posted
I say keep it basic. If woudl get an "R" rating, it should not be placed in public. I am okay with having to explain things to my daughter, like what those dogs are doing, why are those guys holding hands, but please don't feed the nightmare monsters that live in her imagination.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Here is a slideshow about people protesting Michael Vick. Many of the people are holding large signs that show an injured dog. It's doesn't seem to be too gruesome (but you don't see a full on shot of the poster), but apparently shock is what most protesters are going for.
I still wouldn't want to see these things as I drive by. Especially with my children.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
While laughing babies doesn't get the point across 'as forcefully' it's still better than pictures which largely garner a negative reaction and 'more forcefully' make pro-lifers seem like nutters.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, after checking into this, I'm feeling hopeless. The police department wasn't helpful at all. They were more like secretaries. And a good friend of mine said those guys have been coming to that corner off and on for at least twenty years. (She has strong memories of being told to close her eyes at that corner.) I'm guessing that the pictures they are using are probably that old, too.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't give up. If I was there I would help you protest the protesters.
Samprimary, they might be able to get the same effect and not be as graphically offensive if they used more metaphorical pictures, like maybe a pregnant womans belly in cross hairs. Or a laughing baby playing with a gun or noose. It conveys a similar message, but on the same note it wouldn't give my daughter nightmares.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's still better than pictures pictures which largely garner a negative reaction and 'more forcefully' make pro-lifers seem like nutters.
quote:they might be able to get the same effect and not be as graphically offensive if they used more metaphorical pictures,
Is this true? I don't have data either way, but it hasn't been established that this is true. I know what my own preferences would be, but one thing is true - people are talking about them and what they want to have happen. It is negative here, but it's still attention. Perhaps the reaction here is not the only one that occurs.
In other words, maybe the pictures are working the majority of the time exactly as the protesters hoped they would. How does that change things?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if less offensive pictures would be as effective. I wouldn't react as strongly, but I wouldn't think the protesters were horrible human beings. v;)v
I think the problem with this kind of protest is that the solution to the abortion problem is so obvious. Both sides agree that it would be better if nobody needed an abortion. How can we get that accomplished? I think the only way to achieve a compromise on this issue (no, a solution, one that satisfies all sides fully) is to create a society, through culture and medicine where both women and men have complete control over or not their body will conceive so that if either one of them doesn't want it to happen, it won't. I think we're probably about 10-15 years away from a medical solution to this, but I think we can move toward this reality through comprehensive education and free and widespread access to birth control of all types.
I do support a woman's choice to choose to not become pregnant and to end unwanted pregnancies that do occur. Bringing a child into the world is a huge responsibility and cost, and where a child is thrust into people's lives when they are not ready for it, that child would not receive as good a start in life as when those parents were finally ready for it. People should have control over when that responsibility arrives.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:People should have control over when that responsibility arrives.
People do have control over whether or not it happens.
The means of control is rejected doesn't it doesn't exist. Conceiving a child isn't like catching a cold.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:create a society, through culture and medicine where both women and men have complete control over or not their body will conceive so that if either one of them doesn't want it to happen, it won't.
Barring rape, we live today in a world where people have complete control over whether they conceive a child or not.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In other words, maybe the pictures are working the majority of the time exactly as the protesters hoped they would. How does that change things?
Thing is, when I called the local pro-life pregnancy help center, they told me that they had had several positive referrals from the crazy street-corner pro-life group. (They also made sure I knew that they didn't agree with the method.) But how do we know that there wouldn't be MORE positive referrals if a gentler tactic was used?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:create a society, through culture and medicine where both women and men have complete control over or not their body will conceive so that if either one of them doesn't want it to happen, it won't.
Barring rape, we live today in a world where people have complete control over whether they conceive a child or not.
The morning after pill and rape kit makes rape even less of a factor in unplanned conception.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But how do we know that there wouldn't be MORE positive referrals if a gentler tactic was used?
How do we know there wouldn't be fewer? If a method that was less likely to capture attention was used, how do we know that doesn't mean less attention would be paid?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But how do we know that there wouldn't be MORE positive referrals if a gentler tactic was used?
How do we know there wouldn't be fewer? If a method that was less likely to capture attention was used, how do we know that doesn't mean less attention would be paid?
More attention might be paid if they beat children in front of the clinic too. Do you really want to suggest that the end justifies the means?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your argument seems to be that as long as it might be more effective, the protesters are justified to pick the most offensive method possible.
I wonder how the protesters would feel if people picketed their churches with giant signs showing graphic pictures of witch burnings and torture from the inquisition.
Turn about is fair play right? If that's an effective way to get the protests to stop, who cares if your kids are exposed to detailed pictures of hangings and torture.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are mistaken about my argument. I never said any of that. ----
quote:I wonder how the protesters would feel if people picketed their churches with giant signs showing graphic pictures of witch burnings and torture from the inquisition
Actually, if there were organizations in America that today regularly burned people at the stake or tortured them for supposed heresy, I think this would be a darn good idea.
That certainly seems like something that should stop. Or would you prefer that people protest quietly by holding up pictures of cute frogs someplace they couldn't be seen? Because who cares what atrocities are comitted as long as we don't talk about it.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The morning after pill and rape kit makes rape even less of a factor in unplanned conception.
Unless your doctor or pharmacist refuses to give you one.
Additionally, there are religious groups that consider the morning after pill to be equivalent to an abortion. There is also at least once large denomination that discourages the use of contraception.
I also suspect that we are overestimating the reach of modern medical education. There are many people who do not fully understand contraception, may believe urban legends about what one can do to avoid pregnancy or not, and even some people who may completely be unaware as to how fertility works due to either religious barriers or recent immigration.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, if there were churches in America that today regularly burned people at the stake or tortured them for supposed heresy, I think this would be a darn good idea.
That certainly seems like something that should stop. Or would you prefer that people protest quietly by holding up pictures of cute frogs someplace they couldn't be seen? Because who cares what atrocities are comitted as long as we don't talk about it.
Actually, I would prefer they limit the exposure of graphic, disturbing, and offensive pictures to those that are actually able to make such a decision. Young children are typically not in the position to legislate against torture or have an abortion.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are many people who do not fully understand contraception
While there has recently been some evidence to the contrary that not everyone accepts that pregnancy comes from sex, I'm willing to bet that 99% of fertile Americans know.
Maybe 95% to allow for the preteens. Of course, if an eleven-year-old gets pregnant, there's most likely a man somewhere that needs to go to prison for a very, very long time.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Is this true? I don't have data either way, but it hasn't been established that this is true. I know what my own preferences would be, but one thing is true - people are talking about them and what they want to have happen. It is negative here, but it's still attention. Perhaps the reaction here is not the only one that occurs.
In other words, maybe the pictures are working the majority of the time exactly as the protesters hoped they would. How does that change things?
I read this as I explained. If you're trying to say something that doesn't boil down to "ends justify the means", then please explain what you're getting at, because I don't see it.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Because who cares what atrocities are comitted as long as we don't talk about it.
I won't get into a discussion when you're using that kind of loaded language. It isn't conductive to any kind of meaningful discussion, and to me, it shows why you favor the pictures. It seems that you want to get your point across, period.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mighty Cow, it is the difference between making an argument and asking someone else to reevaluate their own argument in light of information they do not seem to have considered.
You read me wrong.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But when it comes down to it, do you think that the protesters should be holding up the signs that many people find horrific, if it gets their point across, or as you say, works as they hope it will work?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your non-sequitur does not follow. There is no constitutional right to assault.
There isn't necessarily a consitutional right to displaying the signs being discussed either. They could be judged indecent. People don't have a constitutional right to wave large banners with pornography on them. The same may apply here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But when it comes down to it, do you think that the protesters should be holding up the signs that many people find horrific, if it gets their point across, or as you say, works as they hope it will work?
You're asking my opinion about it?
Okay, here's where I caveat: I don't know what you're talking about. I have never seen any abortion protest, much less an explicit one. I haven't even seen an abortion clinic, although I'm sure I have passed some and was not aware of it. I haven't actually seen the images in question, and I don't know how obvious and/or unmissable they are.
Now, that I have managed to live in four large cities and traveled extensively within them, three in the South and one by the Great Lakes, leads me to think they can't be all THAT obvious. I recognize the fallacies in that, but hey - you asked what I thought.
I think they are entirely avoidable unless someone is actually going to the abortion clinic, and in that case, I am unwilling to give up my free speech to censor theirs.
Then there is that "should." I don't believe in "shoulds" and public moralizing in general, but on the balance, abortion is a great deal worse than displaying the effects of the abortion. I wouldn't participate in a protest like that, but if I'm going to start moralizing about behavior at the abortion clinic, it certainly isn't going to start with those outside.
[ July 26, 2007, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:create a society, through culture and medicine where both women and men have complete control over or not their body will conceive so that if either one of them doesn't want it to happen, it won't.
Barring rape, we live today in a world where people have complete control over whether they conceive a child or not.
Clearly, just telling people to not have sex hasn't been all that effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Maybe continuing the search for more effective measures makes some sense.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clearly, just telling people to not have sex hasn't been all that effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Maybe continuing the search for more effective measure makes some sense.
I once heard "abstinence only" sex ed equated to "just hold it" potty training. It's a shallow metaphor, but it made me giggle.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are many people who do not fully understand contraception
While there has recently been some evidence to the contrary that not everyone accepts that pregnancy comes from sex, I'm willing to bet that 99% of fertile Americans know.
Maybe 95% to allow for the preteens. Of course, if an eleven-year-old gets pregnant, there's most likely a man somewhere that needs to go to prison for a very, very long time.
So you're at least willing to concede that abortion is a viable alternative for that lower bound of 1% of the American population. I guess its a start. Thats still roughly 150,000 females, perhaps fertile 100,000 depending on which fraction is under/overage.
Once you move past that though, the problem becomes creating a policy that can accommodate this. How does one determine whether a woman is in that 1% or in the 99%? Do we create some bizarre rule that high school educated people (or higher) are to be denied abortions? Do we get a jury to listen to their testimony to see whether or not it is reasonable that they did not know? How do we devise a reasonable system of determining who should be allowed an abortion, or a morning after pill for that matter?
I'm going to reiterate my previous question too: What kind of policy do anti-abortion advocates propose that takes into account a United States where people can easily travel to Canada or Mexico for their medical needs?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:There isn't necessarily a consitutional right to displaying the signs being discussed either. They could be judged indecent. People don't have a constitutional right to wave large banners with pornography on them. The same may apply here.
For clarification, indecency and pornography are very different things in the first amendment context. The latter may be outright banned, in any context, as long as the law is definite enough to avoid a chilling effect. Pornography, as it is (not) defined by the courts, is not protected speech. Indecency is protected speech, although less protected over the airwaves (and possibly some other contexts - I haven't researched) than some other forms of speech.
Several courts have upheld the right to display those pictures on first amendment grounds. One that supported regulation found the regulations to be content neutral and important to preventing traffic accidents.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you're at least willing to concede that abortion is a viable alternative for that lower bound of 1% of the American population.
The eleven-year-olds who are pregnant most likely as a result of rape? That's not a "start" to anything. Don't get your hopes up. The fully-cognizant adults who use abortion as birth control aren't even in the same galaxy.
Also, that misreading was so outrageous and unjustified by my post that it seems almost deliberate. I do not appreciate that lack of respect, and it doesn't bode well for the level of honesty in this discussion.
quote:What kind of policy do anti-abortion advocates propose that takes into account a United States where people can easily travel to Canada or Mexico for their medical needs?
What Canada and Mexico choose to do has NOTHING to do with what America chooses to do. I don't vote in either of those places.
That line of questioning is irrelevant at best.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Then there is that "should." I don't believe in "shoulds" and public moralizing in general, but on the balance, abortion is a great deal worse than displaying the effects of the abortion. I wouldn't participate in a protest like that, but if I'm going to start moralizing about behavior at the abortion clinic, it certainly isn't going to start with those outside.
I feel like I wasn't that far off in the first place then.
But why sanction bad behavior, simply because it is protesting something you feel is worse? Why lower yourself to protest something you feel lowers others.
I think a lot less highly of the moral position of a group who exhibits less than moral behavior themselves. I certainly wouldn't stand outside their houses with billboards showing two people having sex, even though it may well be taking place at some time within the house.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:What kind of policy do anti-abortion advocates propose that takes into account a United States where people can easily travel to Canada or Mexico for their medical needs?
I don't feel the need to take into account what happens in other countries.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think they are entirely avoidable unless someone is actually going to the abortion clinic
So abortion clinics are in completely isolated areas at the very end of dead end streets that do not have any other commercial or residential places anywhere near them?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are far off. Seriously, are you even reading? Or are you inventing things and then shutting out all evidence to the contrary?
If you want to gallop around attacking strawmen, leave me out of it. Nothing you say resembles my views or my posts, and I resent you using my name to pretend it does.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I might not be the right guy to pipe up on this because I believe in 4th trimester on abortion, for the sake of positive evolution.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:That (again obviously) is not a choice that works for everybody.
It's not a choice that everybody chooses, but it works for everyone who implements that choice except a small percentage of those who are forced to have sex against their will.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't mean "work" as in effectively stopping pregnancy. I meant "work" as in be the right choice for a particular person.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With that definition of "work", I'd say that it works for nearly everybody who doesn't want to risk conceiving a child.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which doesn't alter the assertion being made that perfect contraception is not necessary to avoid pregnancy in all but a very, very, very few cases.
The original assertion to which this subthread was a response was "People should have control over when that responsibility arrives." People (except the very, very, very few who conceive after being raped) do have that control.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What kind of policy do anti-abortion advocates propose that takes into account a United States where people can easily travel to Canada or Mexico for their medical needs?
I don't feel the need to take into account what happens in other countries.
You really should for two reasons: A) If you do not, I suspect that anyone of a low income living within driving/busing distance of Canada would be able to avoid the ban. Anyone of a moderate income or higher would be able to avoid the ban outright. If I were to guess, that would leave maybe 1/5th or less of the population that could be successfully stopped from having an abortion.
The ban would be even more of a farce than prohibition with plenty of consequences.
B) If abortion is really "murder", you should really be concerned regardless of where it happens. Additionally, I would also bet that even if you did not (as evidence from the example of same-sex marriage) that other advocates *would* try to take into account this and take measures. It is worth considering what these measures would end up looking like and whether they would be worse than the problem at hand.
* by "the ban", this is shorthand for if anti-abortion advocates for their way and implemented a simple blanket "no abortion access in the US" policy
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: With that definition of "work", I'd say that it works for everybody who doesn't want to risk conceiving a child.
If that were true, we wouldn't have unwanted pregnancies. Since we do, there seems to be a problem with the "just don't have sex" solution.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If abortion is really "murder", you should really be concerned regardless of where it happens.
If you want do that in your anti-abortion work, be my guest, but please don't tell me where my priorities should be.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that were true, we wouldn't have unwanted pregnancies. Since we do, there seems to be a problem with the "just don't have sex" solution.
Be that as it may, it does not mean that most women lack control over whether or not they become pregnant. They do have such control and choose not to assert it, for whatever reason.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: You are far off. Seriously, are you even reading? Or are you inventing things and then shutting out all evidence to the contrary?
If you want to gallop around attacking strawmen, leave me out of it. Nothing you say resembles my views or my posts, and I resent you using my name to pretend it does.
Try as I might, I can't read minds. If you insist on dancing around the issue without giving a simple answer to a simple question, then the best I can do is read between the lines. If you're unclear in your position, it's due to your own unwillingness to take a stand.
I feel like the protesters are out of line. Period. I don't think what they're doing is the right way to go about it, regardless of their beliefs. I wouldn't condone anyone doing something similar to their homes or places of business.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes good reasons; sometimes not so good. Either way, must it be such a either or situation? Why is it such a bad thing to explore other avenues of preventing unwanted pregnancies? Why does it seem better to force women to choose either pregnancy or abstinence? That hasn't proved to be effective in achieving anybody's goals.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
