There's a bit on controversy going on at my college

[UofLCard]

I'm wasn't sure about the appropriate section to place this in, so I just stuck it here. Feel free to move it.

A group of pro-life people recently set up thousands of home-made crosses (made from popsicle sticks, I think) on my college campus to represent abortions. Not long after they did this, a few students, in the middle of the night, put condoms on all the crosses--to show how unwanted pregnancies would've been prevented in the first place. Not surprisingly, the people who put up the crosses got angry and said they desecrated them.

I feel that the second group had as much right to put those condoms there as the people who chose to place crosses in the first place.

What is your all's opinions on this matter?

Here's an article on this:
http://www.bgdailynews.com/features/faith_and_values/condoms-over-crosses-draw-national-attention/article_4f5423aa-9070-11e1-8d00-0019bb2963f4.htm

(I am annoyed that I'm having trouble scoping out the pro-choice side of the story.

[CrashBand]

I can't read the article but from your post -

I don't think it's quite the same. The first group have a particular stance on abortion and are placing these crosses to express their view on the issue.

Whereas the second group are pretty much doing this tongue-in-cheek condom stunt with the intent to piss the first group off.

See the distinction? Even though what the first group did might offend or annoy people I don't think that was their intent. But the second group, along with establishing a point of their own were pretty much trying to piss these pro-life buffoons off.

[UofLCard]

As the made-up saying goes, one man's good deed is another man's.....oh, I don't know.

It could be argued that, by placing the crosses, the pro-life group people were trying to shame those that had abortions in the first place and make them feel low.

You (as the general phase) may not agree with the decision to put condoms on the display, but they were sending out a message as strong at the pro-lifers.

But either way, both groups had a Constitutional right under American law to do what they did.

But I see it going down like this:

First group-"These crosses represent abortions"
Second group-"These condoms would've prevented the aborions in the first place"

[CrashBand]

Yes but again I feel the distinction is the second group whilst still making a point put the condoms there to intentionally 'disrespect' the first group.

I'm personally not offended by the second groups act and in fact find it quite clever and funny

[UofLCard]

I, too, got a chuckle out of it when my professor mentioned what happened.