Begun, the posting wars have...

I'm going to have to agree with those supporting Matt. I agree with his message (at least 90% of it), but that's not all that important right now.

What is more important is that another organization has taken the (relatively) unprecedented step of posting fliers everywhere solely to promote a political message. If political messages and agendas are to be encapsulated in law school postings...then let it be. But that must mean that every voice gets to be heard.

What strikes me most is the fact that other students are offended by the images they see. They're not offended (at least not offended as much) by a pro-life message. Instead, it's the image that they focus on. I have always been an advocate of full, open, and honest debate/discussion on any issue...but if certain people want to block a portrayal of the factual consequences of an abortion, that's not going to happen.

Why is the image so "offensive"? We've all been exposed to blood and gore on the movie screen, haven't we? Here's an idea...just a theory...there are some folks out there who would rather not have to look at the actual consequences of a policy they support. They'd rather sweep it under the rug. I'd rather that didn't happen. After all, if it's just a "clump of cells," what's the big deal?

Finally, regarding concerns over whether we may lose members: so be it (so say I, speaking as an individual and not as a leader or representative of the Federalist Society). Matt is a Federalist, yes, but he posted as an individual and the way I see the Federalist Society is that there are no litmus tests for being a member, save one: support of free, open, honest, and fair discussion.