Pro-choice college students EAT pro-life students’ display. Yes, seriously

Disagreeing is fine. Property destruction is not.

Pro-choice students at Binghamton University recently vandalized a display from Students for Life America by attempting to eat their model fetuses

Yes, you read that right. They tried to eat them.

This is not the first time this year that pro-choice “protesters” have responded to the pro-life organization with property destruction.

In September, pro-choice advocates also tried to eat Students for Life America’s model fetuses at Onondaga Community College in Syracuse. Following that incident, they damaged a display representing the number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood.

In May, a protester at Hunter College in Manhattan took one of their model fetuses, covered it in blood, and stabbed wire through its head.

At the same university, professor Shellyne Rodriquez also damaged their display.

An article from Binghamton University’s student newspaper defended the vandalism against Students for Life America, claiming that the pro-choice advocates had every right to destroy the pro-life presentations.

“Public debate is at the core of America’s democratic values, and should be encouraged in educational environments,” the article reads. “Just as the pro-life tablers had the right to express their views, pro-choice protesters had every right to protest.”

This sentiment follows a common idea on college campuses that words are the equivalence of violence and should be met with violence, especially when they make someone else upset or unhappy. A recent survey from the Buckley Institute revealed that 45% of students surveyed agree that physical harm is an acceptable way to confront someone you disagree with.

The problem with this claim is that property destruction is not an acceptable way to disagree with someone. I would bet money that the pro-choice advocates would not be happy if they were threatened and their displays were vandalized. And plenty of people find their ideas “upsetting” or “harmful”… because that’s subjective. 

The First Amendment protects the rights of everyone to agree or disagree peacefully. It also protects your right to walk away from a situation if you do not like what is being said. It, however, does not allow violence or physical responses to disagreements.

Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, if you want to live in a society where you can express your views without fear of violence or property damage, you must not violate the ability of others to do the same.

That means not eating other peoples’ plastic fake babies. Because, apparently, that needs to be said. 

Like this article? Check out the latest BASEDPolitics podcast on Apple PodcastsSpotify, or below:

YouTube player

Sign up for Our Email List

* indicates required
*By signing up for our email you consent to getting our emails directly in your inbox. These including our newsletter or other informational emails*

Our Latest Podcast

Related articles

Mark Levin apparently agrees with Osama Bin Laden’s philosophy

Mark Levin shared this, this week: The column was not...

Nikki Haley goes viral for INSANE claim about TikTok

I’m used to hearing politicians say crazy stuff. But...

Tennessee Republican fights for key education reform

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced his support for universal...

Thomas Massie is right: Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism

Only one Republican voted against the House resolution that...

How you know US aid to Ukraine might be coming to an end

Lindsey Graham said on CNN’s State of the Union...
Kiyah Willis
Kiyah Willis
Kiyah Willis is a fellow at BASEDPolitics.