During an abortion debate at Purdue university sponsored by the Boilermakers for Life student organization, a pro-choice professor accused his pro-life counterpart of displaying "child pornography" when images of fetuses were used in the presentation.

David Sanders, an associate professor of biology at Purdue, appeared confused about the definition of "child pornography" and elicited laughs with his comparison.

Campus Reform:

"What would you call the public display of a butt naked body of a child?" Sanders questioned. "I would call it child pornography. Do they have their permission? Do they have the permission of the fetus? Obviously not."

He went on to question whether or not Created Equal obtains "the permission of the parents to show these images of children," soliciting a shocked reaction from the audience, with one in attendance pointing out that Sanders had effectively admitted that "it's a child."

"I didn't admit it. I'm using his language. He thinks it's a child. I do not," Sanders quickly retorted, but then appeared to equivocate, saying, "if you want to enforce and protect First Amendment rights to allow you to show child pornography, have at it."

Drayer, responding to Sanders' argument, told The Liberty Conservative that "the claim that displaying abortion victim images in public is equal to child pornography is absurd (and laughable based on the reaction from the crowd gathered for the debate)," pointing out that the issue has already been decided by the courts.

"Federal law defines child pornography as 'any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor.' By all accounts, images of abortion victims do not even come close to meeting that definition," he explained. "The displaying of images of dismembered preborn children in public have long been considered protected political speech by federal courts where displaying child pornography is a criminal act punishable with up to 30 years' maximum in prison."

Sanders, however, contested Drayer's interpretation of the relevant statutes, telling Campus Reform that he "has misrepresented federal law." 

Additionally, Sanders claimed that the video in question was recorded in violation of the terms of the debate, calling the recording one that he had "explicitly demanded should not be made and about which the organizers of the debate lied," though Indiana requires only one party to consent to a recording when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.  

This is another case of "leftist speak": changing the definition of words or phrases to buttress a political argument.  In this instance, the accusation of child pornography was used in an attempt to to shut off debate entirely.  We are all familiar with this tactic, especially on college campuses.  Anything said in opposition to the dominant liberal view is branded "hate speech."  Any speech that attempts to contradict a favorite liberal narrative about race is called "racist." 

The purpose of this deliberate and calculated alteration in the definition of words and ideas is to change the parameters of debate, ostensibly placing the liberal in an ascendant moral position from which he cannot be challenged.  Hence, calling police "terrorists" and conservative ideas "hate speech" is just a logical outgrowth of tactics used to silence the opposition.

I cannot believe that this professor actually thought the images of aborted fetuses were "child porn."  Can anyone be that obtuse, that stupid?  Rather, Sanders employed the well worn tactic because he believed that it would give him the upper hand in the debate.

He was laughably wrong.