posted
I'm hoping this won't turn into just another abortion debate, although it probably will eventually. Hopefully we can get some use out of it before then.
Let me go on the record of saying that I'm pro-life. I'm having an issue and I don't know if there are any legal precedents for this.
On the drive home from work, I have to take the west-bound frontage road. On the right side of the road, there is an abortion clinic. There are protesters out there nearly every day, holding 5-foot pictures of aborted fetuses. Of course, the pictures are from late term abortions, so that they essentially just look like dead babies. They are very grotesque. The most recent on is a picture of a head held in forceps.
My problem is that this would be offensive to almost anyone. I've pulled over and told this to the protesters. They don't really care. They aren't affiliated with any organization so there's not really anyone else to complain to. My personal major issue is that I can't get home without passing them, and there's no way to avoid my children seeing this.
Their argument is basically the free speech one. But I can't help thinking that there has to be some sort of decency laws to protect, at the very least, children's eyes. I mean, you can't put porn on a billboard. I'm guessing you couldn't put pictures of a dead child either. Am I off-base on this?
posted
Much sympathy. I don't know what to suggest if there's no organization to complain to.
It is unfortunate that they have no interest in protecting the already-living children who must drive by and see such traumatising images.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'd have to talk to a lawyer to get the story on the legal aspects. If it were me, I would find out exactly what the laws in my jurisdiction are on signage. Perhaps there is a way that the protesters could be limited to carrying signs of a size that would not allow the details of the pictures to be readily visible from the street. That way, they could keep their signs but people driving by would not be bombarded by unwelcome gruesome pictures.
If nothing else, it could possibly be argued that a five-foot sign carried on a sidewalk is a) distracting to traffic and b) could be a hazard to visibility for both pedestrians and drivers.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you called either local government or the police to inquire what is allowed to be on their signs? I ask, because here in Nevada, even certain phrases are not allowed to be on picket signs. It may be that no one has called to make a complaint, so their actions are being ignored. I'm sure that there are other, more effective things, that could be on their signs instead. Free speech doesn't necessarily mean that there are no regulation.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if the sign bearers realize how bad they are actually hurting there cause. When people go for shock tactics like that, I am less likely to listen to their argument.
I am sure though, that there are laws in place to prevent them form doing such a thing. In that case I woudl report them to the police first, and see what they can do before you spend the money on a lawyer.
Perhaps you can even get zoning and ordinance involved if the police do not work out. What ever happened to debate, and intelligent conversation?
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't even think about calling the police...I have this sort of gut reaction against ever calling them about anything because my mom used to tell me that if you call 9-1-1 for something that isn't a real emergency you could be arrested. This is not good info for a 5-year-old.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't call 9-1-1, since this is not an emergency. There should be a main number for the police department, where they will be more helpful, and that will keep you out of trouble. We want to help you solve a problem, not create a new one. Posts: 25 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you don't have to call 9-1-1, you can look up the local police department in a regular ol' phone book.
-Bok
EDIT: rivka, I think she was saying HER mom told her when she was five, and has had a disinclination ever since.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am pro-life myself but have never understood the method used to protest. I'm sorry you and your kids have to see that.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Rephrase: My mom has told me lots of crazy things that have made me nervous about authority. That's one that made me scared of the police. I obviously would not call 9-1-1 about this. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are protesters out there nearly every day, holding 5-foot pictures of aborted fetuses. Of course, the pictures are from late term abortions, so that they essentially just look like dead babies.
They don't look *like* dead babies, they *are* dead babies. If you're pro-life, that is.
Let me ask this: when they show pictures and video on TV of starving children with distended bellies, and ask for money to buy them food, is that offensive? To me, the fact that children are starving is offensive, but not that someone tries to make me aware of it.
Likewise, for people that believe pictures of aborted fetuses are pictures of murder victims, I would think they would be offended at the killing going on inside the building, not the people trying to make others aware of it.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, just under the 3 hour mark, the gauntlet is thrown down.
How dare a parent question whether or not there's a way to keep their kids from seeing giant posters of dead babies/fetuses every day. The outrage!
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have only ever seen pictures of starving children on after prime time. Also, I can't think of a case where protesters held up signs showing gruesome pictures of murder victims. Generally, more respest is shown for the victim.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Likewise, for people that believe pictures of aborted fetuses are pictures of murder victims, I would think they would be offended at the killing going on inside the building, not the people trying to make others aware of it.
The problem is not that the protesters are trying to make people aware of the issue, it is that young children (PSI's kids are quite young, we're not talking about teenagers) are being exposed to disturbing pictures of dead babies.
PSI - Hopefully the local police department can help clarify what the rights of the protesters are. I can't imagine that large pictures of dead children are considered appropriate for public display. You've got such great kids - I'm really sorry they're being exposed to such disturbing things.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: rivka, I think she was saying HER mom told her when she was five, and has had a disinclination ever since.
Understood. But while at 5 she couldn't make a distinction between calling 911 and calling the cops, I bet she can now. That's all I was saying.
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Rephrase: My mom has told me lots of crazy things that have made me nervous about authority. That's one that made me scared of the police. I obviously would not call 9-1-1 about this.
There we go.
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: Let me ask this: when they show pictures and video on TV of starving children with distended bellies, and ask for money to buy them food, is that offensive? To me, the fact that children are starving is offensive, but not that someone tries to make me aware of it.
If they were showing such ads in the middle of the Saturday morning cartoons you BET it would bother me. (And my kids don't watch TV, certainly not on Saturday.) There are certain things that are appropriate fodder for all ages, and some which are not.
I want my kids to know about the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean I'll be showing my 7-year-old pictures of camp survivors immediately after liberation anytime soon.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me ask this: when they show pictures and video on TV of starving children with distended bellies, and ask for money to buy them food, is that offensive? To me, the fact that children are starving is offensive, but not that someone tries to make me aware of it.
If that guy with the white beard were walking around a dirty village talking calmly about saving them while carrying around a dead child, yeah, I'd be offended.
The protestors are showing the very worst possible outcome, not a sad step along the way as the commercials do. It would be more analagous with the starving kids commercials if they had 5 foot tall pictures of very depressed pregnant women, or maybe a scared looking fetus in an ultrasound
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
How? Digital manipulation to make it have big eyes and an open mouth? A knife or vaccuum tube coming near it? Thought bubbles??
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't decide if your tongue is firmly in your cheek or if you have so little respect for the protesters' beliefs that you love the thought of forcing them to look ridiculous.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given how little respect the protesters have for anyone else's beliefs, what makes you feel their beliefs deserve any respect at all?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Tongue in cheek. 2. The protestors already make themselves look ridiculous by their methods, IMO. It is not lack of respect for their beliefs, it is lack of respect for their methods. 3. My point in that particular post was that there are degrees to shock media. Because I am not offended by the starving kid commercials does not mean I shouldn't be offended by pictures of late term abortions. If we were to make the two different scare tactics equal, the result would be ridiculous posters of scared looking fetuses or horribly offensive commercials.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Ah - the second. I see.
A race to the bottom is not a solution.
Given that I'm not the person whose post you were responding to, why would you assume the second about him?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Given how little respect the protesters have for anyone else's beliefs, what makes you feel their beliefs deserve any respect at all?
Because if the protestors on both sides cannot present their cause with the dignity all good causes have, then those carrying the torch need to put it down and allow others to pick it up.
Those who are willing to betray humanity and moral decency in the name of my cause are my enemies (possibly the most vile kind) just as surely as those who stand against me are.
Never give up the moral high ground.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have two observations that are vaguely related to the thread.
First:
code:
A = number of starving children in third-world countries / total number of impoverished children in third-world countries
B = number of late-term abortions in the U.S. / total number of abortions in the U.S.
I'm pretty sure that A >>> B.
Second:
Reading about that makes me want to go protest a hypothetical strip club down the street from that abortion clinic by parading around in front of it carrying large pornographic placards.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
pro choice, or pro life vulgar is vulgar. I am okay with them expressing their beliefs, but they need to do it in a manner that is not so extreme. I understand that when there is an abortion there is going to be a human or near human corpse that is produced. I also understand that my nine year old daughter would not need to see that on our ride home.
I know in life she will get exposed to these things, but I try to keep those things in due time. I try to make sure she is prepared for things like that before they scar her for life.
I know my daughter will eventually learn about sex, but I don't walk her into an adult bookstore. People who claim to have such a love for life, and fight so hard to preserve it, sure don't seem to have a lot of respect for those of us that are living it.
Free speech is free speech, and good manners are good manners. They have the right to express their opinions until it causes harm to another person, and a five year old being screamed at by a man holding a picture of a bloody dead baby can be very harmful to a little kid like that.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I thought erso was vonk since he was answering the question, so I responded as if he were.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Because if the protestors on both sides cannot present their cause with the dignity all good causes have, then those carrying the torch need to put it down and allow others to pick it up.
Those who are willing to betray humanity and moral decency in the name of my cause are my enemies (possibly the most vile kind) just as surely as those who stand against me are.
Never give up the moral high ground.
This is likely just a semantic disagreement, but wouldn't you say that a person who says "abortion is murder; it is my duty to work on making abortion illegal" has a different set of beliefs than a person who says "abortion is murder; it is my duty to guilt trip those who make use of abortion facilities with enormous, graphically explicit signs visible to everyone in a thousand foot radius?"
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Because if the protestors on both sides cannot present their cause with the dignity all good causes have, then those carrying the torch need to put it down and allow others to pick it up.
Those who are willing to betray humanity and moral decency in the name of my cause are my enemies (possibly the most vile kind) just as surely as those who stand against me are.
Never give up the moral high ground.
This is likely just a semantic disagreement, but wouldn't you say that a person who says "abortion is murder; it is my duty to work on making abortion illegal" has a different set of beliefs than a person who says "abortion is murder; it is my duty to guilt trip those who make use of abortion facilities with enormous, graphically explicit signs visible to everyone in a thousand foot radius?"
Somebody broke the tables!
Yes I would say there is a difference BTW. It just seemed you were saying in effect, "Why should one side conduct itself properly when the other side is packed with coniving jerks?"
I'm pretty sure though erosomniac that if we found outrselves in the same protest, we might be protesting differently but I doubt I'd see you do anything that would make me leave the protest. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where was he talking about the conduct of the other side from the abortion protestors? What I saw was a disrespect with the way those people acted, which I kind of think they've earned.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see. What I was saying is: I'm disinclined to respect the beliefs of anyone whose beliefs are so inherently disrespectful and undeserving of respect (say that five times fast!). In this case, I have no respect for the beliefs of the protesters mentioned in the OP; I then wanted to clarify that this doesn't mean I have no respect for the beliefs of pro-life individuals, period, y'know?
But we're on the same page, so---yeeeeeeah.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I see. What I was saying is: I'm disinclined to respect the beliefs of anyone whose beliefs are so inherently disrespectful and undeserving of respect (say that five times fast!). In this case, I have no respect for the beliefs of the protesters mentioned in the OP; I then wanted to clarify that this doesn't mean I have no respect for the beliefs of pro-life individuals, period, y'know?
But we're on the same page, so---yeeeeeeah.
I see what you are saying, thanks for the clarification.
Yes we are on the same page of a broken thread. Preventing/Fixing broken thread tables is as good a cause as any in my book. I can't think of a good slogan though.
edit: I do think one of the hardest things to do however is to encounter evil people who say they are peddling a certain cause, and to not make the assumption that their cause is also evil.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are protesters out there nearly every day, holding 5-foot pictures of aborted fetuses. Of course, the pictures are from late term abortions, so that they essentially just look like dead babies.
They don't look *like* dead babies, they *are* dead babies. If you're pro-life, that is.
For clarification, I also believe they are dead babies. That's my number one argument against showing those pictures; if you honestly believe that an aborted fetus is a murdered person, then parading five-foot pictures of it shows an extreme lack of respect for human life.
I used the phrase, "looks like dead babies" to make it clear to people that what was on the picture was NOT an extremely early-term fetus that didn't look much like a baby yet. It was obvious to my children what it was.
Now, what if I had phrased it this way?
"There are protesters out there nearly every day, holding 5-foot pictures of aborted fetuses. Of course, fetuses are babies so that's what's really on the picture."
Within two minutes this thread would have turned into another normal abortion thread where nothing gets solved. That's what I was trying to avoid, hence the title.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: Let me ask this: when they show pictures and video on TV of starving children with distended bellies, and ask for money to buy them food, is that offensive? To me, the fact that children are starving is offensive, but not that someone tries to make me aware of it.
If they were showing such ads in the middle of the Saturday morning cartoons you BET it would bother me. (And my kids don't watch TV, certainly not on Saturday.) There are certain things that are appropriate fodder for all ages, and some which are not.
I want my kids to know about the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean I'll be showing my 7-year-old pictures of camp survivors immediately after liberation anytime soon.
Very good point.
But then again sometimes the cry for human justice must trump aesthetics. If 100 blacks were lynched every day in Georgia, and protesters used pictures of the murdered victims to try to make people *aware* that it was even going on, would they be evil, or merely misguided, or actually doing something good?
Because I doubt that any TV station would accept an ad showing fetal corpses, no matter what time of day. Newspapers wouldn't print it. But I've seen many lynch victims in the media, in documentaries about this and that. It's not kept hushed up.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a side note, I find it incredibly irritating that, as a pro-lifer, I feel like I can't use the phrase "fetus" without offending other pro-lifers. Fetus is a scientific term. If I'm talking about a human that is in the womb, I am going to call it a fetus. Just because a pro-choicer doesn't necessarily agree that a fetus is a baby DOES NOT mean that "fetus" is a derogatory term somehow.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But then again sometimes the cry for human justice must trump aesthetics.
I'm not sure aesthetics is the biggest concern. Some people are old enough to handle certain concepts. Others aren't. Actually, when my husband was four he saw a documentary on the holocaust, complete with bodies in a mass grave, and he became withdrawn for weeks. It caused psychological damage to him.
You don't have to let your kids watch the news when they are very young. You can scan the paper before letting them see it. But you can't turn around in a car and cover their eyes while driving down the road.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
A documentary is far from the same thing as public domain. I've never seen graphic lynching pictures on the nightly news and I suspect I never will. There are plenty of documentaries regarding abortion. This topic is about unavoidable graphic pictures, not something that's extremely voluntary whether you see or not.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's my number one argument against showing those pictures; if you honestly believe that an aborted fetus is a murdered person, then parading five-foot pictures of it shows an extreme lack of respect for human life.
When I saw the movie Outbreak, at one point the President's advisers were contemplating destroying an entire town to stop the spread of a virus. The chief of staff or some guy spread out pictures of the citizens there, and yelled at everyone to look at them.
quote:Those are the citizens of Cedar Creek, go ahead take a look at them - these are not statistics ladies and gentlemen - they're flesh and blood! I want you to burn those images into your memories, because they should haunt you until the day you die!
He was trying to get the people making decisions to see them as real people.
I guess I see abortion protesters using dead baby pictures the same way: trying to get people to actually think about what really happens in there. I don't see it as disrespectful of human life, necessarily. Of course if the people you say were "parading" around, then it certainly could be done in a horrible and disrespectful way. I just don't see it as necessarily so.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But then again sometimes the cry for human justice must trump aesthetics.
I'm pretty sure the issue here isn't aesthetics, but rather the disturbing/damaging effect these images can have on children.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: Let me ask this: when they show pictures and video on TV of starving children with distended bellies, and ask for money to buy them food, is that offensive? To me, the fact that children are starving is offensive, but not that someone tries to make me aware of it.
If they were showing such ads in the middle of the Saturday morning cartoons you BET it would bother me. (And my kids don't watch TV, certainly not on Saturday.) There are certain things that are appropriate fodder for all ages, and some which are not.
I want my kids to know about the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean I'll be showing my 7-year-old pictures of camp survivors immediately after liberation anytime soon.
Very good point.
But then again sometimes the cry for human justice must trump aesthetics. If 100 blacks were lynched every day in Georgia, and protesters used pictures of the murdered victims to try to make people *aware* that it was even going on, would they be evil, or merely misguided, or actually doing something good?
AESTHETICS?!? This is about not traumatizing children. "Aesthetics" be damned.
I would find images of lynching victims in places that children will see them just as wrong.
[Edit: Man, you people post fast!]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: I guess I see abortion protesters using dead baby pictures the same way: trying to get people to actually think about what really happens in there.
...by focusing exclusively on the most gruesome subset of "what happens in there," which if I'm not mistaken is an extremely small subset.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's my number one argument against showing those pictures; if you honestly believe that an aborted fetus is a murdered person, then parading five-foot pictures of it shows an extreme lack of respect for human life.
When I saw the movie Outbreak, at one point the President's advisers were contemplating destroying an entire town to stop the spread of a virus. The chief of staff or some guy spread out pictures of the citizens there, and yelled at everyone to look at them.
quote:Those are the citizens of Cedar Creek, go ahead take a look at them - these are not statistics ladies and gentlemen - they're flesh and blood! I want you to burn those images into your memories, because they should haunt you until the day you die!
He was trying to get the people making decisions to see them as real people.
I guess I see abortion protesters using dead baby pictures the same way: trying to get people to actually think about what really happens in there. I don't see it as disrespectful of human life, necessarily. Of course if the people you say were "parading" around, then it certainly could be done in a horrible and disrespectful way. I just don't see it as necessarily so.
In order for those two situations to be anywhere near equivalent, they'd have to be pictures of mangled corpses of the townspeople.
Seatarsprayan, these pictures are nothing like showing pictures of living people to get someone to think. I would have no problem at all with displaying 5-foot images of laughing babies in front of an abortion clinic.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. PSI I could not agree more. Our jobs as parents would be to provide a safe educational environment for our children to grow up in. I do not want to shield my daughter from the world but I do want to introduce it to her in phases, that I knwo she can handle with out it leaving lasting damage on her.
I also hate nightmares, because when she has them I do not get any sleep either. It just makes life even harder for her in a world that is even hard for us adult to comprehend.
I tell you what, if I saw them on the side of the road doing that, I would have pulled over to deal with them. It woudl have started with diplomacy and either way it would have ended with those signs coming down.
I am all about freedom of speech, but I am also a big fan of my daughter. I also understand that there is a time and place for certain things. I also understand that you can protest what ever you want, but in some cases you need a permit, for just this reason.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: In order for those two situations to be anywhere near equivalent, they'd have to be pictures of mangled corpses of the townspeople.
-pH
And they would have to be showing the pictures to random passers-by including children.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I tell you what, if I saw them on the side of the road doing that, I would have pulled over to deal with them. It woudl have started with diplomacy and either way it would have ended with those signs coming down.
How far would you have gone? Would you beat somebody unconscious if they weren't willing to bring down the signs?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I don't know what to suggest if there's no organization to complain to.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
