since when did sperm become such a magical substance that it gave someone the right to lord over another person’s medical decisions regarding their bodily autonomy?

The decision may rest finally with the woman,

He shoots!

but never just with the woman.

…and misses wildly.

The decision to or not to is not made in a vacuum, and whatever the decision is either way there are always consequences.

Strawman ‘o’ clock; no-one said there may not be factors the woman may choose to take into account; no-one said this is an inconsequential decision.

Fine if it’s not safe enough for a high school student to carry a baby to term, Ok. but that would apply to one particular circumstance.

And, like any given particular circumstance, if it’s not your uterus you don’t get to decide.

Don’t go scaring away everyone with propagandistic fears about the pre-birth dangers of adoption.

Not propagandistic; factual. And why do you appear to think that adoption (but not abortion) can exist in a vacuum without consequences?

So, to sum up, you’re in favour of a woman making her own decision (as long as it’s the decision that you/the previous owner of the magic sperm involved approves of) and you think that misinformation/fact denial is a helpful factor in this?

Bottom line; a woman gets to make her own choices about her own body. A man gets to persuade, cajole, entreat, whatever, for his preferred outcome but it is not, and never should be, anything but the woman’s decision whether to be pregnant or abort.
Gorilla Atheist

You, young thinker, have my full support!

Speak up, Fight Back!
Jonas

Since when did sperm become such a magical substance that it gave someone the right to lord over another person’s medical decisions regarding their bodily autonomy?

Speculation: If the man decides he would like to help raise the kid, and help with the cost of bringing the child to term, and other and and and … All of that factors in. — You certainly want it both ways. — If the woman wants the child, she’ll go after the father for child support if necessary. But if the father wants the child, he has no say.

And, like any given particular circumstance, if it’s not your uterus you don’t get to decide.

P.S. I’m Baiting you! You don’t either.
Google ‘Caroline Rose Isenberg’ — She was adopted.
Canadian, Eh?

Speculation: If the man decides he would like to help raise the kid, and help with the cost of bringing the child to term, and other and and and … All of that factors in. — You certainly want it both ways. — If the woman wants the child, she’ll go after the father for child support if necessary. But if the father wants the child, he has no say

Though the man has obviously erm… participated in the creation of this baby, it still isn’t his business to force a woman to go through 9 months of hell and then a lifetime commitment just so he can have his kid. I don’t think it’s right to be pressured by someone to go through a pregnancy you don’t want to be in, in the first place. I’m sure if it were the opposite and men were the ones who reproduced and had to go through all the hormonal, physical and emotional changes, they wouldn’t be all for going through that process.
Canadian, Eh?

Furthermore, adoption is an extremely hard thing to go through. Giving birth to a child just so you can have it taken away? Why not just solve the problem before it becomes an issue? There are tons of children already needing adoption, why contribute to the pile of unwanted children? Harsh, but that is reality. Thousands of unwanted children exist in the world today, why should we continue to add more and more? Adoption is not for everyone, is all I am saying.
ash

You certainly want it both ways. — If the woman wants the child, she’ll go after the father for child support if necessary. But if the father wants the child, he has no say.

Whereas you’d like the man to have consequence free sex or to dictate whether the woman should be a walking incubator, amirite? Ohmigosh, the poor menz!

P.S. I’m Baiting you! You don’t either.

Well, nice to see you come straight out and admit that not only do you not have an argument, you’re just a fucking troll. And a slightly retarded one at that if you lack the reading comprehension to realise that the argument of a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her body does not mean that I want to make those decisions for her.

Google ‘Caroline Rose Isenberg’ — She was adopted.

Non-sequitor ahoy! I’m getting close to bingo. I know quite a few people who were adopted, did you have a point?
Jonas

Whereas you’d like the man to have consequence free sex or to dictate whether the woman should be a walking incubator, amirite? Ohmigosh, the poor menz!

No you are way off base. I said I was against abortion as primary birth control I’ll say it again primary birth control

you’re just a fucking troll.

Ironically exactly the wrong insult to pick, given the high risk to men I pointed out. — But then I didn’t resort to insults and name calling in this thread.
ash

No you are way off base. I said I was against abortion as primary birth control I’ll say it again primary birth control

You really don’t understand what the words ‘non-sequitor’ mean do you? Who said they were for that?

Ironically exactly the wrong insult to pick, given the high risk to men I pointed out. — But then I didn’t resort to insults and name calling in this thread.

Of course you didn’t, my dear sweet tone-troll (notice I’m not using any bad words here sweetie). You may not be aware though, precious child, that suggesting adult women are unable to make their own medical decisions concerning their own bodies without the help of the magic sperm donor is blatantly insulting and patronising. Cupcake.
chicago dyke

so when do i have the legal, religious, and moral authority to tell a man what he can do with his sperm? every time, every ejaculation? cause otherwise, it’s just hypocrisy. that nine month/18yr thingee? oh, don’t ask men about that. that’s too complicated. or something.

you control my uterus when i get to tell you what you get to do with your cock. fair? no? good. then we’re all on the same page, always. stay out of my bedroom and dr’s office, and i’ll stay out of yours.
William Belle

Let’s all write to protest as the blogger Not Guilty suggests.
Catholic school disciplines pro-choice student
Jane Smith

Let’s put the pros and cons of abortion aside for a moment.

The incident where this happened was at a school. A state-funded school.

A school has a moral duty to encourage critical thinking, free speech, open debate and reflection. All these things are not “nice-to-haves” – they are an essential part of education.

The only way to deal with an issue such as abortion in education is through debate and by encouraging students to read and reflect on both sides of the argument.

As it is, this school failed dismally to carry out its function as an educator and for that reason alone its principal should be made accountable.
J.

The only way to deal with an issue such as abortion in education is through debate and by encouraging students to read and reflect on both sides of the argument.

Which comes down to the middle ground question. Is there any, when the rhetoric from both sides is so vitriol? From only what I read on this thread, I’d say all catholic schools are teaching pro-life propaganda, while the pro-choice side makes almost the same claim. — Defn needed: you won’t think something is propaganda if you agree with it’s message, you’ll think it’s true.

If Abortion is as accessible as a candy bar at walmart, as safe as any minor procedure, and as inexpensive as any other specialist co-pay, then what?

A. Men still wouldn’t get pregnant.
B. Humans still wouldn’t produce asexually.
C. Biology still ‘designed’ sex to be enjoyable.

The parents decided to raise their female child with certain values, decided to raise her in a certain religion, attend certain schools (at least at first). And maybe decided to say “I’ll throw you out of the house if you abort.” – I’m thinking of a case I know circa 1961, that led to adoption.

Does the man have any say? If he persuades, offers to help, or devoutly stands by ‘her decision’ He is DECIDING to do those things, and as ‘Jonas’ said ‘the decision rests finally with the woman’ actually to be precise, that is an intentional mis-quote in that he said ‘may rest.’ If the woman were in a coma, then it wouldn’t. It would rest with the health care proxy, wouldn’t it?

As to ‘Abortion as primary Birth Control’ no one wants to say they are for it. But if one wanted to use it as such, one could, due to loop holes in the pro-choice vision. Technology has given us several methods of contraception, which are cheaper, and less invasive.

Would early term abortion be marketed as “Safer and Easier, and less emotionally draining than Adoption or Keeping the Baby.”

As to the moral/ethical beliefs of pharmacists – well maybe they shouldn’t be pharmacists, if they are unwilling fill out legally prescribed medicine. – And doctors don’t have to go into this specialty.
Per Edman

Was it made clear to everyone that wearing tape would be a “uniform violation” and that the “red tape” crowd had gathered agreement beforehand?

If not, this could be a case of information being withheld as a means of controlling student displays of opinion. Even fair rules can be wielded unfairly.
Lone Primate

You don’t need to “request permission” to have and express an opinion in this country.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Hey, kids? Can you say “violation of constitutional rights?” How about “class action suit”? Knew you could.
Patrick O’Malley

The Catholic church has no power without control. If they can’t slam their ideas down your throat, no one other than their dwindling congregation will listen. In a free society, they no longer have any power.

The fact that they raped children and lied about it will destroy the future of the church. Read the first 6 pages of the Grand Jury report at http://bit.ly/pgjr11
Priests did horrific things to children, and you can see how the diocese concealed it. The blatant, arrogant disregard for child safety that still continues is unimaginable.
Patrick O’Malley

The Catholic church has no power without control. If they can’t slam their ideas down your throat, no one other than their dwindling congregation will listen. In a free society, they no longer have any power.

The fact that they raped children and lied about it will destroy the future of the church. Read the first 6 pages of the Grand Jury report at http://bit.ly/pgjr11
Priests did horrific things to children, and you can see how the diocese concealed it. The blatant, arrogant disregard for child safety that still continues is unimaginable.