Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

the headbanger

eviltwin wrote: »

I haven't seen any 'pro abortion' posters, have seen quite a few Repeal the 8th ones for various things but that is not the same as advocating for abortion.

I'd like to see examples of these posters so we can see for ourselves how offensive they are.

Unless they break any laws I think defacing them is childish at best. Do you not believe that in any debate both sides have the right to put forth their position? Do you not think that its gross arrogance to decide that because you personally find the posters message to be offensive that that somehow gives you right to remove that message on behalf of your community? Perhaps you should allow the people in your locality the chance to hear both sides and form their own opinion.

I'd imagine if someone defaced an anti abortion poster you wouldn't appreciate it.

Yes I do agree both sides should be heard. That's my point. Abortion isn't axiomatically ok. In fact I hope the very opposite view. But there's a time and place and I feel that the abortion side do themselves no favours when they place pro abortion posters near schools. Which as I say is my gripe

eviltwin

the headbanger wrote: »

We'll repeal the 8th is a pro abortion stance so let's clear that up.

And what's all this about breaking the law/within the law. I'm talking about right and wrong. You don't win an argument about what is right and wrong by simply pointing at "the law."

I can only repeat again that it is ghastly to post pro abortion posters near schools. I don't propose to repeat that again.

And you are incorrect; I wouldn't really have any view if someone defaced a pro life banner.

No its not. Repealing the 8th just repeals the 8th. Abortion will still have to be legislated for and that's a whole different ballgame. Lots of people who do not support abortion want a repeal because of the impact its having on maternity care and patient rights in this country.

Who are you to decide what is right or wrong? Your opinion is just your opinion. You don't have any right to decide what the rest of the population should be able to see or not see. You'd be far more productive discussing the issue and trying to argue your case than being a vandal. Both sides have the right to have posters up, you can't shut down debate.

eviltwin

the headbanger wrote: »

Yes I do agree both sides should be heard. That's my point. Abortion isn't axiomatically ok. In fact I hope the very opposite view. But there's a time and place and I feel that the abortion side do themselves no favours when they place pro abortion posters near schools. Which as I say is my gripe

What do these posters say exactly that has you so incensed?

the headbanger

eviltwin wrote: »

No its not. Repealing the 8th just repeals the 8th. Abortion will still have to be legislated for and that's a whole different ballgame. Lots of people who do not support abortion want a repeal because of the impact its having on maternity care and patient rights in this country.

Who are you to decide what is right or wrong? Your opinion is just your opinion. You don't have any right to decide what the rest of the population should be able to see or not see. You'd be far more productive discussing the issue and trying to argue your case than being a vandal. Both sides have the right to have posters up, you can't shut down debate.

eviltwin wrote: »

No its not. Repealing the 8th just repeals the 8th. Abortion will still have to be legislated for and that's a whole different ballgame. Lots of people who do not support abortion want a repeal because of the impact its having on maternity care and patient rights in this country.

Who are you to decide what is right or wrong? Your opinion is just your opinion. You don't have any right to decide what the rest of the population should be able to see or not see. You'd be far more productive discussing the issue and trying to argue your case than being a vandal. Both sides have the right to have posters up, you can't shut down debate.

Repealing the 8th is a pro abortion stance. If you believe the unborn has equal status as the mother you cannot justify repealing the 8th or abortion. If you don't believe that, then fair game.

Yes my opinion on right and wrong is one view. Who are you to say otherwise? No one. It's a discussion forum so I guess we are supposed to thrash it out. I don't think we can reconcile the two views though. If you think that kind of debate is one that should be had around lampposts in residential/school zones then we simply won't agree. I think it's vile and that the debate belongs on prime time or something.

But you adopting that position will only fortify my view. Guess we'll just have to disagree on the appropriateness of that medium.

eviltwin

the headbanger wrote: »

Repealing the 8th is a pro abortion stance. If you believe the unborn has equal status as the mother you cannot justify repealing the 8th or abortion. If you don't believe that, then fair game.

Yes my opinion on right and wrong is one view. Who are you to say otherwise? No one. It's a discussion forum so I guess we are supposed to thrash it out. I don't think we can reconcile the two views though. If you think that kind of debate is one that should be had around lampposts in residential/school zones then we simply won't agree. But you adopting that position will only fortify my view. Guess we'll just have to disagree on the appropriateness of that medium.

I'm not interested in getting into a debate on the issue or trying to change anyone's mind, my response to you is purely based on your vandalism of the posters. I have no issues with posters of this nature, or its opposing view, on lamp posts near my child's school once they are appropriate. I believe for you to decide what your neighbours should and shouldn't be exposed to is wrong, you have yet to show what it is that is so bad that young children shouldn't see them either, maybe you should explain what they say so we can judge for ourselves or does the silencing of the message extend to message boards too?

the headbanger

the headbanger wrote: »

Repealing the 8th is a pro abortion stance. If you believe the unborn has equal status as the mother you cannot justify repealing the 8th or abortion. If you don't believe that, then fair game.

Yes my opinion on right and wrong is one view. Who are you to say otherwise? No one. It's a discussion forum so I guess we are supposed to thrash it out. I don't think we can reconcile the two views though. If you think that kind of debate is one that should be had around lampposts in residential/school zones then we simply won't agree. I think it's vile and that the debate belongs on prime time or something.

But you adopting that position will only fortify my view. Guess we'll just have to disagree on the appropriateness of that medium.

Just to be clear. By all means have a rigorous debate but do you seriously justified placing pro abortion posters near school?

I say, respectfully, that's it's most inappropriate

eviltwin

the headbanger wrote: »

Just to be clear. By all means have a rigorous debate but do you seriously justified placing pro abortion posters near school?

I say, respectfully, that's it's most inappropriate

It depends on what they say. In principal, I have no issues at all with posters for either side being placed near schools. With all due respect, what you find inappropriate is for you to decide for you, its not for you to decide for anyone else.

the headbanger

eviltwin wrote: »

It depends on what they say. In principal, I have no issues at all with posters for either side being placed near schools. With all due respect, what you find inappropriate is for you to decide for you, its not for you to decide for anyone else.

I happen to think that the subject matter is inappropriate. I appreciate your candidness though

eviltwin

the headbanger wrote: »

I happen to think that the subject matter is inappropriate. I appreciate your candidness though

Is it a specific image or wording of the poster that you don't agree with or just the fact its expressing an opinion you don't agree with?

the headbanger

eviltwin wrote: »

Is it a specific image or wording of the poster that you don't agree with or just the fact its expressing an opinion you don't agree with?

As I said. It's the subject matter and messaging that I take objection to.

eviltwin

the headbanger wrote: »

As I said. It's the subject matter and messaging that I take objection to.

So really it wouldn't matter what the poster looked like or what it said, you'd still have a problem with it?

Is that really going to achieve anything though? You won't stop the debate by getting rid of a few posters.

the headbanger

eviltwin wrote: »

So really it wouldn't matter what the poster looked like or what it said, you'd still have a problem with it?

Is that really going to achieve anything though? You won't stop the debate by getting rid of a few posters.

I'm not trying to stop the debate. The debate is needed. I am trying to say "not here".

It's a reverse to the argument that pro abortion clinics make when pro lifers campaign outside their clinics. The argument they advance is essentially "not here please"

eviltwin

the headbanger wrote: »

I'm not trying to stop the debate. The debate is needed. I am trying to say "not here".

It's a reverse to the argument that pro abortion clinics make when pro lifers campaign outside their clinics. The argument they advance is essentially "not here please"

I think there is a big difference between directly targeting people who are vulnerable to your message and putting up posters near a school. Pretty much every part of the country where posters go up are near children, most are so boring that I doubt many children even notice them. So I don't know why you think they shouldn't see them.

the headbanger

eviltwin wrote: »

I think there is a big difference between directly targeting people who are vulnerable to your message and putting up posters near a school. Pretty much every part of the country where posters go up are near children, most are so boring that I doubt many children even notice them. So I don't know why you think they shouldn't see them.

Once again. I genuinely appreciate your candidness. It essentially bring us to a position where I simply have to say "I disagree with you" and the positions are irreconcilable.

Unborn children who would be aborted are in my own opinion just as "vulnerable" as the prospective mother contemplating abortion.

eviltwin

the headbanger wrote: »

Once again. I genuinely appreciate your candidness. It essentially bring us to a position where I simply have to say "I disagree with you" and the positions are irreconcilable.

Unborn children who would be aborted are in my own opinion just as "vulnerable" as the prospective mother contemplating abortion.

I can see why you take that position. I don't believe there is any justification for making life more difficult for women accessing these services or the people who work in them. I don't believe in using intimidation which is what this is.

the headbanger

eviltwin wrote: »

I can see why you take that position. I don't believe there is any justification for making life more difficult for women accessing these services or the people who work in them. I don't believe in using intimidation which is what this is.

I don't propose to continue the tit for tat beyond this message.

But since you have drawn me on it I don't believe that the correct answer is ever to kill an innocent baby. There are many many couples desperate to take in children into loving homes. I don't accept you can water down the atrocity by using a neutral term like services.

Like I said, I won't bash onwards with more replies on why I am pro life. But please don't mischaracterise my conscientious objection to the MEDIUM of debate/messaging selected by playing the "making life difficult for the mothers" card.

looksee

Does the poster just say 'Repeal the 8th' or is it more specific/detailed?

I could just add that I am an atheist, but I have mixed feelings about abortion. It is not desirable, I would think that very few women would have one without some level of grief, sometimes profound, but it is not for anyone else to decide whether they should or not. (and I don't hear anyone suggesting that the men who cause unwanted pregnancies should be forced have some sort of temporary chemical castration to make sure they don't create any more!).

I don't think the Constitution should be involved in it at all, it should be a matter between medical experts and the couple concerned to sort out.

There needs to be legislation about it - at some stage it is too late unless in very exceptional circumstances, and to make sure that any decisions are fully informed and not 'backstreet clinic' affairs. It should not be used as basic contraception, but whose is that decision to make? Not mine, anyway, I do not know what happens in other peoples' lives.

rainbow kirby

the headbanger wrote: »

Like I said, I won't bash onwards with more replies on why I am pro life. But please don't mischaracterise my conscientious objection to the MEDIUM of debate/messaging selected by playing the "making life difficult for the mothers" card.

if your objection is to the medium, why are you getting your underwear in a twist over "Repeal" posters and posters about public meetings when your side is the one waving posters with gory pictures of foetuses at people? :rolleyes:

aloyisious

the headbanger wrote: »

As I said. It's the subject matter and messaging that I take objection to.

Does the message simply read "repeal the 8th" or is it something much stronger worded that has caused you such apparent upset and worry that schoolchildren might see?

Us being adults here, I reckon whatever the written words are on the poster that has you upset won't be too shocking to us and you have succeeded in exciting our interest in the wording.

On terminations, do you agree with them?

the headbanger

looksee wrote: »

but it is not for anyone else to decide whether they should or not.


s.

In fact I think it's perfectly legitimate for the state to outlaw the intentional killing of another human being. Regardless of what the mother "decides" is her business

the headbanger

rainbow kirby wrote: »

if your objection is to the medium, why are you getting your underwear in a twist over "Repeal" posters and posters about public meetings when your side is the one waving posters with gory pictures of foetuses at people? :rolleyes:

That type of poster isn't Showing up outside schools though. Besides its just a reality check. It's like showing shocking ads of car crashes.

looksee

You still haven't told us what is showing up outside schools though. And I would have thought that scribbling it out would attract much more attention from children who otherwise would probably not even notice them.

eviltwin

the headbanger wrote: »

That type of poster isn't Showing up outside schools though. Besides its just a reality check. It's like showing shocking ads of car crashes.

I don't need to see graphic images of car crash victims and their injuries to know that I should drive carefully. I don't want my kid to see gore no matter how 'real' it is.

the headbanger

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't need to see graphic images of car crash victims and their injuries to know that I should drive carefully. I don't want my kid to see gore no matter how 'real' it is.

Well, logically, you wouldn't be offended about anti abortion posters for showing the horrors of abortion. But I think, respectfully, that you are shifting the ground here. My gripe is with actual posters outside actual schools which are pro abortion in content.

the headbanger

looksee wrote: »

You still haven't told us what is showing up outside schools though. And I would have thought that scribbling it out would attract much more attention from children who otherwise would probably not even notice them.

I take your point re scribbling on it. My motivation in scribbling is really to deprecate the sign and it's place in residential areas. I accept it draws attention and speaking more practically I probably should just cut the sign down. I prefer to express my contempt for the sign by scribbling on it. As I say, I accept that it draws more attention, but it also shows up the inappropriateness of the signs and shows that there are people out there who really don't approve of location

aloyisious

the headbanger wrote: »

Well, logically, you wouldn't be offended about anti abortion posters for showing the horrors of abortion. But I think, respectfully, that you are shifting the ground here. My gripe is with actual posters outside actual schools which are pro abortion in content.

Let's say the poster you don't like has its words changed to "Let Women Decide" in reference to deleting or keeping the 8th in the constitution, would that wording have the same upsetting effect on you.

I am beginning to think it is the more: A. the group-source of the message that upsets you, and if it was from an anti-abortion group source with something like "think of the babies" you would not have any objections..... and B, you are more worried that children of a learning age at the school would be naturally inquisitive and ask questions about the poster of adults, incl you, that you would find awkward and rather not be asked or have to answer from children.....

looksee

Unless you are clear on what it is we are discussing the headbanger, I may have to get out my mod hat and suggest you are trolling. Please say specifically what the wording/image on the posters is that you object to, and have boasted of vandalising.

oldrnwisr

the headbanger wrote: »

That type of poster isn't Showing up outside schools though. Besides its just a reality check. It's like showing shocking ads of car crashes.

The reality of what exactly?

For example one of the more famous posters is this one from Youth Defence:



In what way is this picture, taken from iStockPhoto (against their Terms of Use) supposed to be a reality check. Firstly, it's an ultrasound from about Week 16. We know from the statistics that approximately 96% of all abortions have already been performed by the time such an image would be taken. We also know that medical abortions now account for 62% of all abortions which means that your comment here about babies being "brutally" murdered is also unfounded. Further, the week with the single highest number of abortions is week 6, which alone accounts for 25% of all abortions, at which point the ultrasound looks like this:



Which means that posters like the Youth Defence one are not only needlessly graphic in getting their message across but grossly unrepresentative of the reality of the situation.

You're arguing for only one side of a debate to be allowed to have their say publicly which is not a good idea in a democratic society. You also make the point that pro-choice posters can be deeply hurtful to pro-life people. Well, the same is true for pro-life posters. Women who have needed abortions for medical reasons don't need graphic reminders of that fact. If you're going to argue for a pro-life position, fine, but you ought to be able to argue your position without a) being offended by the idea that someone else holds a contrary view and b) without resorting to the kind of fearmongering emotive arguments typified by the YD poster above.

the headbanger

looksee wrote: »

Unless you are clear on what it is we are discussing the headbanger, I may have to get out my mod hat and suggest you are trolling. Please say specifically what the wording/image on the posters is that you object to, and have boasted of vandalising.

Let me be clear so. What I am discussing is pro abortion posters of any sort near a school. That's what I regard as offensive; the wider rubric of pro abortion posters, not the formulation of words found in specific posters. So my own view is that the information you are looking for isn't relevant to the argument I am making

the headbanger

the headbanger wrote: »

Let me be clear so. What I am discussing is pro abortion posters of any sort near a school. That's what I regard as offensive; the wider rubric of pro abortion posters, not the formulation of words found in specific posters. So my own view is that the information you are looking for isn't relevant to the argument I am making

I've pretty much said all I have to on the topic now in any event. My proposition that pro abortion messaging of any sort does not belong near schools is not really accepted by those who have replied