Anti-abortion protest signs - how far is too far?

[KarenNC]

The point is, you don’t decide for the rest of us what is and what is not free speech.

Those who use those images have a right to use them, all the attacks and made up scenarios notwithstanding.

And neither do you. That is the point—it isn’t based on what one person wants to do, regardless of how noble their goal is. There are cultural standards around this type of issue and using these images in this particular manner violates those standards.

Why should the stories told by those who disagree with you be characterized as “attacks and made up scenarios” or ignored completely, while everyone is to take the stories used in support of these images as unquestionable?

Why should “those who use the images” have any more of a right to “decide for the rest of us what is and is not free speech” than anyone else?

 

[vern_humphrey]

And neither do you. That is the point—it isn’t based on what one person wants to do, regardless of how noble their goal is. There are cultural standards around this type of issue and using these images in this particular manner violates those standards.

And who determines what the “cultural standards” are – you? I think not.

Why should the stories told by those who disagree with you be characterized as “attacks and made up scenarios” or ignored completely, while everyone is to take the stories used in support of these images as unquestionable?

Because that’s what they are.

Why should “those who use the images” have any more of a right to “decide for the rest of us what is and is not free speech” than anyone else?

Because that’s what free speech is – the right of people to say things and display images others disagree with.

Note that there is no thread where people who use or support using those images go to attack those who oppose them – but there are three threads attacking people who use the images.

The side using the images understands and respects freedom of speech – the other side doesn’t.

 

[Linnyo]

:yawn:

 

[mapleoak]

And neither do you. That is the point—it isn’t based on what one person wants to do, regardless of how noble their goal is. There are cultural standards around this type of issue and using these images in this particular manner violates those standards.

The cultural standard happens to be that thousands of babies are killed each day. If there happens to be a so-called cultural standard about not showing the evil of this “culture of death”, this is where I, and countless others, will fearlessly be counter-cultural. God is not “hip” nor does He care to be. The ways of the world lead to the devil.

Why should “those who use the images” have any more of a right to “decide for the rest of us what is and is not free speech” than anyone else?

No one is saying anyone has more of a right than anyone else. You are perfectly free to decide not to excercise you right to free speech.

 

[mapleoak]

:yawn:

:dancing: :bounce:

 

[ChristianWAB]

I disagree and think they SHOULD NOT be shown in a public place where small children can’t avoid seeing them. There is already so much in the world thrown in their little faces - their innocence is robbed way too early and if LARGE GRAPHIC PICTURES of murdered babies bother me, I can only imagine what it does to a small child.

I say that as a 100%, no compromise, pro life supporter.

I agree, though somebody posted a good idea. Have a few people on every street corner warn of graphic images. This way, if the parents have kids they don’t want emotionally harmed with this stuff, they still have time to turn away.

I’m also of the opinion that more people really need to see that, even in its earliest weeks, a fetus is **FAR **more advanced than a “blob”.

 

[Delphinus85]

The question is so tricky!! I honestly believe the only reason people can’t see how blaringly oviously wrong abortion is, is because no one can see the victims! The most common arguement I hear is that the infants are incapable of thought, so it’s okay. But if I ask them if someone who is comatose, or brain damaged should be killed, they always say no. ALWAYS. The trick is how do we make them aware of the people killed by abortion? Standing on a street corner isn’t a good idea because we don’t have to make small children aware of it, but it does work. I went from lukewarm to full blown activist from a website. We have to get the images to the right people, and use them effectively. They are a powerful tool, but they have to be used right.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Vern, oh Vern. Is that a crystal ball you’re gazing into? How about allowing me the courtesy of expressing the meaning of my own words rather than deliberately misinterpreting my statements?

1. Because your posts do not demonstrate an awareness of their own meaning.
2. Because your posts are often self-contradictory.
3. Because your posts have demonstrated a singleminded promotion of an agenda rather than a willingness to consider different points of view.
4. Because your posts do not respond to questions but demonstrate a preference for stonewalling instead.
5. Because your posts do not respond to any of the voluminous information provided by means of link. If we didn’t know better we would think you hadn’t read any of it.

Have a good day and God bless.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

What is EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD currently doing to stop abortion?

I’m working to elect pro-life candidates in the Ontario provincial election. That’s where I’ll be for the next month. What yall can do is pray for us and email your encouragement to the pro-life candidates.

 

[guanophore]

My experience in these three threads – all attacking those who use the photos – is that the opposition is purely emotional.

Yes, and that is the whole purpose of using graphic images. If we reflect on history, we can recognize that the horrible genocide in Darfur and the slaughter of the Jews in Germany did not communicate it’s depravity until the pictures were seen by the public. This is also true about the progress of the " war" in Vietnam. Although gruesome, the images represent the truth of what is happening. Until people grasp that, however upsetting it may be, the holocaust will continue.

As a former employee in an abortion mill, I can tell you that the vast majority of the women are deceived. They believe what they are told about the “tissue” that is being taken out which is not a baby, but the “by products of conception”. If they were to see pictures or ultrasound of their baby, most of them would never do it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, and that is the whole purpose of using graphic images. If we reflect on history, we can recognize that the horrible genocide in Darfur and the slaughter of the Jews in Germany did not communicate it’s depravity until the pictures were seen by the public. This is also true about the progress of the " war" in Vietnam. Although gruesome, the images represent the truth of what is happening. Until people grasp that, however upsetting it may be, the holocaust will continue.

As a former employee in an abortion mill, I can tell you that the vast majority of the women are deceived. They believe what they are told about the “tissue” that is being taken out which is not a baby, but the “by products of conception”. If they were to see pictures or ultrasound of their baby, most of them would never do it.

And that is the root of the whole objection to using the images – as long as people can’t really see what abortion is, they feel comfortable ignoring the fact this horrible, grisly crime is being committed daily and we aren’t doing anything about it.

 

[estesbob]

vern humphrey;2720576**:

And that is the root of the whole objection to using the images – as long as people can’t really see what abortion is, they feel comfortable ignoring the fact this horrible, grisly crime is being committed daily

and we aren’t doing anything about it.

And what makes it even more sad is they hide behind their children.

 

[mapleoak]

As a former employee in an abortion mill, I can tell you that the vast majority of the women are deceived. They believe what they are told about the “tissue” that is being taken out which is not a baby, but the “by products of conception”. If they were to see pictures or ultrasound of their baby, most of them would never do it.

Sad, but so true.