Disappointing Development at BYU Law School

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but, apparently, although the Federalist Society member who was given the unenviable task of "disinviting" Richard Duncan from the scheduled Federalist Society debate at JRCLS between Richard Duncan and Fred Ge****s regarding Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health did not jump through the administrative hoops required to hold such an event, another JRCLS Federalist Society chapter official did do so, yet Mr. Duncan was disinvited and the event was cancelled anyway.

It would seem, then, that, indeed, this is an instance of those who wish to silence speech with which they disagree from taking place at JRCLS*, and the whole, "No, sorry, the only reason the event was cancelled is because the administrative steps needed for it to be approved weren't followed" argument doesn't hold water.

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2023/4/19/23689586/byu-law-school-cancel-culture-richard-duncan

__________________

*aka "snowflakes" ... but not to put too fine of a point on it, or anything.

P.S.: I love what the software does to Professor Ge-Richards' [sic] name.  I don't know him well, although I have taken a class from him.  From what I do know of him, if I were a betting man, I would say that he would take it in stride and would probably get a pretty big kick out of it.

 

Wow.  Thank you for sharing this. 

"Had the school administration spoken with the Federalist Society students involved before releasing their statement, they would have no doubt discovered that the president of the society had filled out the proper forms and had received permission for the event."

"In claiming that 'no Federalist Society event has ever been denied,' to their knowledge, the school administration must also be forgetting the communication they sent the student president of our Federalist Society chapter stating, 'we are going to cancel Professor Duncan’s debate,' and referencing 'the reaction the last time he visited' as a reason for the cancellation."

I am back to being troubled.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 19 by smac97

[rpn]

On 4/15/2023 at 3:59 PM, rpn said:

But now we know that the Federalist Society started the process, but didn't start/finish the paperwork to actual DO it (and apparently got discouraged and decided not to actually set it up in the way it was supposed to in the first place when it was suggested being done it the next semester instead of when it was originally "planned" by the person proposing it.

So let's not keep wallowing in the incomplete picture that lead to most of the posts here.   (Though I wouldn't be surprised if the suggestion to delay and insistence on following the process left the original proponent feeling like there might be institutional opposition to the event.)

So I withdraw the above.    We don't have citation, but we do have a claim of specific objection to the person who was going to be debating.  https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2023/4/19/23689586/byu-law-school-cancel-culture-richard-duncan   (which claims without details  or timing that the paperwork was complete.

My position right now is that there well may have been content discrimination.

[The Nehor]

Still dubious.

Why does BYU law school have multiple Federalist Society chapters? Why is this not represented on the Federalist Society website? Why is this presented as an opinion piece (with no need for journalistic fact-checking) and not as a news piece?

[Kenngo1969]

46 minutes ago, rpn said:

So I withdraw the above.    We don't have citation, but we do have a claim of specific objection to the person who was going to be debating.  https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2023/4/19/23689586/byu-law-school-cancel-culture-richard-duncan   (which claims without details  or timing that the paperwork was complete.

My position right now is that there well may have been content discrimination.

That's what I don't get.  Fred Ge-richards (the software won't let me use his real name    Oh, well. ) is a smart guy and a committed Latter-day Saint.  While I know this wasn't really supposed to be a debate per se, what if, even given the fact that (I assume) his views on abortion are in the minority among Latter-day Saints, he had won? 

But, no, no: We can't even have the "debate" because some poor, picked-on little snowflake is offended that the other side even exists!  ... That anyone even dares to have an opinion on the matter?  (And yes, I would be saying the same thing if anyone were to rise up in righteous indignation and demand that the event be cancelled because Filthy Apostate Fred Ge****s was invited.   

You're in law school, for God's sake!  Isn't it time to grow up, to "stand up on your hind legs" and learn how to make an argument, as well as how to counteract effectively the arguments with which you disagree?  How is that ever supposed to happen if the arguments never take place???  

[rpn]

I'm a committed latterday saint too, and I believe that abortion should be legal until the child can live without medical intervention outside the womb.    I'm a rape survivor (one of those will never get a conviction circumstances).   In order to make a decision to keep a child created in adverse circumstances (not just rape) one needs the freedom to choose that.   That freedom makes it possible to have the healthy mental health to be able to raise the child free of the stigma.    I am so very saddened by the life so many will lead because their parents were forced to have them in adverse circumstances.   Our country and civilization would be so much more healthy if instead of taking away choice, we added appropriate supports for healthy raising of those children, and we supported the standard that sexual activity isn't a game and should not be freely engaged in before one is able and willing to raise a child, and outside of marriage.    Only a few of the abortions are fully because the child is  unwanted, and having raised many foster children and adopted I know that being adopted and raised in a new family with love  does NOT necessarily fix the inherent wounds of not being raised by natural parents.

 

Edited April 25 by rpn

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, rpn said:

I'm a committed latterday saint too, and I believe that abortion should be legal until the child can live without medical intervention outside the womb.    I'm a rape survivor (one of those will never get a conviction circumstances).   In order to make a decision to keep a child created in adverse circumstances (not just rape) one needs the freedom to choose that.   That freedom makes it possible to have the healthy mental health to be able to raise the child free of the stigma.    I am so very saddened by the life so many will lead because their parents were forced to have them in adverse circumstances.   Our country and civilization would be so much more healthy if instead to taking away choice, we added appropriate supports for healthy raising of those children, and we supported the standard that sexual activity isn't a game and should not be freely engaged in before one is able and willing to raise a child, and outside of marriage.    Only a few of the abortions are fully because the child is  unwanted, and having raised many foster children and adopted I can't say that being adopted and raised in a new family with love doesn't necessarily fix the inherent wounds of not being raised by natural parents.

🤗💯 God bless you rpn. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

having raised many foster children and adopted I can't say that being adopted and raised in a new family with love doesn't necessarily fix the inherent wounds of not being raised by natural parents.

I am a bit confused as there are three negatives…do two cancel out? (As in you can’t say being adopted fixes everything?)

[The Nehor]

I’m a committed Latter-day Saint too, and I believe that abortion should be legal until they turn 18 just in case a dud manages to make it that far.

Note: This is not meant as mockery of rpn’s statement. It is just general mockery.

[USU78]

Kill me now because my life will someday be awful ... said no infant ever.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Kill me now because my life will someday be awful ... said no infant ever.

Quote

They learned that the rate of suicides in children and adolescents is 37 percent higher in counties with the highest levels of poverty – where more than 20 percent of the population in the county lives below the federal poverty level – compared with suicide rates in the lowest levels of poverty

https://answers.childrenshospital.org/poverty-and-suicide-in-children/#:~:text=They learned that the rate,the lowest levels of poverty.

If one truly wants to prevent death of the young, then working to remove poverty, increasing health care among the poor, etc would be part of the effort  

 

Edited April 25 by Calm

[pogi]

15 hours ago, rpn said:

I'm a committed latterday saint too, and I believe that abortion should be legal until the child can live without medical intervention outside the womb.   

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting that premies and other babies born that require medical intervention can be...killed at the will of the mother?  I guess it is the "without medical intervention" part that is throwing me off.  

15 hours ago, rpn said:

I am so very saddened by the life so many will lead because their parents were forced to have them in adverse circumstances.

I wonder what percentage of those individuals raised in adverse circumstances are sad to be alive.  Is the cost of adversity equal to the worth of life?  Is that an assessment that one should be allowed to make for another?

15 hours ago, rpn said:

   Our country and civilization would be so much more healthy if instead of taking away choice, we added appropriate supports for healthy raising of those children, and we supported the standard that sexual activity isn't a game and should not be freely engaged in before one is able and willing to raise a child, and outside of marriage.    Only a few of the abortions are fully because the child is  unwanted, and having raised many foster children and adopted I know that being adopted and raised in a new family with love  does NOT necessarily fix the inherent wounds of not being raised by natural parents.

All valid points and issues.  In all of this discussion about removing choices though, I hope we recognize that abortion itself permanently removes ALL choices for one party involved. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

15 hours ago, rpn said:

Only a few of the abortions are fully because the child is  unwanted

So, I'm in general agreement with many things in your overall post.  Especially about legal abortions for rape and incest survivors.  But Imma have to ask you to cite your source on that claim there. 

Or perhaps we can cut to the chase, and argue about whether these statements mean a child is 'unwanted' or not:

"The guy isn't father material, so I'm gonna wait for a better man."
"I'd have to quit my job and rent is too expensive."
"I'd have to drop out of school."
"I've already got one kid, another one would be too much for me."
"I'm done having kids."
"I'm not ready for the responsibility and burden."
"The world is too crazy to bring a child into it."

These and similar statements are the majority of reasons people give for having abortions.  And I can't find any substantial difference between those statements as they are, and those statements that start with "I don't want this kid because"

Both of these statements are true at the same time:
"Almost no abortions are due to someone getting pregnant from rape."
"Far too many abortions are due to someone getting pregnant from rape."

 

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

They learned that the rate of suicides in children and adolescents is 37 percent higher in counties with the highest levels of poverty – where more than 20 percent of the population in the county lives below the federal poverty level – compared with suicide rates in the lowest levels of poverty

https://answers.childrenshospital.org/poverty-and-suicide-in-children/#:~:text=They learned that the rate,the lowest levels of poverty.

Your link shows a correlation between poverty and suicide in the US (remember that doesn't necessarily mean causation).  But when we compare suicide rates between countries, we see that suicide rates are actually usually relatively higher in more developed nations and lower in poverty stricken nations.  That, to me, tells me there is something else going on here and that poverty in and of itself is not the issue.  Perhaps it is the wide disparity between the rich and poor in America that exacerbates the mental/psychological effects of poverty.  My guess is that it is psychologically much easier to be poor and impoverished when everybody around you is too with little wealth to compare oneself against.   It is like the social media effect that drives depression from comparing oneself against others.   If this is true, while I think that everything should be done to reduce the disparity gap in America, perhaps there are other modalities that can improve mental health and reduce suicide by somehow addressing this human tendency to compare oneself against others in negative ways. 

The following link shows that some of the relatively wealthy nations have the highest rates of suicide (South Korea, Japan, US, South Africa, most of Europe), while some of the poorest countries have the lowest rates of suicide (Syria, Venezuela, Honduras, Philippines...).   It is not a perfect rule as some very impoverished nations experience high levels of suicide while some more developed nations experience low rates, so this tells me that there are other factors that need to be considered.  It is hard for me to imagine a countries facing more adverse circumstances (as rpn states) than Syria, Venezuela, Honduras, and West Africa) in terms of poverty civil unrest, war, infectious disease, etc. yet, they have some of the lowest suicide rates in the world.  

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-rate-by-country

Edited April 25 by pogi

[Calm]

The majority of pediatric suicides in the US are done by firearm.  The absence of guns in other places likely has a significant effect on actual self killings by children.

My comment was in response to USU.  I think it is a presumption to assume an infant if it were capable of that kind of judgment would never choose death over life when there are children who do indeed make that choice and at least in the US, this is correlated with difficult circumstances in the home and deprivation, unfortunate though it is and likely preventable in the vast majority of cases.

[ksfisher]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

If this is true, while I think that everything should be done to reduce the disparity gap in America, perhaps there are other modalities that can improve mental health and reduce suicide by somehow addressing this human tendency to compare oneself against others in negative ways. 

I have a friend I work with who spent a good portion of his childhood years in a refugee camp in Kenya.  He says that was the happiest time of his life. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Kill me now because my life will someday be awful ... said no infant ever.

Mostly because infants aren’t capable of the level of thinking needed to want to die so that is not really helpful.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

https://answers.childrenshospital.org/poverty-and-suicide-in-children/#:~:text=They learned that the rate,the lowest levels of poverty.

If one truly wants to prevent death of the young, then working to remove poverty, increasing health care among the poor, etc would be part of the effort  

 

And since the areas of the US most ardently opposed to abortion tend to have more poverty, worse health care, and fewer programs to address children living in poverty I stopped believing them when they said they oppose abortion because they believe life is precious.

[USU78]

Yep. I was right. This place is just as awful as I remembered. Mods. Please delete my account.

[LoudmouthMormon]

 

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm still hoping @rpn will provide a source to back up the claim "Only a few of the abortions are fully because the child is  unwanted".