Profanity-Yelling Students Spit On, Vandalize Pro-Life Display on University Campus

Photo Credit: GatorEG/Wikipedia

WATERLOO, Canada – A pro-life display memorializing victims of abortion was recently vandalized and spat on by profanity-yelling students at a university in Canada, leading university officials to ban such displays in the future due to their “adversarial tone.”

Laurier LifeLink is a pro-life organization at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada. After receiving permission from the university, members of the group placed 10,000 small pink and blue flags on a grassy outdoor area on campus last October to raise awareness of abortion victims, with each flag representing 10 abortions that take place in Canada each year.

“[The display is designed to] raise awareness and educate people because abortion’s such a hush-hush issue,” Stephanie Breukelman, president of Laurier LifeLink, said in an interview with The Cord, the campus newspaper. “People haven’t thought about abortion and they don’t know what all goes on in these situations and this is just to raise awareness about [what is] being done in Canada. Almost 300 little babies are dying each day in Canada.”

However, the flag display angered some university students and faculty. A few hours after the flags were set up, employees from the university’s Diversity and Equity Office posted a sign near the display that said, “Warning: Anti-Choice display ahead.”

“I was dumbfounded,” wrote Laurier LifeLink member Christine Schuknecht in a column for the National Post. “Why was a warning needed? We were peaceful and polite. And why had this ‘non-partisan’ office of my university referred to my group as ‘anti-choice’ when the term that neutrally describes us, and how we describe ourselves, is pro-life?”

As the day went on, several students harassed Laurier LifeLink members, yelling profanities and insults. Others spat on the flags and pulled them out of the ground. Campus police officers were called to maintain order but several students remained belligerent.

“I came down here and started pulling [the flags] out and spat on their banner,” said student Daniel Quintia, describing the flag display as “harmful” and “upsetting.” “The officers are here [telling me] you have to respect their rights and I’m like, but I don’t, I don’t have to respect their opinion.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Student Dylan Miller likewise condemned the pro-life display.

“It’s shaming. It’s just invasive and it’s a shame tactic and I don’t think that it’s appropriate,” she said. “It’s aggressive and I think that there’s a larger issue to be discussed rather than just saying that abortions are wrong and we need to preserve life.”

“I think this is pretty clear, with the pink and blue flags, like what it is and what they’re representing,” Miller added. “I think it’s pretty pathetic. How is this allowed? Isn’t this 2016?”

Student union president Tyler Van Herzele later weighed in on the flag display controversy, saying in a letter to the university’s students that the flags “perpetuated significant feelings of judgement, exclusion, and fear” and should therefore be banned.

“The adversarial tone of the event evoked a confrontation which eliminated the possibility of respectful dialogue and created an unsafe environment for all students,” Herzele wrote. “We are working in conjunction with the Graduate Students’ Association, the Diversity and Equity Office, and the Office of Student Affairs to ensure this does not happen again.”

According to reports, Wilfrid Laurier University has since changed its campus organization rules in order to ban such displays from being displayed on campus in the future.

Despite the opposition, Schuknecht defended the actions of her pro-life organization.

“To be clear, LifeLink members did not have an ‘adversarial tone’; we made no one feel ‘unsafe’—records of the event show that is the case,” she stated. “In fact, when the university’s special constables arrived to monitor the event, they raised no objections to our conduct, issued no warnings, offered no interference, and, in fact, commended members of our group for their restraint in the face of harassment and intimidation.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    The liberals are disrespectful and have no manners. It requires the truth for humans to behave civilized.

    • James C. Robinson (III)

      Hi, Grace Kim Kwon; you’re right that as I’m sorry to say, these liberals are disrespectful & have no manners! Obviously, it requires the truth for humans to behave civilized, especially when apparently, the sense of respect exists only when one honors & respects the LORD God!

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Exactly. The Western liberals’ total lack of respect, their desire to kill the unborn children, and their inclination to chaotic sexual depravity are all strong proofs that Christianity alone has been true and right. Post-christian Western culture is horrible. The West needs Christianity to stay humane and civilized, not just to be saved.

  • james blue

    It appears there are badly behaving people on both sides.

    • David MacKenzie

      No, just one side.

      • Chris

        Ah, I see stereotypes are your stock in trade.

        • David MacKenzie

          Where, in this case is the “badly behaving” pro-lifer?

          • Chris

            I’ve been part of the pro-life community. I’ve seen the screams of outrage directed at women going in to an abortion center. I’ve also read the reports of anti-abortionists who’ve killed doctors because they performed abortions.

            I’d categorize that as examples of behaving badly. Do those examples imply every anti-abortionist is a potential murderer or emotional bully? By no means. But some are.

          • David MacKenzie

            Like I said, “where in this case”?

          • Chris

            Irrelevant. You claimed that only one side produced violence. I provided examples which countered this. It doesn’t matter in which specific instance this occurred.

          • David MacKenzie

            Ya, it kind of does, based upon the “both sides behaving badly” when directed at this particular case of Canadian academic bias.

          • Chris

            You’re now indulging in shifting the goal posts. Please discontinue using logical fallacies.

          • David MacKenzie

            You are now indulging in mere evasion.

          • Chris

            Evading what?

            Logical fallacies are merely noise. The equivalent of someone blowing a rasberry and then claiming ‘you can’t answer that can you?’

      • james blue

        Indeed, the anti abortion side has no violent people….. right?

  • bowie1

    Even in Canada we have our anti-pro-life hatemongers.

  • bowie1

    My nephew went there to study engineering although he did not experience any controversy while there so far as I know.

  • Sister Boogie

    Ever notice that liberals always resort to spewing profanity? If you can’t make your point without resorting to gutter language, you have no point worth making. Something very adolescent about these people.

    • james blue

      You ever see a Trump rally? Ted Nugent…………

      • NCOriolesFan

        Yeah the opposition to Trump.

      • David MacKenzie

        Same problem, indeed, James. However, the inability of supposed Canadian “progressives” to deal with this challenge is an indication of an immature emotional state nonetheless. “College resilience” is almost a contradiction in terms these days.

        • Chris

          “However, the inability of supposed Canadian “progressives” to deal with
          this challenge is an indication of an immature emotional state
          nonetheless.”

          Stereotyping is usually an indication of bigotry.

          • David MacKenzie

            My my… we are both hyper-sensitive and presumptuous, aren’t we?

          • Chris

            My, my…we are engaging in stereotyping and won’t admit, it will we?

          • David MacKenzie

            Do my generalities offend you? And, if so, why?

          • Chris

            Stereotypes not generalities. Stereotypes are indicative of bigotry, are a logical fallacy and are usually inaccurate.

          • David MacKenzie

            That’s simply a defensive pronouncement, grounded in dismissive rhetoric. Whether this has anything to do with stereotypes is irrelevant. Are you prepared to debate the issues or not?

          • Chris

            No. That’s merely the truth. I can point you to the logical fallacy. Psychologists have determined that the use of stereotypes is indicative of bigotry.

            I will not guess at your state of mind when you dismissed my assertion however. The very thing of which you accused me.

          • David MacKenzie

            Well, there’s your problem. You apparently believe psychologists are god. And, by the way, it is your assertion of “stereotype” that is at stake here. You act as though there is no legitimacy to my term, “generality”.

          • Chris

            “Well, there’s your problem. You apparently believe psychologists are
            god.”

            Another logical fallacy. This one is known as the strawman.

            “And, by the way, it is your assertion of “stereotype” that is at
            stake here. You act as though there is no legitimacy to my term,
            “generality”.”

            No. I just think you’re trying to avoid the term stereotype. I wonder why?

          • David MacKenzie

            Yes, let’s wonder about avoidance together.

          • Chris

            To quote you…that’s not an answer. 🙂

  • This style 10/6

    You should know that Canada has no legal restriction on abortion and that many are carried out in publicly funded hospitals and clinics. This being so, pro-life (i.e. anti-choice) folk are not generally welcome.

    Strangely enough, considering our generally relaxed attitude toward abortion the drug of choice, Mifegymiso, has only just been approved. This will be a boon to women in remote communities.

    • NCOriolesFan

      ‘funny’ here in the USA drug companies are protesting use of their drugs for executions but they’re not protesting using their drugs to kill developing baby humans. Abortion continues to be the most irrational, illogical tool of Satan upon the human race.

      • Chris

        What’s really funny is the number of anti-abortion women who have an abortion then go back to their protests after they recover. I guess that doesn’t count as a double standard.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Don’t fool yourself. There are a lot of pro-lifers in Canada.

      • This style 10/6

        I know there is an anti choice faction in Canada. Fortunately the Trudeau government will have nothing to do with them. Even the Conservatives would not introduce any legislation on abortion when they had a majority in Parliament.

        Canadian women can make their own decisions.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          If Canadian women can make their own decisions, they can pay for their own costs too. Their bodies, their rights – shouldn’t be a taxpayer issue.

          • This style 10/6

            Abortion is considered a health issue and is covered by medicare. It is cheaper by far than a live birth.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Killing you off would be cheaper by far than paying your medical bills. So? And Canada doesn’t have medicare. It’s called OHIP.

          • This style 10/6

            It is only OHIP in Ontario.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, but you get my drift. It’s not medicare. Medicare is a US thing.

          • This style 10/6

            A bit petty to quibble over such a term. It is used in Canada.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No it isn’t. Strictly an American term.

        • David MacKenzie

          They can and they presently do. But the decisions, to the tune of 100,000 deaths per year, are the wrong decisions, morally. As a net result, the entire country is depopulating, if it weren’t for immigration. In other words, the Canadian economy actually lives off the pro-life sympathies (and wisdom) of countries like the Philippines.

          • Chris

            “But the decisions, to the tune of 100,000 deaths per year, are the wrong decisions, morally.”

            Based on which morality?

          • This style 10/6

            If a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, for her it is the right decision.

            Immigration is another matter. Births in all western countries are going down and not due to abortion. Couples are limiting their families.

    • David MacKenzie

      “Boon” is a rather odd choice of word, consider it’s killing an unborn child.

      • This style 10/6

        Women in remote communities like fly in First Nations reserves have difficulty in accessing health care. Myfegimiso ends a pregnancy very early and presumably can be given under the eye of the nursing staff. There are no doctors in these places.

        I have no time for the emotional “unborn child”. It is an embryo, later a fetus.

        • David MacKenzie

          My emotions are irrelevant to my statements. Your unfortunate dehumanizing of unborn children, by switching terminology, doesn’t help you or anyone else. Natives are going to die because of this drug. It has already killed people WITH doctor supervision.

          • Chris

            “My emotions are irrelevant to my statements.”

            Yet on another post of yours you raised the topic of MY motivation. Why is it irrelevant for YOU but not for ME?

            “Your unfortunate dehumanizing of unborn children, by switching terminology, doesn’t help you or anyone else.”

            You seem to be indulging in an attempt to support emotivism. If an argument is rational it does not need the use of emotive terms. If it is irrational then dropping the use of such terms exposes it for what it is.

          • David MacKenzie

            The deliberate obfuscation of language is an attempt to dehumanize. Full stop.

          • Chris

            So you support emotive language which can be used to hide illogical arguments?

          • David MacKenzie

            I think I’m being clear. You are the one who is now rhetorically squirming.

          • Chris

            Strange. I’m not the one using logical fallacies.

            The elimination of emotive language has long been an aim in philosophy. This is why formal logic was developed.

          • Chris

            Allow me to repeat my question.

            You wrote “My emotions are irrelevant to my statements.”

            Yet on another post of yours you raised the topic of MY motivation. Why is it irrelevant for YOU but not for ME?

          • This style 10/6

            Childbirth is more dangerous than this drug. I am not switching terminology but using the correct medical terms.

            The last word is that a woman has control over her own body. This is recognised in Canada and no restrictions are placed on abortion except that it is not possible to find a doctor who will do a late term abortion except for health reasons.

          • David MacKenzie

            There’s more to your terminology that medicine. “Negative patient outcome” is already a medical euphemism for “death”.
            There are already studies showing that maternal health improves across the entire spectrum when abortion, as an option, is eliminated.
            And if memory serves, in the beginning, no abortion was EVER to take place in Canada at any time except for serious health reasons, and yet we see how long that lasted. Don’t fool yourself; Canadian kids are dying in late term who don’t need to.

          • This style 10/6

            Canada came to its senses and now has the best regimen for women. Abortion rates are no higher, often lower than other comparable countries which have legislation.

            We have pretty good, solid sex ed which helps prevent unwanted pregnancies.

          • David MacKenzie

            100,000 dead per year is neither sensible nor successful in my books. And demographic winter is a real possibility without enhanced immigration from more pro-life countries.

          • This style 10/6

            Something that has not had an independent life can’t be called “dead”.

            In any case Canadian law is what it is and there is about zero likelihood of a change. The majority of Canadians are OK with this.

  • Nedd Kareiva

    Sad to see a once great nation like Canada swing farther & farther left. Their Parliament should remove “God keep our land glorious & free” out of its national anthem. The Almighty was given the boot a long time ago and sadly, those with the authority to fight for religious liberty have acquiesced in that regard, including its pastors who would rather be politically correct instead of morally & factually so.

    • Chris

      “Sad to see a once great nation like Canada swing farther & farther left.”

      Far better that it go fascist?

      • David MacKenzie

        The neo-fascism we see on this Canadian campus (and I’m Canadian, btw) is no recommendation. Bear this in mind… In terms of political theory, the major difference between Marxism and Fascism is the SCALE of collectivism— the former is international, the latter national. Otherwise, they are virtually the SAME Statist interventionist beast, with only slight differences in approaches to private property.

        • Chris

          “Bear this in mind… In terms of political theory, the major difference
          between Marxism and Fascism is the SCALE of collectivism— the former is
          international, the latter national.”

          Not even close.

          Here’s communism:

          Philosophically: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Free-access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology that allow for super-abundance.”

          Communist Ideas: “All people are the same and therefore classes make no sense. The government should own all means of production and land and also everything else. People should work for the government and the collective output should be redistributed equally.”

          Key Elements of Communism: Centralized government, planned economy, dictatorship of the “proletariat”, common ownership of the tools of production, no private property. equality between genders and all people, international focus. Usually anti-democratic with a 1-party system.”

          • David MacKenzie

            And you don’t see the net result as almost the same?

            Central Planning (Check)
            Anti-democratic (Check)
            Redistribution of wealth (Check)
            Dictatorship (Check)
            Militant aggression and/or promotion of revolution (Check).
            Interventionist Statism and social engineering (Check).

            Like I say…

          • Chris

            Racist ideology [what Hitler called the heart and soul of Naziism] not check.

            Equality of the sexes. Not check

            Fascism looking backwards to a mythical past. Not check.

            Everyone seen as equal. Not check

            Means of production in the hands of private business. Not check.

            Need I go on?

          • David MacKenzie

            You don’t think the Commissars were an elite?
            You think a universalist tyranny is THAT superior to national parochial tyranny?
            And is Soviet or Maoist-style egalitarianism (and empowerment of the sexes) all that relevant when you have to kill 100 million to accomplish it?
            And do the plebs really care that the wealth “distribution” appears more noble when their farmland is confiscated by the State?

            Need I go on?

          • Chris

            “You don’t think the Commissars were an elite?”

            We are talking ideology not reality. Ideologically speaking no, the commissars were not elites.

            “You think a universalist tyranny is THAT superior to national parochial tyranny?”

            Once again you comparing ideology with how things worked out in practice. You can’t chop and change like that.

            “And is Soviet or Maoist-style egalitarianism (and empowerment of the sexes) all that relevant when you have to kill 100 million to accomplish it?”

            Are we discussing ideology or history? You can’t chop and change.

            If we do then we can look at the failures and cruelties of all political systems.

            “And do the plebs really care that the wealth “distribution” appears more noble when their farmland is confiscated by the State?”

            Once again reality is NOT ideology.

            “Need I go on?”
            It would seem you must since you can’t keep our topic straight. Are we discussing ideology or realpolitik?

          • David MacKenzie

            While I acknowledge that, in theory, ideals are somewhat different from realities, the primary concern MOST people have is with political realities. Not only do Fascism and Marxism contain hypothetical similarities, they were even MORE similar in terms of political reality. One dare not boast in either.

          • Chris

            “While I acknowledge that, in theory, ideals are somewhat different from
            realities, the primary concern MOST people have is with political
            realities.”

            Irrelevant. The topic was the ideology of communism vs. Fascism. Now if you’d argued that they both led to similar ends I wouldn’t have raised a peep.

            “Not only do Fascism and Marxism contain hypothetical
            similarities, …”

            And many more dissimilarities.

            “One dare not boast in either.”

            I wouldn’t dream of praising either as both led, inevitably I would argue, to dictatorships.

          • David MacKenzie

            Well, that’s good news. So, I take it you’re prepared to condemn this campus for its obvious indifference toward free expression, then?

          • Chris

            Indifference to free expression? Is that the ONLY indication of fascism?

            That’s like arguing the lecturers worship Hitler because many of them have mustaches.

            I’m afraid a LOT more will be required to make such an assertion even barely accurate.

          • David MacKenzie

            I’m asking a more basic question in this case? Are you prepared?

          • Chris

            Prepared? You will have to be more specific.

          • David MacKenzie

            The question has already been asked. See above.

          • Chris

            “So, I take it you’re prepared to condemn this campus for its obvious indifference toward free expression, then?”

            If this is the question to which you refer see my answer below it.

          • David MacKenzie

            That’s no answer.

          • Chris

            Then you’ll have to be more specific with your question.

        • Chris

          Here’s Fascism:

          Fascist philosophy: The state must gain glory through constant conquest and war. The past
          was glorious, and that the State can be renewed. The individual has no
          value outside of his or her role in promoting the glory of the State.
          Philosophies varied by country.”

          Fascist Ideas: “Union between businesses and the State, with the state telling the
          business what to do, with nominally private ownership. Corporatism in
          Italy, National Socialism in Germany. Central planning of National
          economy. Redistribution of wealth (Nazi).”

          Key Elements: “Actual idealism, centralized government, social Darwinism, planned
          economy, anti-democratic, meritocratic, extreme nationalism, militarism,
          racism (Nazism). Traditional and/or exaggerated gender roles. One party
          system.”

        • Chris

          An important point is that before and during the second world war fascism was seen as right-wing ideology. It’s only in the last few decades revisionists have been saying ‘no it”s all left’. Really? Then why did big business see the Nazis as far more preferable to the communists if the major difference between the two was merely scale of collectivism?

          I would suggest you leave those right wing bloggers alone and read a work of history which quotes the people of that era.

          I also take it from your use of terms like ‘stateist’ that you’re a follower of Ayn Rand? The woman who was a fan of a serial killer?

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      The Russians are occupying the Arctic…

  • david

    their motto is ‘my body my choice’ but there is another body in there. lets say a evil man drugged up a girl and strapped her into his basement on a gurney. she wakes up and he has a running saw with a sinister grin. she screams “no don’t please” but he replies “its my domain, my choice” the baby sure does not want to get cut up or tortured but they have no vote in a cruel world.

    why do we abhor pedophilia ? due to child trauma and abuse but is not cutting a baby up trauma for we know they experience pain now. this is why our society is mostly functioning insane people for they accept evil while acting good and demanding good from others.

    but over time they do not get away with it. i watched God be patient with evil people and wonder at His patience but then the tragedies start to hit after some time. we all die and will face God one day but few are prepared for it . i follow Jesus and accept Gods offer of forgiveness only through Jesus sacrifice on the cross and HIs resurrection but sadly man follow the devil lies into eternal hell mocking God and His goodness but they do not know that eventually His goodness turns to wrath

    • Chris

      Interesting thought experiment. Allow me to give you another.

      A woman is kidnapped and attached to a child who needs blood transfusions for nine months. At the end of that time, her kidnapper tells her, she can go free.

      Does she have the right to escape if she gets the chance?

      • David MacKenzie

        The only problem is, Chris— and here is the illogical end of your analogy: 99% of all women volunteer to the potential of carrying a child when they and their partner choose to have sex. Only an unnatural divorce between sexuality and procreation within culture allows your illustration to even function. It is delusional at its core because, from the beginning, it denies humanity and reality. It is like claiming that fire shouldn’t contain heat, and lamenting when it does.

        • Chris

          “The only problem is, Chris— and here is the illogical end of your
          analogy: 99% of all women volunteer to the potential of carrying a
          child when they and their partner choose to have sex.”

          People accepting a potential doesn’t mean much. I can agree to the potential that a mugger will steal all my money the moment I try and leave the house. What possible difference does that make? I haven’t agreed to be mugged. I’ve just agreed that exiting my house has the potential to bring such a state of affairs about.

          Conclusion: Merely because someone recognizes a potentiality does NOT mean they are giving permission for it to happen.

          “Only an unnatural
          divorce between sexuality and procreation within culture allows your
          illustration to even function.”

          First you are indulging in a naturalistic fallacy. You seem to be assuming that if something is natural then that’s the way we should do it. Really? Explain that to people having inoculations. Nothing ‘natural’ in getting a needle in your arm to stop a disease from killing you.

          Secondly once any society accepts things like earrings, cars, even clothes, has lost the right to speak of ‘unnatural’ as though it were a guiding principle. Unless you’re suggesting we return to the caves, shed our finery, and go hunt animals with our bare hands.

          • David MacKenzie

            So, now, you’re actually comparing procreative potential to crime? Well, here’s a thought: one is a positive, for which none of us would be here if it didn’t exist and the other a gross breach of ethics. Evil might seem “natural”, as far as it goes, but it is, after all, evil.

            Secondly, you are comparing the good of procreation to the “state” of primitivism in nature. When one argues for natural law, one is not arguing against clothing— or even against fashion— so your critique against naturalism is perhaps dependent upon definitions which are not mutual.

          • Chris

            “So, now, you’re actually comparing procreative potential to crime? ”

            Analogical argument is defined as “a form of reasoning in which one thing
            is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the
            basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. ”

            “Well, here’s a thought: one is a positive, for which none of us would be here if it didn’t exist and the other a gross breach of ethics. Evil might seem “natural”, as far as it goes, but it is, after all, evil.”

            You haven’t shown that anything is evil yet. You have merely asserted it.

            “Secondly, you are comparing the good of procreation to the “state” of primitivism in nature.”

            Actually you did this when you wrote “Only an unnatural divorce between sexuality and procreation within culture allows your illustration to even function.”

            You really should pay attention to your own argument.

            “When one argues for natural law, one is not arguing against clothing— or even against fashion— so your critique against naturalism is perhaps dependent upon definitions which are not mutual.”

            Oh is that what you were doing? The natural law argument has NOTHING to do with something being unnatural. It is an attempt to argue an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ as Hume would have put it.

            Perhaps you’d better look up the term ‘natural law. Go to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and do a search for ‘Natural Law’.

          • David MacKenzie

            For the record, I wasn’t working off technical definitions of “natural law”, but something far more basic.

            But if we’re at the point in our discussion when one cannot even agree that mugging is evil as a supposition, even when you brought it up as though it were, then you are merely playing rhetorical games.

          • Chris

            I think you are suffering under a misapprehension. It isn’t sufficient to say something is wrong. In philosophy you MUST show that it is. Merely pointing to something a saying ‘it’s wrong’ isn’t an argument – it’s an assertion.

            For myself I can provide grounds for saying something is right or wrong. In my case it would be Rossian Deontology. You, on the other hand, have argued that something is unnatural & confused that term with morally bad. Something can be unnatural and good. Something can be natural and bad. Natural and good are NOT synonyms.

            As I wrote before you were merely using the appeal to nature fallacy. You seem quite addicted to logical fallacies.

          • Chris

            So that the discussion can proceed here is the list of Ross’ prima Facie Duties:

            1. Fidelity. Duties of fidelity are duties to keep one’s promises and
            contracts and not to engage in deception. Ross describes them as “those resting on a promise or what may fairly be called an implicit promise, such as the implicit undertaking not to tell lies which seems to be implied in the act of entering into conversation . . . or of writing books that purport to be history and not fiction” (Ross, 21). With this duty it doesn’t matter if anyone finds out that you’ve broken it or not. It is still violated by the breaking.

            2. Reparation. This is a duty to make up for the injuries one has done to others. Ross describes this duty as “resting on a previous wrongful act” (Ross, ibid.)

            3. Gratitude. The duty of gratitude is a duty to be grateful for
            benefactions done to oneself and if possible to show it by benefactions in return.

            4. Non-injury. The duty of non-injury (also known as non-maleficence) is the duty not to harm others physically or psychologically: to avoid harming their health, security, intelligence,
            character, or happiness. (21-22)

            5. Harm-Prevention. Once again, this is the prima facie duty of a
            person to prevent harm to others from causes other than him- or herself.

            6. Beneficence. The duty to do good to others: to foster their health, security, wisdom, moral goodness, or happiness. This duty, says Ross, “rests upon the fact that there are other beings in the world whose condition we can make better in respect of virtue, or of intelligence, or of pleasure” (Ross, 21-22).

            Added August 2004: Beneficence and harm-prevention are clearly related. There is an obvious sense in which to prevent harm to persons is to do them good. But this is trivially true, normally not even worth saying (just as it’s normally not worth saying that there is at least one person in the room when we already know there are
            two persons in the room).

            How, if at all, can we distinguish between harm-prevention, on the one hand, and beneficence in the strict sense, on the other, that is, beneficence that is not primarily harm-prevention? And why should we bother? Let’s answer the second question first: We should bother because frequently harm-prevention is morally more demanding than beneficence. If the alternative is between
            preventing a toddler from wandering into a busy street and
            playing catch with her sister, it is clear what should take priority.

            But how can we distinguish harm-prevention from beneficence in the strict sense? Loosely, harm seems to be whatever significantly degrades, or risks degrading, our health or other capabilities for coping with and getting the most out of life. By contrast, benefit seems to be whatever enhances, or is likely to enhance, those same things.

            7. Self-Improvement. The duty of self-improvement is to act so as to
            promote one’s own good, i.e., one’s own health, security, wisdom, moral goodness, and happiness. Ross himself mentions “virtue” or “intelligence” in this connection (21).

            8. Justice. The duty of justice requires that one act in such a way that one distributes benefits and burdens fairly. Ross himself emphasizes the negative aspect of this duty: he says that this type of duty “rests on the fact or possibility of a distribution of pleasure or happiness (or the means thereto) that is not in accord with the merit of the persons concerned; in such cases there arises a duty to upset or prevent such a distribution” (21).
            Thus the duty of justice includes the duty, insofar as possible, to prevent an unjust distribution of benefits or burdens.

            Possible Additions to Ross’ List
            To Ross’ list we might add three more. Ross might say that these are already implicit in his list, but it may be useful to make them explicit.

            9. Respect for freedom. So far as possible we should avoid coercion of others and, insofar as we are able, provide conditions of empowerment especially to those who radically lack them. (Ross
            might say that these duties are contained in non-injury and beneficence, respectively.)

            Respect for freedom requires, negatively, that we not enslave or kidnap others or force them to participate in the activities of our particular religious group. It also requires, positively, that, if we are able, we support efforts to ensure basic health and educational opportunity for those unable to secure them for themselves.

            Now to go back to your mugging example. Let’s be specific and ask should we interfere with a mugging? Yes. Allowing a mugging would violate duties: 5, 6, and 8. The duties violated if we do intrude would, at worst be: 9. The conclusion then would be that we should intervene.

            Now let’s go to my example of a kidnapped woman. Should she escape even though it will kill a child? Duties saying she should: 7, 8, and 9. The duties saying she should remain: 4 and 5. Therefore she should leave if she may leave if she gets the chance.

            How about an appreciation of sex for pleasure [something you contended was unnatural [and therefore morally wrong].
            Duties for such a concept: 6, 7 & 9. Duties against: 0. Therefore there is nothing wrong with enjoying sex with no intention to procreate.

            You can add other difficulties to the situation and the duties would have to be added up again, perhaps reaching a different conclusion.

          • Chris

            You stated “When one argues for natural law, …”

            Allow me to quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Natural Law “refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal
            theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically
            independent. It does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe”

            So your argument that “only an unnatural divorce between sexuality and procreation within culture allows your illustration to even function” is irrelevant if you are arguing for natural law. Please keep your argument straight.

  • American

    The Liberal Meme: Agree with me or I hate you.

    • Chris

      Conservative meme: hate the poor, discriminate against women, and any minority you can find.

  • James C. Robinson (III)

    Hi, Garrett Haley! Actually, Heaven forbid that those profanity-yelling students should’ve ever spat on or vandalized pro-life display on Wilfrid Laurier University campus in Ontario, Canada, especially when according to the Law of the LORD’s Kingdom, His Holy Word of Truth[the Bible], to promote or even try to fund for any destruction of innocent human life [even an unborn] is wrong because this means you’d love & choose death instead of life which our holy Creator gives because of His wonderful love & compassion!

  • James C. Robinson (III)

    Garrett Haley, elsewhere, besides, like even some other pro-abortion individuals, even if these pro-abortion protesters hate & disagree with us children of the LORD God, Most High all that they want, still, they can watch their language & avoid disrespectful comments while around our pro-lifers, [especially Christians] in the public until they’re in their own little private home!

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Canada was created to spread the Christian religion. Christless Western nations are so meaningless… Sad.