Students walking to Georgetown Square during lunch on Thursday, March 20, were met with graphic anti-abortion posters set up by two volunteers from the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR). The signs displayed photos of aborted fetuses, and one of the banners drew a comparison between abortion and animal abuse. The shocking display sparked controversy among many students who passed by. While most students simply stared or took pictures, some approached the CBR volunteers to ask questions or express their own opinion regarding the subject.

CBR is a privately-funded, non-profit organization that seeks to speak out against abortion. The demonstrators, Jonathan Darnel and Don Kenny, were a part of one of the organization’s projects called the Reproductive “Choice” Campaign. Darnel interacted with students, answering many questions and comments regarding abortion.

“We’re going around to all the local high schools all around the D.C. area, and this is just one that’s got a very good walking climate- a lot of students walking back and forth from class,” said Darnel.

Setting up in a highly visible location where any student walking to Georgetown Square was exposed to the graphic pictures was strategic and successfully achieved its purpose, invoking reactions from students that have a spectrum of opinions about the topic.

“I believe they chose to target students because a large majority of women who get abortions are young girls… who got pregnant accidentally and aren’t ready to be mothers,” said pro-choice junior Emma Higgins. “They are trying to persuade people our age to reject that choice and to choose… not to have abortions.”

Although a few students argued with the CBR volunteers due to difference of opinion, interactions between the parties remained relatively civil. However, school security was stationed around the area to ensure student safety. Security staff asked the two men to relocate farther from school campus, but they had a right to station themselves on public property. However, several students questioned why they chose to set up next to WJ.

“I thought they had no business being there, not because they didn’t have a right to express their opinion, but because in one of the most liberal places in the country, nobody is going to take them seriously, and they are not going to change anyone’s mind,” said senior Andrew McManus, who saw the display. “Frankly, I think they were there to anger people and illicit an emotional response rather than spark intelligent debate.”

In response to some of these questions, Darnel stated his reasons for setting up next to the school. He said he believes high school students tend to be more open-minded.

“Generally high schools are better than any other place because the students haven’t made up their minds already or their instincts for right and wrong tell them that abortion is instinctively wrong and therefore it should be okay to speak out against it,” said Darnel. “Sure we have students that tell us we’re idiots or whatever, but you’ll get that anywhere. Overall, I’d rather be at a high school than anywhere else.”

Some believe that a high school is not an appropriate setting for this information to be discussed. However, abortion is a personal and fragile topic that many people feel passionate about. Several students were willing to express their opinions.

“I think if the security guards and the police hadn’t been there at the time, there most likely would’ve been some form of assault,” said senior Ben Fischman. “I mean, I wanted to punch the people in the face.”

With this being such an emotional topic, many students felt the presentation was unfitting for a school environment.

“I think that their display was in bad taste with the animal abuse and the bloody fetus,” said junior Mason Saphire. “There were children being dropped off for child development, too, and even though they argued that we were old enough to see things like this, I don’t think that those children were.”

Saphire not only observed the display, but also spoke to both Darnel and Kenny. One of the topics Saphire discussed lies at the core of the pro-life movement. Pro-life activists believe life begins at conception, whereas Saphire, Higgins and other pro-choice supporters argue that life does not commence until much later in the developmental process.

“[The CBR volunteers] argued that the moment of conception it was a person, just as valuable as someone who had been living their whole life, rather than the disorganized cell clump it was,” said Saphire. “Then they talked about rape, but they insisted that the mother would be murdering her child if she had an abortion, and compared it to shooting a person on the street.”

Higgins shared this view, adding that it is ultimately a woman’s decision whether or not to get an abortion.

“I believe that anything a woman wants to do with her body is a choice,” added Higgins. “When the baby is still a fetus it is part of the mother’s body and therefore she may do as she pleases. I believe it is essential that women be given the choice to have abortions because pregnancies can pose serious risks to the health of the mother and child.”

Several also claimed that the term “pro-life,” often associated with anti-abortion campaigns, was deceptive and erroneous. 

“My problem with ‘pro-lifers’ is that it’s a false title,” said Fischman. “They’re not pro-life, they’re pro-birth. They don’t care if the woman giving birth to the child isn’t ready to be a mother financially or responsibly or is even healthy enough to deliver the child.  They just want to see a baby born. And when the mother asks for help, she’s immediately looked at as an unfit parent.  It’s a vicious cycle.”

Junior Hannah Wilcove is also strongly pro-choice and felt similarly about the subject. She also stated her issue with the types of images the CBR used in their anti-abortion campaign.

“What I’d like to know is why people who claim to be pro-life are more concerned with saving the nonexistent life of a cluster of cells than they are with improving the quality of life of a woman in need,” said Wilcove. “A ton of what anti-abortion protesters say is propaganda that severely twists the truth and/or is misinformation without adequate sources.”