Question about anti-abortion signs

[Oxygen]

I had a question that I wanted to ask some anti-abortion people who were picketting a clinic near where my job used to be, but I never got the chance. They were decent enough people who may have answered, but once we moved the dental lab I lost my opportunity. Maybe someone here can answer.

Most of the signs they hold are of a religious or moralistic nature promoting their view on abortion, such as Jesus weeping, a young ex-mother wrestling with her emotions, etc. Others talk about health risks of the procedure. But they also insist on putting up the huge, graphic images of mangled bodies, blood and guts, garbage bags full of abortions, etc. This may be a shock tactic against adults, but do they stop to think the effect these images are having on young children who see them? Given that these are probably also the same people who want more "family-friendly" programming on TV, is it really prudent to exploit dead children and potentially traumatize living children? And doesn't early exposure to this sort of thing serve, for the most part, to numb people to it?

Even if the answer has to do with how far away from schools, playgrounds, etc., they are, you still have to get your children to school. For the sake of decency, can't they avoid exposing innocent children to this imagery?

(For my part, I attribute my attraction to homicide photographs to early exposure to these images, but that may just be a cop-out. I'm wondering about other children whose parents may not want them exposed to such things before they are emotionally ready to deal with it.)

 

[Prince_James]

It is generally sound practice to invoke fear and/or hatred of that which one considers evil in all aspects of society. Graphic images of death and multilation are extremely effective for this. Specifically on children, whom might weep at the sight of such horrors, and think twice before engaging in such practices.

In essence: It makes perfect sense to do so.

 

[purple_hairstreak]

It makes sense but is it moral? This a forum about morality and ethics, isnt it? I don't think it's moral. The means do not justify the ends especially in this case. It's quite horrible in fact.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I don't agree with these tactics, what is needed is more education re not getting pregnant in the first place.

 

[Oxygen]

I don't think the small children who see these images understand what they're seeing as far as it discouraging them from engaging in it. I think it's too much for them for that, but not quite too much to potentially mess up their minds to some degree. I have ridden with small children past such things, and they don't weep, they don't ask questions, they just look. There's no clue as to what they're thinking about this imagery, so why are we taking chances?

I agree that we need less shock tactic and more education.

 

[Genji]

In KC anti-abortion terrorists Operation Rescue drove a large truck through the Plaza, a trendy/upscale shopping and entertainment district Downtown filled with sidewalk cafes, families and tourists. The sides and rear of the huge panel truck were emblazoned with 15 foot tall color photos of late term abortions, in China. (They forgot to note that) A clear act of social terrorism. The driver should have been shot and killed imo. I would have loved to be the shooter.

 

[Prince_James]

purple_hairstreak:

"It makes sense but is it moral? This a forum about morality and ethics, isnt it? I don't think it's moral. The means do not justify the ends especially in this case. It's quite horrible in fact. "

Are the pictures truthful representations of facts? If so, yes. If not, no. Truth, no matter how it is portrayed, cannot be made to be immoral.

Genji:

"In KC anti-abortion terrorists Operation Rescue drove a large truck through the Plaza, a trendy/upscale shopping and entertainment district Downtown filled with sidewalk cafes, families and tourists. The sides and rear of the huge panel truck were emblazoned with 15 foot tall color photos of late term abortions, in China. (They forgot to note that) A clear act of social terrorism. The driver should have been shot and killed imo. I would have loved to be the shooter."

Social terrorism because it showed truthful things?

 

[Genji]

purple_hairstreak:

"It makes sense but is it moral? This a forum about morality and ethics, isnt it? I don't think it's moral. The means do not justify the ends especially in this case. It's quite horrible in fact. "

Are the pictures truthful representations of facts? If so, yes. If not, no. Truth, no matter how it is portrayed, cannot be made to be immoral.

Genji:

"In KC anti-abortion terrorists Operation Rescue drove a large truck through the Plaza, a trendy/upscale shopping and entertainment district Downtown filled with sidewalk cafes, families and tourists. The sides and rear of the huge panel truck were emblazoned with 15 foot tall color photos of late term abortions, in China. (They forgot to note that) A clear act of social terrorism. The driver should have been shot and killed imo. I would have loved to be the shooter."

Social terrorism because it showed truthful things?

Bowel operations are truthful things, shall we put up billboards facing sidewalk cafes? Abortion is legal. Thrusting revolting foreign photos into people's faces that are not counter demonstrators but the public, with kids, is terrorism. These are the same types that wish the government to ban sexy ads and movies, books and music because it's "not family values based." Is unveiling giant panels depicting late term abortions the family values you share? It's only revealed the kind of people they are and further marginalizes them, even in this conservative area of the USA. Shit! Maybe I should rent a truck and drive around with huge photos of self induced abortion victims kneeling in a pool of vaginal blood, pasty and dead. Or dead kids beaten to death by their parents.

 

[Prince_James]

Genji:

"Bowel operations are truthful things, shall we put up billboards facing sidewalk cafes?"

There is nothing immoral or socially wrong about such. It would only be in bad taste (which I never claimed showing abortion pictures aren't).

"Abortion is legal. Thrusting revolting foreign photos into people's faces that are not counter demonstrators but the public, with kids, is terrorism."

No, it is "bad taste". No physical harm is being done. No illegal act is committed (freedom of speech is a right granted in all civilzed countries). Similarly, it is a truthful representation of acts which are being committed in countries which sanction abortion.

"These are the same types that wish the government to ban sexy ads and movies, books and music because it's "not family values based.""

So?

" Is unveiling giant panels depicting late term abortions the family values you share?"

The horror of certain acts can scare them away from such.

"Maybe I should rent a truck and drive around with huge photos of self induced abortion victims kneeling in a pool of vaginal blood, pasty and dead. "

If you want. Although one could say they deserved it.

"Or dead kids beaten to death by their parents. "

I do not believe any pro-life/anti-abortion person ascribes to the "let's kill our children" doctrine. Isn't that the abortion side of things?

 

[Genji]

Genji:

"Bowel operations are truthful things, shall we put up billboards facing sidewalk cafes?"

There is nothing immoral or socially wrong about such. It would only be in bad taste (which I never claimed showing abortion pictures aren't).

"Abortion is legal. Thrusting revolting foreign photos into people's faces that are not counter demonstrators but the public, with kids, is terrorism."

No, it is "bad taste". No physical harm is being done. No illegal act is committed (freedom of speech is a right granted in all civilzed countries). Similarly, it is a truthful representation of acts which are being committed in countries which sanction abortion.

"These are the same types that wish the government to ban sexy ads and movies, books and music because it's "not family values based.""

So?

" Is unveiling giant panels depicting late term abortions the family values you share?"

The horror of certain acts can scare them away from such.

"Maybe I should rent a truck and drive around with huge photos of self induced abortion victims kneeling in a pool of vaginal blood, pasty and dead. "

If you want. Although one could say they deserved it.

"Or dead kids beaten to death by their parents. "

I do not believe any pro-life/anti-abortion person ascribes to the "let's kill our children" doctrine. Isn't that the abortion side of things?

The extreme anti-abortion groups should be criminalized and it's membership and supporters imprisoned. Fuck freedom of speech for the Right.

 

[Prince_James]

Genji:

Thus the source of despotism is revealed to all.

 

[Genji]

Genji:

Thus the source of despotism is revealed to all.

I've never been a fan of democracy or Mob Rule. Segments of society need to be silenced for the greater good. Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, religion, neo cons, conservatives, etc. Like Pol Pot once wisely said in August of 1975: "In Order to Have a Healthy Garden One Must Pull the Weeds." I heartily agree.

 

[Prince_James]

Genji:

Whereas I am no supporter of democracy myself - for utterly different reasons than you, I envision - the problem with this line of thought is that it can always be used to justify further censorship and ultimately, becomes less about "the greater good" - an ambigious, ill-thought out term, if ever there was one - and more about "the personal interests and tastes of the rulers". Considering that you yourself are somewhat of a pariah, targetted for exclusion, by liking to have sex with men, it would also stand to reason that you yourself are in a position that, were most people allowed to do as you suggest, you'd be banned from society. That is to say, I'd be cautious of anything which supports such things on the foundation that anyone of us, but especially men such as yourself, could fall victim to this.

Moreover, there is no objective foundations to exclude any of the above from society. If their tenets are wrong, we can knock them down through rational debate. Exclusion implies a weakness on the part of the excluder.

And as a general principle, it may be best to refrain from quoting Pol Pot. As the Beatles said:

You say you'll change the constitution. Wellllll, you know, we all want to change your head. You tell me it's the institution. Wellllll, you know, you better free your mind instead. But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

 

[Genji]

Genji:

Whereas I am no supporter of democracy myself - for utterly different reasons than you, I envision - the problem with this line of thought is that it can always be used to justify further censorship and ultimately, becomes less about "the greater good" - an ambigious, ill-thought out term, if ever there was one - and more about "the personal interests and tastes of the rulers". Considering that you yourself are somewhat of a pariah, targetted for exclusion, by liking to have sex with men, it would also stand to reason that you yourself are in a position that, were most people allowed to do as you suggest, you'd be banned from society. That is to say, I'd be cautious of anything which supports such things on the foundation that anyone of us, but especially men such as yourself, could fall victim to this.

Moreover, there is no objective foundations to exclude any of the above from society. If their tenets are wrong, we can knock them down through rational debate. Exclusion implies a weakness on the part of the excluder.

And as a general principle, it may be best to refrain from quoting Pol Pot. As the Beatles said:

You say you'll change the constitution. Wellllll, you know, we all want to change your head. You tell me it's the institution. Wellllll, you know, you better free your mind instead. But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

Wow. My sexuality really freaks you & Woody out huh! It's drawn into every subject imaginable. I'm a pariah only to those I would have disappeared anyway, so I'm rarely exposed to it except for forums that are infested with religious zealots and ultra rightists. BTW I detest the Beatles. The most over rated band in history.

 

[Prince_James]

Genji:

No, I was simply pointing out the obvious that you are a pariah at least on the same level as the Ku Klux Klan to many people, and if they had their way, they'd exclude, or perhaps, even imprison or execute you. Consider how you would fare in the Middle East.

But anyway, I would ask how society would be bettered without the people listed by you above, and what that would leave? Ojbective reasons, if you might.

 

[Genji]

Genji:

No, I was simply pointing out the obvious that you are a pariah at least on the same level as the Ku Klux Klan to many people, and if they had their way, they'd exclude, or perhaps, even imprison or execute you. Consider how you would fare in the Middle East.

But anyway, I would ask how society would be bettered without the people listed by you above, and what that would leave? Ojbective reasons, if you might.

If I were in the ME I wouldn't be in drag! I'm not obvious. You have to do that in the Red States.

Society is not bettered by having violent racist groups, religion is divisive & destructive and reactionary. Rightwingers cling to both racism AND religion. Stamping out both would cleanse the nation of racial supremacists and the gods they worship. People that fear free will have no place in my America.

 

[Prince_James]

Genji:

"If I were in the ME I wouldn't be in drag! I'm not obvious. You have to do that in the Red States."

That would be smart of you to avoid, yes. That being said, should you find yourself in the ME and it was found out, you might well be stoned to death!

"Society is not bettered by having violent racist groups, religion is divisive & destructive and reactionary. "

The racists would argue otherwise. The Nazis were even embraced by the German people.

Religion is divisive, destructive, and reactionary, at times, yes, but is is also embraced by the large extent of this world, as well as being a chief cause in most of the civil-rights issues of the last two centuries, including most noticably abolition and racial equality. Moreover, it stands to reason that religious homogenization amongst any populace would promote unity, on the foundation of shared belief.

"Rightwingers cling to both racism AND religion."

Which right-wingers? Nor are all "right-wingers" religious. In fact, have you ever heard of Objectivism/Randianism? It is a (primarily American) philosophic movement started by the Atheist Russian Jewess immigrant Ayn Rand, promoting an entirely Godless form of far-right capitalism. Similarly, many Atheist Right-Wing organizations have and do exist on a wider scale. Also, not many Right-Wing organizations are racist, although obviously there are some which would be considered more Right-Wing, whereas othes would be Lefitst in the modern sense, including the Ku Klux Klan, which often comes out for what Americans considered various forms of "socialistic" interference, such as health care on a universal scale (for whites) and things such as profit sharing (a FAR Leftist belief).

"People that fear free will have no place in my America. "

I would have you prove that we have a free-will.