by

Cambridge Students For Life have no place at a fair that’s meant to welcome new students

It struck me with great irony as I came across the Cambridge Students for Life stand at the Fresher’s Fair that my abortion was actually the only reason I was here to see it.

My hypothetical child would have made its grand entrance in the midst of my A Levels, and I seriously doubt my ability to scrape an A* from the birthing stirrups.

I am a confident woman and assertive feminist. I have no shame in saying my abortion was the best decision I have made in my life so far.

I know my rights and I am proud to have utilised a resource we fought for centuries to obtain, a resource still denied to women across the world. It crosses my mind only once in a blue moon, and never tinged with regret.

Welcome to Cambridge

Welcome to Cambridge

Despite all these things, it’s difficult to explain the emotional impact of Pro-Life campaigning when you’ve actually had an abortion.

I feel deeply uncomfortable and upset when I encounter it. I know what I did was right for me, but no amount of thick skin can fully protect you from the thinly veiled accusation that you are a killer.

This is the difference between the CSFL stall and the other conflicting political or campaigning societies which may exist at the Fresher’s Fair.

They’re not just promoting a different tax system or foreign policy to you; their value system is impossible to separate from the extreme indictment it makes on your private choices about the most personal aspects of your body.

The emotional trigger of their material is therefore profound to even the most self-assured young woman. Photographs of something that once lived inside you, referred to as your “baby”. The terminology of “life,” “protection,” and “destroying,” the implicit but blatant suggestion that you were once responsible for a life and you ended it for your own, comparatively inconsequential, reasons.

Some would say it’s my own responsibility to ignore the stand – after all, offence is taken, not given, right? Yes and no – none of this is to say that CSFL shouldn’t be allowed to exist, or to hold debates in their own time and venue.

Rowan Williams who is due to speak at a Cambridge Student's for Life event later this term

Rowan Williams who is due to speak at a CSFL event later this term

Their decision to ignore the rights that women across the world have spent centuries battling for is their own. Cambridge has become the great establishment that it is off the back of debate and intellectual diversity, and students have the right to any opinion they want.

What we need to consider is that this isn’t about the freedom to express an unpopular view, but the need to protect already vulnerable and overwhelmed Freshers from misinformation and potentially emotionally triggering material.

Whilst pro-life is the minority view, abortion is still an astonishingly taboo issue even amongst the most progressive groups. It’s incredibly rare for a woman to be able to admit to one, much less without a sense of shame or even repentance.

This culture of silence means abortion must be discussed in purely objective terms, making it almost impossible for the real damage that CSFL could have done to be revealed.

The Women’s Campaign and other stalls are therefore left to defend their response with speculation – this “might” upset some freshers, there’s a “potential” trigger warning.

The Women's Campaign's trigger warning

The Women’s Campaign’s trigger warning

I have no shame in admitting that I am one of the 1 in 3 of us who have, or will, experienced abortion.

I will happily confirm the speculations of the other Cambridge students and societies who’ve written to complain about the stall; yes, it’s extremely upsetting; yes, it’s offensive to my personal choices; yes, CUSU should have a responsibility to protect us from feeling this way in their very first few days.

The guilt, secrecy, and self doubt imposed on people who’ve undergone abortions causes us to have a suicide rate almost six times higher than others, and a far stronger inclination towards clinical depression and other mental health conditions.

So let’s grow up, stop using this serious issue to score cheap points against the Women’s Campaign and even CSFL themselves under the arrogant pretence of serious debate, and consider instead the genuine emotional wellbeing of brand new students.

The Fresher’s Fair is about students finding their people, discovering new skills, and opening doors.

Let’s let next years’ cohort leave with free pizza, endless mailing lists, and no personal attacks on their most difficult and heartbreaking personal life choices.

  • very good

    this will hopefully settle the matter

  • Peter

    Come on now, you clearly do feel regret about denying life to the child that was growing inside you.

    I’m sure aborting was the right choice for you, but why are you so certain that you’re the only party who matters?
    Maybe you aren’t actually that certain, which is why you feel guilty and upset about your decision.

    I’m not part of CSFL. I’m expressing myself in a far more direct and probably unhelpful way than they ever would, but I see nothing wrong with prioritising the welfare of all the victims of abortion to come by being allowed to (far more politely and inoffensively than me) have a stall at the freshers fair over the feelings of unborn child aborters and their supporters.

    I know it’s not popular to speak candidly, but you aren’t entitled to restrict the freedom afforded to every other club and society just because one of them reminds you of something you did.

    • But why be so offensive?

      But surely the point is that in this instance in particular, as she has argued, we *must* prioritise the welfare of the Freshers above all else. The pressure, anxiety and even terror felt by a few Freshers during their first few days here cannot be overstated. This was not a political event, a rally, or even a random protest in the street, it was a fair endorsed by CUSU, specifically to welcome freshers. Shouldn’t their welfare come become before these imaginary children in this case at least?? I am not arguing that CSFL shouldn’t have been there at all, but that they shouldn’t have used such triggering, upsetting and provocative material so prominently on their stall. Surely then that reaches the perfect compromise in welfare? **You don’t see Amnesty International posting pictures of tortured prisoners and famine victims all over their stall.**

      • Anonymous

        What triggering and provocative material was there? They had ultrasound scans and a medical photograph of a living foetus. They didn’t have post-abortion shock images.

        • Anonymous

          Perhaps not super graphic, but very emotional language and in particular blatant misinformation, like the idea that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. It might not be the prerogative of CUSU to regulate idiocy and terrible understanding of science, but it should be to stop vulnerable freshers being told lies which further marginalise their personal choice or the personal choice of their peers.

          • Guest

            There was no information on the stall claiming a link between breast cancer and abortion. The TCS was misinformed when it claimed that.

            • anon

              wasnt there a picture accompanying the tcs article of the stall which showed the breast cancer link?

              • Son of a lawyer

                There was a picture of the Pro Life Times, in which there is no mention of cancer or breast cancer whatsoever.

        • Anonymous3

          It’s the “life-destroyer” and “Mommy you killed me” undertones of the materials that is the problem. Having a sign saying “We believe that abortions should not happen. Join us.” is very different from (according to TCS) signs claiming that ” ‘science has proved that life begins at conception’ ” with pictures of foetuses. The former is not triggering and is easy to ignore if you want to avoid people like that. The latter is emotionally loaded, saying to people who have had abortions “You are a murderer. Look at what you did.” You don’t have to feel at all guilty to be upset by the accusation.

          • anon10

            Yeah but those undertones are the whole point of their argument. You seem to hold the point of view that abortion should be allowed (as do I). however the problem is that anyone who argues otherwise somehow triggers you and upsets you. That is ridiculous, and while you are entitled to feel like that, it’s not anyone else’s problem.

            Besides, if pictures of foetuses and negative abortion statistics give you undertones of “life-destruction” and “Mommy you killed me” then how are they supposed to argue their case. They clearly chose the least upsetting and neutral ways to put their point forward, and that is still not enough for you.

        • Son of a sonographer

          Just to pitch in – the ultrasound images chosen are of foetuses MUCH older than the abortion cut off. You can’t even get a decent scan until they’ve started to develop properly.

          • Son of a lawyer

            The ultrasound in question was 18 weeks, above the average age but well below the limit in most cases of 24 weeks.

    • Anonymous3

      Even as someone who has not had an abortion, I find your post to be needlessly moralising and upsetting. Someone who has an early abortion, imo, is NOT “denying life to [a] child”. It is not a child. It is a cluster of cells that has the potential to become a human infant, but this potential is not morally equivalent to the real thing.

      She does not “clearly feel regret” and to read that is insulting. She clearly feels upset by stigma and the implication that she is a murderer, even when she knows that she is not. That is perfectly understandable and has nothing to do with latent guilt.

      In my opinion, CSFL should not be banned from the fair (free speech issues probably mean that they have to be able to seek members) but the promotional material visible to those who choose not to approach should be vetted. Giving people the option to avoid “life-destroyer” rhetoric is only fair.

      • Guest

        Except there was no “life-destroyer” rhetoric. There was no implication that women who choose abortion are murderers. The people who are the real problem are the doctors who offer and execute a violent solution to what is largely a social and economic problem.

        • guest

          reproductive justice is indeed a social and economic problem. i dont understand why access to abortion cant be one of the solutions to it. everyone would prefer not to have an abortion but sometimes its necessary. isnt the violent option to force someone to carry a child and then bring a life into the world that they cannot properly support or care for?

      • Mr Truth

        The key term in this post is ‘imo’. You know, and she knew when she had the abortion, that many people consider it murder. She faced the choice (which she could easily have avoided, anyway, just by being being responsible in a basic way) and actively decided to do something which she knew that many people strongly and sincerely believe to be the same as killing a child when it has been born. She is not entitled to turn around and say that they can’t express those views to her. She should grow up and take some responsibility for her actions.

        You are no more entitled to abort a foetus and expect not to be criticised than you would be in some American jurisdictions to go (legally) way over the top in ‘self-defence’ and expect not to be criticised. Both are situations in which you are doing something which you do not consider wrong, but which you know very well that many people consider very wrong indeed. In each case you do what you think is right, and when you are (as you know you will be) criticised for it I’m afraid you just have to suck it up.

        • Mr Truth

          No relation to Dr Truth below, by the way. It seems the surname is more common than I’d thought.

        • Hmm

          a) You have no idea of the circumstances leading to the pregnancy. There is no evidence that she was in any way irresponsible.

          b) You ARE more entitled to abort a foetus than go over the top in self-defence. The latter harms other human beings, the former (anthropologically speaking) does not. But nice attempt to link it to the self-defence argument of pro-choice.

          c) Other people are entitled to have their own hateful opinions. The argument presented here is that she shouldn’t expect to face some level of harassment when attending the fair that all Freshers attend. You appear to have moved the goalposts a tad.

          Overall: decent defence of your own beliefs, no doubt in retaliation to the numerous pro-life supporters making themselves known. But I’m afraid that you may have missed the point of the argument somewhat.

          2/10
          (Would not bang. Or even responsibly date.)

          • Mr Truth

            (a) The likelihood is that she was. If it were a key part of my argument, anyway, I wouldn’t have put it in brackets.

            (b) The relative merits of the parties is not a material part of the analogy. You do not appear to understand how analogies work.

            (c) I’m pretty sure I expressly defended their right to express their views /to/ her, not simply to hold them. I attacked her expectation of not being criticised, not any supposed attack of hers on their right to hold their opinions.

            0/10, did not read or think.

  • Anonymous

    You say that: “none of this is to say that CSFL shouldn’t be allowed to exist, or to hold debates in their own time and venue”

    CSFL wasn’t holding a debate at the Freshers’ Fair. It was advertising so that it could attract members and then have a debate in its own time and at its own venue. If it cannot advertise, CSFL will cease to exist. It’s that simple.

    So how does CSFL advertise? It could put posters up; it could email people with round-robins; it could pamphleteer; it could hold demonstrations in the street. It doesn’t do these things, which would all be more harrowing than a stall at a fair. And at that fair, it does not use shock images and does not harrangue people. It says what it’s about and waits for people to approach to discuss it.

    CSFL has therefore taken the least offensive, least intrusive route to ensuring that proper debate on this point can continue.

    It is unfortunate that even this lowest quantum has the effect of triggering or upsetting some people, but a balance must be struck between the right to have opinions and the right not to be offended by them.

    I’m afraid that this article hasn’t persuaded me that the balance should tip any further in favour of post-abortion women at the expense of CSFL.

    • Srsly doe

      Why does a group focussed on close-mindedness need to even exist ? It’s like if I started a group against homosexual marriage. It’s stupid.

      • Anonymous

        It needs to exist because debates about euthanasia and abortion are significantly more philosophically complex than many people would want to realise.

        • Dr Truth

          you, my friend, sound like your a twat

          • Anonymous3

            Actually, no, you do. S/he has opinions, with which some may disagree. You have insults. Congratulations on out-twatting your accused twat.

            • Anonymous

              For the record, I don’t agree fully with either end of this rather polarised debate. I believe there’s some middle ground to be explored, and want input from both sides. That’s not going to happen if one side cannot be represented and the other throws only insults and rhetoric.

    • Anonymous

      To bring in my point from above (relevant here I believe): “It’s the “life-destroyer” and “Mommy you killed me” undertones of the
      materials that is the problem. Having a sign saying “We believe that
      abortions should not happen. Join us.” is very different from (according
      to TCS) signs claiming that ” ‘science has proved that life begins at
      conception’ ” with pictures of foetuses. The former is not triggering
      and is easy to ignore if you want to avoid people like that. The latter
      is emotionally loaded, saying to people who have had abortions “You are a
      murderer. Look at what you did.” You don’t have to feel at all guilty
      to be upset by the accusation.”

      CSFL should have a platform, as should anyone. But in the specific context of a Freshers’ Fair, approved by CUSU, it is only reasonable that the material visible to those who choose not to approach the stall is vetted. They have every right to advertise. I do not think that, in this context, they have the right to shove emotionally loaded, accusatory and – clearly, from this article – upsetting material in Freshers’ faces.

      • Anonymous

        Dammit. Copy/paste y u do this to me.

      • Herp

        The latter is emotionally loaded because it uses facts rather than beliefs? Derp, okay!

        • Anonymous

          The scientific concept ‘life’ is very different from most people’s moral category of human ‘life’. These people take the stance that the two are one and the same, but that doesn’t erase the fact that a) most people don’t feel similarly, b) this would lump even ‘day one’ abortions in with ‘taking human life’, which is in the whole of society is very emotionally and morally loaded (cause, you know, murder is bad). It equates early abortions with actual murder and as such the accusation is very serious and upsetting.

          I don’t say that they don’t have a right to believe that the two are one and the same, but it is not, in this context, a purely scientific ‘fact’.

          • Anon

            Defining what constitutes ‘human life’ is an incredibly difficult problem to solve, not least because it first requires an understanding of what constitutes ‘humanity’. I do not think that any organisation which is attempting to bring discussion of this subject into the public sphere should be prevented from doing so, especially in regard to such emotionally sensitive subjects as abortion and euthanasia, and when the answers which arise from such debate will have a huge and direct impact on the lives of so many.

            The position ‘a one day old foetus is not human’, for example, relies on certain definitions of humanity which are clearly not considered by the population as a whole to be convincing. To assume that it is correct because people have acted in accordance with it is not only false, but dangerous. We must be prepared to accept the possibility that the previous actions of people were wrong whichever side of the debate they fall on, no matter how emotionally damaging the immediate consequences of this recognition might be. The long term consequences of denying that the error exists will surely be far worse.

            It is horrible that this debate has caused so much upset, but this only seems to point towards the dire need for resolution. If satisfactory definitions can be found, and this prevents even greater upset in the future, that seems worth the harm any debate and raised awareness may cause to me.

  • anon

    I’ve never had an abortion and I hope I never will but I still felt sick when I saw the pro life stall at a freshers fair, for the same reason I’d feel sick if I saw a pro slavery stall or a pro racial segregation stall. Basically it says to me ‘Here is the society that thinks you don’t deserve full human rights. Want to join up? Here, have a cookie’. People have a right to their views but people also have the right not to have to encounter offensive views in a public place. There are people in Cambridge who think that, for example, people from state schools shouldn’t be allowed in. There are people who think non whites are inferior (hey.. Nick Griffin is an alumni). What we don’t do is give those people a table at freshers fair from which to expound their views and quite right too.

    • Anon

      If you’re so precious that you can’t hope with hearing something that makes you uncomfortable then its ill advised that you should be at Cambridge, or indeed at any university at all. If you believe, like many people do, that life begins at conception, then it is hardly an issue purely of the mother’s right any more than it would be to discuss killing a child that has been born. I’d be prepared to bet £10 to win 10p than you’re a member of the Women’s campaign, by far the most fascist organization at the university by a quarter mile and responsible for far more (deliberate) discomfort, offense and terror than any pro life group here could ever achieve. Its such a shame that a group charged with (and funded for the purpose of) protecting and promoting Women’s issues has so wontonly betrayed its causes and its students by choosing to sideline really importantly and perfectly actionable issues that would make life better for students in favour of tribal and insular clamp downs on free speech. I have no doubt that this is the first in a series of pre-planned targets for the Women’s campaign to attempt to exert their dominance against. I would be much more wary of Amelia Horgan than of Nick Griffin, at least he waited till after Uni to lead an authoritarian bunch of thugs, whereas she has wasted no time.

      • Dr Truth

        I think you are avoiding issue that the article is trying to tackle by bringing in a discussion of the Women’s campaign which really has no direct impact on what she is trying to communicate.

        • Anon

          I believe that the author of this piece and the poster to whom I was responding are both members of this campaign. If they want to clarify the situation as being otherwise I will be prepared to admit that my response is not as relevant as it could be

          • Author

            Hi, I’m the author. Considering the aggression and misinterpretation and controversy of this articles comments i really don’t want to say who I am right now. But as a fresher how could I be a member of the womens campaign? i’m not. Is your loathing and mistrust of them so intense that you can’t even conceive that they might just be a little bit right about one thing, or that anyone could possibly support their view on something? That’d you’d accuse someone genuinely trying to help and put down real emotions as being a liar?

            • cagola

              Is your loathing and mistrust of pro-lifers so intense that you can’t even
              conceive that they might just be a little bit right about one thing, or
              that anyone could possibly support their view on something?

          • Author

            If so, reveal your own identity and I’ll drop you a message, cunt – I’d rather that than have my work, the first time I’ve ever publicly discussed this topic and something I worked hard to make convincing and real – dismissed as some other campaign’s false propaganda. I’m betting you’d rather hide under your anonymity too though, with much less good reason.

            • Liz Ashton

              I’m not anonymous. But the author obviously needs to be when, out of the blue, you escalate and call her a cunt for having the temerity to call your bluff.

              BTW, I have no problem in the slightest getting Police involved in any online ‘debates’ that spill over into online stalking, harassment and bullying, even less so when it spills into RL. In fact had it happen before and the wee charmer got a prison sentence. So keep it civil.

              • Author

                you know what you’re right i shouldn’t ahve used that word – I was just really upset by an article which took a lot of honesty and courage to write and the first time ive discussed this publicly being accused of being some kind of lie for a campaign im not even part of. I dont think using the word cunt means you should contact the police though, utterly ridiculous to suggest im using stalking, harassment or bullying, especially when it’s the pro-life supporters who are getting so obsessed with freedom of speech. I merely wanted to establish that im happy to prove that I’m “real.” I’m just sick of this debate being used to needlessly attack people – we need to consider people’s WELLBEING. people like me.

            • Anon

              If you’re a fresher then how could you be a member of the Women’s campaign? well you could have joined at the freshers fair, or before even. If you are not a member of the Women’s campaign then my initial reply his not relevant to you, but is relevant to this debate as a whole as it is their extreme behavior which triggered it in the first place and their conduct which is under scrutiny. Actually I’m pro choice, and agree with the campaign on probably more things than I disagree with them on, like most students. However if you are a fresher you’ve probably yet to experience how vile they can be, and probably down appreciate why I wrote what I wrote (which I stand by absolutely 100%).

              Lastly, I’d love to have an open debate and I don’t mind being grilled about my position or put on the defensive, however I would have to be clinically mad to post my name on here. I’m sure you would send me a sweary rant about this that and the other, which would be alright although hardly a shining light for Cambridge’s academic prowess. However I’m not prepared to openly make myself and my family back at home a target for the tactics of the Women’s campaign (as I discussed above) who would have absolutely no problem in smashing up my property, having me attacked in the street etc for having spoken out against them.

    • CambridgeEmo

      “Here is the society that thinks you don’t deserve full human rights. Want to join up? Here, have a cookie” ?! Ha !
      What about the various religious societies at the fair who, whether overtly or presumably through orthodoxy, believe in the restriction of LGBT+ rights? I don’t need to see it in writing at the fair to be reminded of the Catholic church or mainstream Islam’s opinion of my lifestyle. Moreover, what about the freshers who come to Cambridge in the hope to start fresh and embrace their sexuality, only to be reminded that religiously-backed hostility is alive and well in Cambridge?

      “People have a right to their views but people also have the right not to have to encounter offensive views in a public place.” Ha ha! You, my dear, have never been to central London. You have no such right. Not now, not ever.

      Freedom of speech and association is a fundamental right. As Jay Z once said, ‘if you don’t like my lyrics you can press fast-forward’.

      • John Smith

        If the Christian Society had images of gay people dying of AIDS, you can bet there’d be demands to tone it down.

        Students should be able to form and advertise whatever societies they like due to freedom of expression, even if that includes a Euthanize-Whites society. However they should, if possible, express their views without advocating hate speech (or otherwise harming people through speech, e.g. expressing the opinion that there’s a fire in this crowded theatre as if we should all trample each other on our way out).

    • Haze

      I imagine CSFL believe that everybody has exactly the same rights to decide whether or not to abort a foetus, and for that matter that men and women have equal rights when it comes to partaking in sexual activity (i.e. only within marriage). The rhetoric of discrimination verges on the absurd.

  • Face in a photo

    Who the hell are these weirdos taking shaky photos of this stall? You aren’t some undercover detective exposing an underground misogyny ring. These were students at a public fair expressing their views on an important issue.
    My photo was included in an earlier piece about the row between CSFL and the Women’s campaign, and I’m not that fond of either group.
    What makes it worse is that the article my face features in describes CSFL as confrontational when the conversation I had with them was perfectly polite, even though I totally disagree with their stance on abortion and physician-assisted suicide.

  • Hey! Listen!

    I think the clincher is that it is the Fresher’s fair rather than some sort of mid-term society fair. We have the freshers, most of whom are living away from home for the first time with an entirely new social group looking for societies of people who share hobbies and interests. It’s one hell of an anxiety filled time and adding a society that is accusatory and so divisive is the opposite of helpful.

    • CambridgeEmo

      What next? Ban all religious societies too? As far as being accusatory and divisive, religion invented the terms ‘sinner’ and ‘hell’.

      • Right.

        They didn’t require the society to be banned, just that it wasn’t present in the safe space of the Freshers Fair.

  • Hesham Mashhour

    This is definitely one of the best things I’ve read this week! Well done and stay strong :)

    • Anon

      Can I get an Amen?

      … Oh. Right.

  • Voice of Reason

    If you have no shame about your abortion then why do you feel the need to whine about other people having different opinions? Did it really upset you that they triggered a memory of something which you are not ashamed of?

    You have the freedom to have an abortion. You do not have the right not to be criticised for it. You certainly don’t have a right not to be even reminded of the freedoms you’ve exercised. Grow up.

    • Grow up yourself.

      Oh, will you stop your whinging. At least she made a valid argument and didn’t make any attempt to crush the opinions of CSFL, she merely expressed the opinion that the Freshers Fair should be a safe space. You’ve merely made a personal attack on her because you disagree with her beliefs.

      • anon15

        “At least she made a valid argument and didn’t make any attempt to crush the opinions of CSFL.”

        That’s precisely it, she seems to feel that her opinions are above reproach and don’t need to be justified, and that if you disagree you should stay out of her sight and conscience. If you define a “safe space” to be one that is free from anything you disagree with, then no, Freshers Fair shouldn’t be a “safe space”.

      • Voice of Reason

        I don’t disagree with her beliefs. I’m perfectly content with the current legal parameters of abortion in England. I ‘disagree’ with her victim mentality and expectation that people (whom she knew to exist beforehand) who stand against abortion should not express their views in a public place on the basis that someone who has had an abortion might happen to be present and upset by their having the temerity politely and respectfully to question what (as she knew beforehand) they consider to be murder.

      • dfdf

        She expressed an opinion and the poster you replied to presented a counter argument. That’s how it works.

        While a personal attack was made, there were logical parts of their comment too.

  • Genuinely confused..

    I don’t understand something (which is why I am asking a question), and I suspect this question is in the minds of similarly unaware/ignorant people who read this article:

    If you are sure you did no wrong, how can they make you feel guilty?

  • Baroness d’Egg

    When I was at the CUSU Fair of Fun, they were forcing all of us to eat eggs. Last year, I lost a tranche of eggs; not a single one was left, and all that was found was a message, saying ‘YOUR EGGS ARE GONE’.

    How do you think I feel? Eggs should NOT be served as they are triggering.

    IT IS OFFENSIVE

    • King Eggmistress

      You fucking egg imposter. YOU were the one who stole MY eggs. Don’t you dare try to get sympathy from these nice students. Your libellous claims and your offensive language will get you nowhere, Baroness.

      Take your low grade egg sewage elsewhere, you savage liar.

  • article author

    Hi, author of the article here. Wanted to clear up a few points.
    1. I am not a secret insurgent of the Women’s, or any other campaign – surprisingly, guys, some other people have also experienced abortion and want to talk about it too!
    2. My discomfort with CSFL is nothing to do with some weird repressed guilt I have which actually proves they are correct. In the same way that a driver who hits someone who jumps off a bridge experiences PTSD and feelings of guilt and trauma, it doesn’t have to have been your fault to feel traumatised and upset by the accusation that you’re a murderer.
    3. Until you’ve had an abortion, please don’t make judgments on how I should feel about mine. It changes you hugely.
    4. I don’t think we should repress CSFL’s freedom of speech AT ALL in any other part of university life; read my fucking article and I state clearly that freedom of speech made cambridge great. I’m just talking about priorities here; freshman students not being upset vs your “freedom of speech” I’m not asking you to never ever talk about pro life again. It’s a statement on how overpriveleged you are that you truly believe that the right to present material which upsets people at ONE occasion is an actual repression of your human rights. Get over yourself and think about being a decent and thoughtful human being instead of arrogantly prioritising making some kind of point.
    5. CSFL, again as I said in the article, is different from religious or political socieities because those cover a wide and vague spectrum, pro-life however is inseperable from a judgment on one very specific personal choice.
    TL;DR – I’m not asking anyone to repress their freedom of speech, I’m asking CSFL to realise they upset me and no doubt countless others and make a responsible and active choice not to go to the freshers fair again. Can others please stop deciding what does/ should/ should not upset women who’ve had abortions and instead listen to someone who’s actually telling you, right here and now, what DOES upset us.
    So far, my strongest impression of Cambridge is how far and low people will go to “win” something at the complete expense and ignorance of basic human decency and empathy. Does it really upset you THAT much to not have to go and stand on one stall for 2 days instead of holding even more interesting debates and events in your own time? No. Could it potentially really upset people if you do continue it? Yes. Greatest good for the greatest number bitches. Check those mental health statistics out and think about whether you really want that on your hands just so you can feel you’ve made your point.

    • anon20

      I think CSFL would argue that accidentally hitting someone with a car, and making a choice to abort a baby are not quite the same thing.

      You have every right to be upset about seeing material related to abortion, but you don’t have a right to ask CSFL not to run a stall. Despite what you claim, asking a society not to run a stall promoting their campaign is repressing their freedom of speech. They were NOT the only society in the fair running a campaign, and they were relatively neutral and subdued compared to some others.

      Perhaps you should use this experience for your benefit, and learn the crucial lesson that most people already have. That throughout your life you will meet opinions and people that you disagree with, and you’ll just have to suck it up and deal with it like all the rest of us. And implying that those mental health statistics are on our hands is just disgraceful.

      • article author

        OK firstly, let’s not say “baby;” it’s a baby when it’s born, until then it’s an embryo or foetus. That’s not up for discussion it’s just science, you can still think aborting a foetus is wrong though that’s your right. I’ve aborted a foetus but never a baby.

        Obviously, I’m not saying they’re the same to you. I’m explaining to someone who asked how I can feel guilty or traumatised even when I don’t logically blame myself. Same logic, clearly totally different scenerio.

        You know what. It’s fully the decision of CUSU (who’s responsibility it is to look after the welfare of students) and CSFL to make this decision. Not mine. I’m just throwing my two cents in, as the only person to have contributed to this debate with real experience. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be allowed. I want them to make an active decision that it’s better for everyone if they stick to their own events. Why unnecessarily upset people just for the sake of a stupid stall? It’s really not a big ask. Them making a conscious decision, based on my experience of distress, as decent and empathic human beings, wouldn’t be a repression of their freedom of speech. And in my view, in something as inconsequential and unpolitically relevent as a bloody Freshers Fair, freedom of speech is really not that much of a big deal compared to student welfare.

        Please can you all stop thinking this is about me whining about other people having different opinions to me? I never mentioned opinions. I don’t care about the Conservative stand or the Christian stand although I don’t subscribe to either. This is about emotions, not opinions.

        At the end of the day, do what you want guys. If CUSU and CSFL decide the stall matters more than people like me, sure. Just wanted to explain to some people who don’t seem to get it at all, how upsetting pro-life propaganda is when you’ve had an abortion. No ulterior motive. No repression of freedom of speech. No disregard for your opinions. Just this is how you’ve made people feel, so now you can make an educated decision about what to do.

        • Voice of Reason

          Calling it ‘a baby’ only after it is born is not a matter of science. It is purely a matter of terminology. Many people use the same terminology to refer to a baby before or after it is born, to stress what they see as the moral equivalence of the two situations. It is not against science to do that. It is at its highest the use of non-standard terminology, which is perfectly legitimate in argument so long as it is made clear.

          • article author

            ok sure. really don’t think that’s the most important point i made but why not.

            • Voice of Reason

              It is a point you’ve referred to twice now, in your argument now and in your article. They are perfectly entitled to use the terminology of ‘babies’, ‘life’, etc. Their use of that terminology reflects how they see the issue, not an incorrect understanding of language.

              I for one would be much more sympathetic if you put across your article as you are mostly arguing now: simply an explanation of how this makes you feel, and a request that they carry out their activities elsewhere and at another time, rather than an argument that they shouldn’t be allowed to be there. I would still entirely back their right to express their views in as restrained a way as they did, at the best opportunity they have to tell freshers that they exist and about the events they will run, but I’d feel an awful lot less hostile to what comes across as a Women’s Campaign-esque ‘ban anything I don’t like’ piece.

              • article author

                “none of this is to say that CSFL shouldn’t be allowed to exist, or to hold debates in their own time and venue.

                Their decision to ignore the rights that women across the world have spent centuries battling for is their own. Cambridge has become the
                great establishment that it is off the back of debate and intellectual diversity, and students have the right to any opinion they want.

                What we need to consider is that this isn’t about the freedom to express an unpopular view, but the need to protect already vulnerable
                and overwhelmed Freshers from misinformation and potentially emotionally triggering material.”

                I very explicitly said I didn’t want to ban it. Anyway, I’m as entitled to the opinion it shouldn’t be at freshers fair as you are to the opinion that it should be. I don’t have any actual power, just my view. Freedom of speech, right? :)))

          • John Smith

            It’s misleading in context. I defend the right for a hypothetical Euthanize-Brunettes society to exist and seek members, but sneaking the terminology “sub-species” or “devolved” in the middle of factual information in their flyers would clearly be misinforming.

            They may have a right to exist and advertise their opinion but not to propagate hate speech or anything else that harms people. The boundary between these may be debatable, but at a Fresher’s Fair, it’s clear they have other avenues to express their views.

        • Haze

          Terminology is “science” only in an extremely superficial sense. Any distinction drawn between “baby”, “foetus”, “embryo” is an essentially arbitrary one – they are useful labels, yes, but they don’t fall out automatically from the way the universe is structured. To put it bluntly, someone made them up.

          Never mind the fact that “baby” would be considered a perfectly acceptable term for a foetus that one doesn’t intend to abort, and has likely been so for centuries.

    • dfdf

      1. cool

      2. nice one

      3. ad hominem

      4. you don’t want to restrict their free speech, only stop them from, what I assume, is their primary source of recruits. That’s really quite significant.

      You then resorted to three personal attacks to justify your prioritising people’s happiness over freedom, without making any substantive point.

      One could say you’re arrogantly prioritising your point over their equality to other groups.

      5. quite right, they are different

      In regards to your TL;DR; nobody here is telling you what upsets you (as far as I can see), they’re just telling you to deal with your upset.

      Not every “bitch” believes that freedom must always be given up for utilitarian “greatest number, greatest good” goals. Perhaps explain why you hold that priority?

      While I’m no fan of CSFL, I would say they hold aims a little deeper than making a point.

    • An ex-student

      Point 4 – You are trying to shut down freedom of speech and prevent any debate or discussion on the matter, and you know you are. Its not just ONE occasion, it is the whole principle of whether you prevent a lawful group of people promoting a point of view or not. That is the matter under discussion. A persons right to express an opinion trumps your right to only hear what you want to hear every time. If someone wants to have a debate on slavery or racial segregation in the Cambridge Union then that is fine by me. You don’t defeat extreme ideas by banning people from expressing them.

    • Fed Up

      “Does it really upset you THAT much to not have to go and stand on one stall for 2 days instead of holding even more interesting debates and events in your own time? No.”
      Umm, can people who have never served on a social executive which faced widespread abuse please stop deciding what upsets those who have.
      The whole point of a Fresher’s Fair is to allow new students to see the ideas, beliefs and interests that their peers have, and open their eyes to the possibilities of things they might like to take an interest in. And for societies, it is the best way to welcome new numbers, and to show that their society exists. Don’t you see that by saying they shouldn’t have a stall at the fair, you ARE repressing their right to free speech?
      In my first year, I don’t think I spoke to a single person at the fair, because I didn’t want to get dragged in to anything I didn’t want to do. Instead, I looked around, thought “Ooh that looks cool” or “Ooh that’s not for me”, and that was that. If you don’t agree with certain things, then that’s fine. But why should other people be stopped from having the chance to decide for themselves if they want to know more?
      Your arguments are full of contradictions, and your comments make you look petty and rather rude.

  • ATiredOldStudent

    This article is exactly the reason fresher articles should be published with great care.

    Don’t come to one of the most prestigious institutions in the world and deny a group its right to advertise during freshers’ week because you happen to disagree with what they say.

    • anon

      um, isn’t freshers fair kind of meant to be about freshers rather than you?

      • ATiredOldStudent

        It’s about societies advertising themselves to gain new members. They all have the right to do that. I am defending that right. It has as much to do with me as it does to do with her.

      • anon100

        Yes and some freshers might be interested and pleased to know that there is a pro-life campaign in cambridge and they may join it.

        Of course you probably meant to say: “isn’t freshers fair kind of meant to be about freshers I agree with rather than you?”

  • bee

    Just want to say that I completely support your disgust that a pro-life group were present at a freshers fair. Unless there was a pro-choice group there also then I do not believe that a bloody freshers fair is the right place to hit people with a discussion about so personal a topic. (I personally don’t think these ‘pro-life’.. well, anti-abortion groups have any place in the 21st century.)

    • anon

      The Womens Campaign is a pro-choice group and they were there, so sit down

  • dfdf

    If you go to a public place specifically designed for the advertisement of groups, including political ones, you just have to deal with messages you don’t like.

  • George

    This article is so unreasonable. The same people who endlessly preach tolerance are so often those who fail to tolerate other beliefs. Pro-choicers are as intolerant as the pro-lifers they criticise for that reason. If a pro-life stand has ‘no place at a Fresher’s fair,’ then a pro-choice movement has no place either; this article included.

    You can only fairly silence two sides of an argument, and I for one am not in favour of silencing anything.

    • Author

      this isn’t about being pro-choice at all – it’s about attempting to convey to people who clearly didn’t understand, what the emotional impact is :)

  • oxbridge can suck my wang

    Cambridge students are boring as fuck

  • The usual story

    Quite sad that some people (usually, though not exclusively, lefty activists) will refuse to accept the validity of something they disagree with. In addition the utility of trigger warnings is highly questionable, with most psychologists agreeing that in the long term, exposure to ‘triggers’ is the only way to come to terms with and overcome the reality of their experience.

  • Pregnant Second Year

    As a student due to give birth to my baby midway through my second year of university I find it confusing that you use your university status and grades as a justification for your abortion being right. Surely you are simply arguing that the ends justify the means? I don’t know at what point you had your abortion but I find had an ultrasound and saw my tiny babies heartbeat at 8 weeks and personally find pro choice campaigns very difficult to stomach. I imagine we both have the same sickening response to opposite campaigns.

    • Author

      I agree, nobody should be upset whether they are pro life or pro choice. The difference was, there was no overly upsetting pro-choice campaign or imagery (I guess the equivalent would be something alone the lines of “WE WANT TO KILL YOUR BABY!” or saying you’re a shit woman for having kept your baby, which is something the pro-choice movement never use. Think about if that was present at the freshers fair; this is my equivalent. the women’s campaign can’t be referenced as it is just generally about feminism and their campigns they advertised were about eg women in academia and consent so i doubt they would have upset you :)

      Additionally, I think it’s amazing that you are managing to balance this! I don’t think it;s wrong at all and you are truly an amazing person. As an individual it’s just not part of what I want for my life right now

  • Will

    Surely deal with your poor lifestyle choices like the assertive feminist you purport to being? As opposed to whining over the right of others to express themselves because it doesn’t sit will with you in this instance.

    • Author

      hmm I don’t think I was whining, rather being candid about a genuine and, more importantly, extremely common emotional response. I hope one day your girlfriend has an abortion so you can tell her to “stop whining” about her “poor lifestyle choices.”

      Right charmer you seem like :)

  • Confused Liberal

    I <3 Liberal paradox. I'm free to believe what I want, but you can't market things that I don't like near me, so you're not free to believe what you want.

  • Brum Student

    This has to be by far the most open and honest article I have read on the Tab. I completely agree with you and I also want to thank you for being brave enough to stand up for what you believe in. I can completely identify with what you are saying (it happened to me at the same time in my life) and i would not be where I am now if I had not made thay decision. Advertising at the fair is by all means completely fine but when false information is given to students and a scaremongering campaign is used then I agree wholeheartedly that the welfare of the new students should be the main priority! Again, thank you for this article! !

  • La Rose

    The lady complains about the taboo and the silence around abortion, but still fails to notice this is exactly what pro-life groups try to fight. Talking openly about abortion, explaining scientific evidence and taking it into the broad daylight. And yes, when you do that, you usually come up with facts that are deeply disturbing to pro-choice people and women who have had an abortion. That is normal. Reality is not what they expected, and it is not a comfortable reality. We are not denying that. We just can’t keep hiding it.

  • StalinSodOff

    Why do you (and feminists/social justice people in general) think that freedom of expression only applies to things you agree with? Sure, you believe that your opinions are the only valid ones — most people do — but most people are also mature enough to realise that when there is no objectively right answer other people might hold different opinions and similarly believe them to be absolutely correct.

    Stop using ‘triggering’ (i.e. falsely pretending you have PTSD) to silence people who don’t agree with you.

    • Author

      I don’t think I ever said I had PTSD :) also, as I said this is nothing about opinions, I very explicitly say everyone has the right to their own opinions. It’s about the experience of new freshers. I wish people would read my article properly instead of putting words in my mouth about wanting to be oppressive :)

  • Welldoneyouexcellentperson

    I just want to congratulate the author on writing what seems like a clear and balanced article that does not moralize overly, and places her personal experience in a context that was remarkably relatable for something that it’s so incredibly difficult to relate to.
    She makes it clear that it is not about free speech, but about protecting Freshers. She has had the courage to detail her own response to feeling like she has to keep a huge life decision private and is going to be stigmatized and excoriated by numerous people throughout her adult life for it, and turned into a political football.
    PEOPLE AT SCHOOL may well be in no position to easily or adequately take care of a child to their own long term and the child’s detriment. Plausibly working on your own to support a child from eighteen is something some people have achieved but is surely not to be called easy, and admitting that not only could you not handle the impact on your own life, or by implication the life of the child until you are 36 years old, takes a lot of courage and must be a very difficult decision.
    However you fall in this debate you have to credit her with having courage. Writing about it on the tab as a newly arrived Fresher, and then wading into a comments storm take smore cojones than most have. Why isn’t everyone reading this just grateful for the fact that she has had the nerve to talk about her experiences in a candid way.

  • Alex Findley

    To those asking why she needs greater protection than other groups she makes that clear. Women who have had actual abortions are marginalized by a culture of silence and by the fact that for them the debate is emotive. Think of one of the most emotional experiences you’ve ever had and then imagine that lots of people told you off from a political standpoint about it. Those who have had abortions cannot enter a conversation about it on the same terms as pro-choicers and pro-lifers who haven’t/ Women who have had abortions therefore can’t properly add their voices to the political discourse because they are more sensitive to bullying and people will turn the offering of experience into a chance to conduct amateurish dissections of their motives. This is the first reason why they must have priority when it comes to being sensitive to them.

    The author clearly acknowledges a separation between her political views on the subject, and the more important emotional experience. SHe says at the end that her story or abortions shouldn’t be used for cheap point scoring against pro-lifer’s or pro-choicers.

    Surely both camps have an interest in learning about the experience of women who have had or are in the position where they are considering abortions, as per the first paragraph, these voices are easily silenced and it is in the interests of those either wishing to support them through an abortion, or persuade them ( and I hope therefore support them) to childbirth and child-raising. Hearing what these women have to say requires not being emotive. Her complaint is not about CSFL but about the nature of their stall. She has also clearly distinguished her own voice from that of TCS by bothering to write the article.

    People on here are invoking a ” freedom vs your personal happiness” binary are invoking a false dichotomy. One user comments ” it’s as much about me as it is about you”… no it clearly isn’t. We haven’t had a problem with being unable to express ourselves. We aren’t being insufficiently supported having had abortions. ( Surely a logical pro-lifer also aims to support and not shame women who have had abortions so that they can in some way rehabilitate them?) The freedom of speech issue is not clear cut.
    It is also not clearly explained why something that makes her decidedly uncomfortable and unfree in her own university is a greater assault on the tenuous “freedom” of those who are annoyed because they don’t think she should be upset or who are invoking an abstract technicality about how if we don’t let everyone say everything all the time soon we’ll be in nazi germany and we’ll be censoring everything.

    It should be clear by now that I am a pro-lifer but that is truly irrelevant.Their ability to assert their own rights to basic community standards of politeness and support is removed by silence, as is their ability to voice an opinion, without facing an attack to which they are sensitive in ways that others in the debate aren’t. What is appalling about how people have reacted to this article is that this is a Fresher, if a couple of points weren’t a logically tight as all that then she isn’t going to be as practiced at dealing with that as some more seasoned and political students.She’s actually a very clear writer, but firstly A FRESHER who is also VULNERABLE and who has had the minerals to put herself and her experience forward. Play nice for god’s sake.

    • Alex Findley

      Umm I meant pro-choicer in that last comment. Definitely pro choice.

  • Life

    Breast cancer
    Twenty-seven out of thirty-three studies showed an average of 30% increased risk of breast cancer to women who have had an abortion compared to those who deliver their first pregnancy.17 The impact of Brind’s metanalysis was carefully reviewed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who found “the Brind paper had no major methodological short comings.”b) Suicide
    An analysis of death certificates and medical records by researchers in Finland revealed a suicide rate among aborting women approximately six times higher than women who delivered and three times higher than that of women in the general population.18 Researchers in Britain found that, prior to their pregnancy, aborting and delivering women had similar rates of suicide attempts. The rate of suicide attempts increased markedly after the abortion. These researchers concluded “the increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion may therefore be a consequence of the procedure itself.”19

    Homicide, AIDS, etc.
    There is strong evidence of increased smoking and drinking following abortion.2021 There are increased rates of death by; accidents, AIDS, cardio-vascular disease and cerebral-vascular disease in those who have abortions compared to those who delivered their babies.22 Domestic violence and marital break up are more common. Poor sleep, particularly as a result of nightmares, is frequently reported. Difficulties with diminished libido and disparunia are not uncommon.

  • Anthony Trepniak

    “I have no shame in admitting that I am one of the 1 in 3 of us who have, or will, experienced abortion.”
    That’s very brave of you, “Anon”.

  • Pingback: Keep abortion legal - as a last resort » Spectator Blogs

  • Pingback: free instagram followers

  • Pingback: instagram followers instantly

  • Pingback: free followers on instagram

  • Pingback: fifa 14 coin generator

  • Pingback: farmville 2 hack

  • Pingback: The Authoritarian Left are Sending Women Back to the 19th Century - Created by admin - In category: National - Tagged with: - The News On Time - Minutes by minute following the worldwide news

  • Pingback: The Authoritarian Left are Sending Women Back to the 19th Century | The Daily Float

  • Pingback: The Authoritarian Left are Sending Women Back to the 19th Century | InTheKnow

  • Pingback: The Authoritarian Left are Sending Women Back to the 19th Century | Best of Tampa Bay News

  • McQueue

    Other people should not be able to air their heartfelt views if it makes you personally feel bad….. er, OK, that sounds like it’s going to lead us somewhere good as a society.

  • Pingback: Tony

  • Pingback: steven

  • Pingback: Virgil

  • Pingback: Terrence