An Object of Hate

The Black Plague of the 14th century marked a time of intense societal challenges, fear, and institutional dogma. The limited scientific understanding at the time meant individuals were easily led to irrational explanations and an unlikely scapegoat to account for the spread of the disease. Cats, particularly black cats, were unjustly blamed for the plague and an anti-cat sentiment began to grow in Europe. Religious leaders falsely accused cats of being ‘‘agents of Satan’’ and as a result, cats were targeted and killed in large numbers. It comes as no surprise that in a time of intense widespread panic, large numbers of people turned to nonsensical explanations. Unjust persecution and the spread of false narratives is an ever-recurring theme throughout history- it has happened in the past and will likely happen in the future. Despite this fact, individuals often fail to realise the similarities between the present day and the times of historical injustice they are quick to criticize. This leads us to the question of whether today, we are also living in a time of injustice and misguided persecution. Is there a group of individuals who are afflicted by the dangers of institutional dogma, much like black cats during the plague?

Most students at the University of Aberdeen will be somewhat acquainted with the Aberdeen Life Ethics Society (ALES). The Aberdeen Life Ethics society is a non-sectarian, philosophical society that aims to educate others about the intrinsic worth of all human life and the harms caused to it by various violent acts, such as abortion and euthanasia. However, what most will not be well acquainted with, is the thirteen-month battle ALES had to face in order to gain affiliation from the Aberdeen University Students’ Association (AUSA).

On 27th April 2018, ALES submitted a new society application to AUSA’s Societies Union Committee. From the date of submission, it took ALES nearly 6 months to receive an eventual decision. The answer to their application was a flat-out rejection. This rejection was based on AUSA’s 2017 pro-choice policy. Passed by the Student Council, the policy entitled ‘‘AUSA is Pro-Choice’’ required, among other things that AUSA offers “no funding, facilitation, or platform” to any pro-life group and forbids the “unreasonable display” of pro-life material on campus. Given that the pro-life ethic, especially in relation to abortion, is a minority position, the motion unsurprisingly passed by vote of 60-2.

After ALES’ initial rejection by the Societies Union Committee, Alex Mason, founder of ALES, with the help of legal counsel, submitted a 15- page complaint to the University regarding AUSA’s unlawful rejection of the society. The complaint alleged that AUSA had violated ALES’ rights of speech and association as protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010. The University declined involvement in the complaint and told ALES to take it up with AUSA.

Following this, it took a meeting between ALES and AUSA representatives, a meeting of the Trustee Board, as well as two failed attempts by both members of ALES and free-speech allies to democratically repeal AUSA’s unlawful and discriminatory ‘‘AUSA is pro-choice policy’’. After months of silence from AUSA, the Trustee Board resolved to not repeal the illegal policy themselves. ALES was left no choice but to file a lawsuit against AUSA, which in turn led to successful affiliation of the society. The Aberdeen Life Ethics Society exists as an AUSA affiliated society to this day, despite these trials and tribulations. However, the persecution these students faced for the ‘‘crime’’ of holding what the university deems to be the wrong opinion, speaks volumes about the age we are living in.

For anyone with an ounce of respect for the freedoms that allow them to be at University, the events highlighted above are clearly a disgrace. In particular, the passing of a motion banning certain students from expressing their lawful opinions, demonstrates the impoverished state of the democratic bodies designed to represent all students. Any council member who voted in favour of such unlawful attempts to silence their peers, ought to reconsider their role on what is supposed to be a democratic council. The most alarming part about our student unions discriminatory efforts, is that they are not alone in their actions. This sort of censorship has been well-documented across the UK, with students at Strathclyde, Cardiff, Dundee, Oxford, Glasgow, Newcastle, Stirling, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Warwick, Cambridge, and Manchester being affected. The events that took place here at our university are by no means an anomaly, they are part of a growing intolerance for dissenting opinions.

The response ALES received from both the students’ association and student body demonstrate an unwillingness to deal with a moral question that is recognised by most people as a legitimate debate. The very purpose of university is to freely debate and share ideas in the pursuit of truth. An important thing to remember is that without the freedom to question biases, challenge social norms, and ask uncomfortable questions, the pursuit of truth is utterly impossible. Perhaps the very institutions designed to promote free thought, as well as the students who attend them, have forgotten the values that lie at the core of what they are supposed to be pursuing. A university without freedom of thought and speech fails to be a university at all; it merely becomes an institution of indoctrination.

The censorship of the abortion debate is not only indicative of a global inhibition of free speech at universities, but it is also indicative of the fact abortion is an inherently moral issue, one that sparks strong emotional response. Abortion proponents like to claim that abortion is nothing more than a harmless medical procedure, comparable to having your appendix removed or a simple dental surgery. However, these assertions are severely misinformed or ill-intentioned attempts to falsely paint the ethical debate surrounding abortion as unnecessary. If discussing abortion was as mundane as discussing vital, morally neutral medical procedures such as appendix removal, then what would be the urgency to silence anyone who dares to discuss abortion in depth from a scientific and philosophical standpoint? The only logical explanation for this type of behaviour, is that abortion advocates seek to silence their ideological opponents because they know if a rational debate were to ensue, support for abortion would likely significantly decrease. If abortion were truly as mundane as any other common medical procedure, no-one would be going to such lengths to silence debate. If you know that you cannot win a debate, the best strategy is to avoid the debate entirely.

What is the truth that Aberdeen Life Ethics Society is attempting to expose that AUSA and some students are desperate to censor? The truth about abortion is that it is a lethal act designed to intentionally and directly kill an innocent human being inside the womb. Every successful abortion ends with a dead human. This is an incontrovertible scientific fact. Anyone with a basic understanding of embryology knows that human life begins at fertilisation. Yet, the Aberdeen Life Ethics Society as wellas the general pro-life philosophy has been called ‘‘unscientific’’ byembryology students here at the University of Aberdeen. Perhaps, theyought to pay more attention in their lessons.

It is not uncommon to hear pro-abortion advocates espouse with remarkable confidence that pre-born children are ‘‘just foetuses’’, not actual human beings. However, terminology like embryo and foetus that are so often used by pro-abortion advocates to dehumanise the pre-born child, are not representative of what the pre-born child actually is. The terms embryo and foetus are simply scientific ones to denote the age of an individual. Dogs, cats, dolphins, elephants and humans all exist as an embryo and foetus in the beginning of their lives. To accurately determine the species of any embryo or foetus, we must first ask what species the parents are. Since science tells us that all sexually reproducing organisms can only reproduce after their own kind, it follows that two human persons, one male and one female, can only reproduce another human person.

All our lives began at the moment of fertilisation, which is when the male sperm penetrates the female egg. This creates a zygote, which is a new human being in her or his first stages of life. Whilst this new human being possesses genetic information from both the mother and father, the combinations of each parent’s DNA creates a genetically distinct, irreplaceable human being. With these facts in mind, we can be clear about what an abortion truly entails.

It is also typical to hear the use of euphemistic terms when people talk about abortion. For example, the NHS describes abortion in the following way, ‘‘The pregnancy is then removed via suction [...] occasionally, the pregnancy doesn’t pass and a small operation is needed to remove it.” Notice the use of the word it- what exactly is it? Since the medical definition of pregnancy is the state of carrying a developing (thereby living) embryo or foetus within the female body, when the NHS talks about removing the pregnancy or ‘‘it’’, they are actually talking about ending the life of the developing human inside the mother’s womb. With all of this in mind, a proper definition of abortion would look like this; abortion is the intentional and direct ending of antenatal human life. This is because abortion ends a human life. If someone survives an abortion, that abortion is considered a failure. They weren’t aborted because their life wasn’t ended.

The NHS’ use of purposely misleading language is wholly expected. Telling a woman that her child is going to be starved by way of chemical abortion, poisoned by a digoxin/saline abortion or mutilated via a dismemberment abortion, wouldn’t convince most women to go ahead with the procedure. Knowing this is the case, the NHS and other abortion providing organisations must resort to censoring the true horror of abortion, just as our university has unsuccessfully tried to in the past.

If the abortion debate were allowed to evolve without the constraints of institutional censorship, the ugly truth of abortion would soon be exposed. Without significant effort from pro-life individuals, the majority of society would recognise abortion for what it truly is, an awful crime against the most innocent and vulnerable members of the human family. The reason I state pro-lifers need only minimal effort to convince society, is because the pro-life philosophy is the most consistent one. Most believe there is no justification to kill an innocent and defenceless human being, therefore the majority of society should be against abortion.

Just like how today we understand that cats are not ‘‘agents of Satan’’ spreading the plague to humans, hopefully a time will come where we see the same development happen with the way wider society views pro-life individuals. We are all living during one of the greatest human rights violations history has ever seen, but where there is injustice, there is also always opportunity for growth in human consciousness. However, this growth can only be achieved when the freedom to express one's thoughts and opinions is fully embraced. Without freedom of speech thriving in the places it is meant to most; society will remain stagnant and injustice will continue. To prevent the unfair persecution that cats faced from reoccurring, we must assess many possible avenues when trying to find the root of any problem. When we haste to draw conclusions, we are often left pointing our fingers in the wrong direction and resorting to drastic and deeply immoral decisions.

Composed by, Peri Dalkic, Undergraduate of Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen