AbortionNO Message Board ~ View topic

Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 16

1. clear and present danger (schenck v US 1919) hostile audience could attack the speaker.
2. Incitement of imminent illegal activities (Brandenburg v Ohio 1969) encouraging people to attack others or encouraging them to partake in illegal violent activities.
3. Fighting Words (chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942) when your words cause someone to attack you directly one on one.
4. OBSENITY(miller v Sullivan 1972) meaning a.) local community standards determin what is obscene. b.) appeals to a prurient interest in sex. c.) LACKS SERIUS LITERARY, ARTISTIC, POLITICAL, OR SCIENTIFIC VALUE.
5. Defamation... or runing reputation
6. Time, Place, and Manner- holding an audience captive and subjected to listen to such things like on a radio (FCC v Pacifica Foundation 1978)

I understand the need for someone to have free speech.. I understand your views to end abortions. I personally couldn't think of having an abortion myself- it would be a miracle if I could get pregnant- and I dislike the abuse of abortions rather than the legitimate need... as I could one day adopt that child. But your right to swing your fist stops at my face- meaning The right to privacy which is implied in the bill of rights should not be violated as it is a fundamental right. Our rights to Contraceptives, Homosexuality, Abortions, and Parenting Choices.

The truck campaigns have violated my my rights... I have been forced and held captive to viewing these obscene images. And it's not so much me... I can get over a few extremist minority factions... but that my siblings, my friend's children, and the children that I take care of in a day care center are exposed to these images which are frightening to them. You say that it's good that they be traumatized into making the "right choice" when they grow up... but I don't think people realize how damaging that can be to the mental development of these children who are soaking in the environmental information around them like a sponge.

While you are busy trying to save the lives of unborn children- you are destroying the innocence and the mental well being of children who cannot turn away from images on a truck. As parents, we can monitor what they watch on the TV, we can monitor what they see on the internet, but you can't monitor a car window...

You see abortion as murder... I understand that, woud you subject your children to looking at images of murders? Are children the target audience? I think you've compromised your morals for the sake of promoting one of them, and that just makes the organization out to be just what i have labled them: an extreme minority faction.

I'm a registered republican- but I'm almost willing to vote for a democratic candidate for presidency to ensure that my fundamental liberties are protected- and that your obscene images are taken away and the minds of LIVING children are protected as well.

We have a right to show what abortion does to children.

Don't like it? Turn away from them.

As for other children seeing them... I don't like the thought of kids seeing them, but many kids these days see everything - horror movies, naked people on tv, sex on tv, etc. And most of the trucks and photos are shown at colleges and abortion clinic protests.

Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 16

You're right, I can and have turned away from them. I've even avoided going to certain places because of the fact of how convoluted, disrespectful, and violent some of these extremist minority factions protesting have been. Luckily I'm old enough to be able to do that.

Children cannot be expected to turn away from them when they are in a car on the highway stuck in rush hour traffic with one of the trucks next to you. Your response to that seems to shove off responsibility for psychologically damaging children. There are better ways to fight for your cause than using scare tactics and distorting images through mass propaganda.

As I have said previously in my initial post, a parent can monitor a television or what movies their child goes to in order to prevent them from seeing OBSCENE and INDESCENT material. Also the FCC regulates and forces broadcasters and productions companies to rate the shows by a system I'm sure you're familiar with to help parents who may be uninformed about certain material in question. Televisions now have v-chips in them which can block out horror movies, naked people on tv, sex on tv, ect. Using that is only an excuse for subjecting children to images that a child should not see.

Again, I ask, would you force your child to look at photos of other murders? Would you allow a young child to thumb through other heinous crimes? How do you explain abortion to a child between the ages of 4-9?

Also, I don't think a mall constitutes as a college campus or an abortion clinic. Also, many college campuses have child care facilities on them... You're going to force parents in college who hypothetically may have decided not to get an abortion but take on an arduous task of going to school and taking care of a child at a young age, to be subjected as they walk their children on the campus to seeing those images?

I don't think that is right in any sense. You're fighting one evil and causing another.

And what of the mentally ill? have you considered what influence those images or trucks have on people who are diagnosed with a mental illness and could be triggered by those images? What of people who have miscarried and maybe have post tramatic stress? This excuse of turning a blind eye away from your own social responsibility with the images being used goes against the very thing you believe in.

There are better ways of going about your protests... many people do not find these organizations legitamate due to the fact that they go to extremes and have been known to encite violence. Rather than using scare tactics, you could hand out pamphlets, educate people properly, educate them on the alternatives. Dont make your organization into a joke- because that's what the majority of the population sees it as.

I can't take away your right to freedom of speech- but don't take away a child's right to feel safe and secure... you're just causing more damage than truely preventing people from having an abortion.

And now it's time for an American Government Lesson:

The right to privacy is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. It was developed by taking bits and pieces of other amendments (penumbra) to form a new right. The public has assumed this right.

In GRISWOLD V CONNETICUT, Justice William O. Douglas explains the reasoning behind his belief in the right to privacy:

1st amendment.. freedom of expression and association implies a right to privacy.

3rd amendment.. A reasonable expectation of privacy can be found in one's home.

4th amendment.. right to privacy is implied in reference to on the person

5th amendment.. implies that this self incrimination clause enables a citizen to create a zone of privacy which no government can intrude upon.

9th amendment.. The enumerated rights in the constitution shall not be interpreted to deny other rights retained by the people. The right to privacy is one of these unlisted rights.

Together, those amendments spell out the IMPLICATION of a citizen's right to privacy.

finally, 14th amendment guarantees liberty (even from state governments.) The "right to choose" is included as a fundamental liberty.

I know my rights under the constitution... do you?

Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 17 Location: Pennsylvania

Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 16

Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 16

Site Admin Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 302

1st, I have NEVER known of a professional pro-life group FORCING the kids to look. In fact, it is the other way around. CBR puts of bright orange warning signs all around their GAP displays on campuses to alert people to the graphic genocide pictures ahead. Whenever I have presented or been to a pro-life presentation where visuals were used, the students/audience is always warned at the beginning of the talk that pictures/video will be a part of the presentation and they are told right before the images are shown. They are encouraged to look because it is educational and will aid in understanding the full horror of the violence of abortion...the REALITY of abortion, but are told they may put their heads down, look away, or leave the room. I am sure there are some who may try to get people to look...but I have not known CBR to "force" people to look. It is their choice to remain ignorant of the truth. It is CBRs responsibility to present the information and make it available. Besides, it is my understanding you cannot block people...the police are contacted by CBR whenever they visit a location to inform the police and most often for CBR's protection against violent abortion supporters who have a history of acting aggressively towards peaceful protestors. Your son may have felt "forced" because he saw something he didn't want to see. If I walked by a magazine rack with images of Darfur on the cover, have I been FORCED to see graphic images? Some may interprete it that way, but my guess is your son wouldn't be all up in arms if he saw a magazine cover or even if people tried to educate him and classmates about genocide by showing Schindler's List in class...if they show it as part of a class, has he been forced to see it? Regardless, your son's was not held captive, eyes pried open and "forced" to look at images as some sort of torture technique. Likely, he was walking into school and noticed a display and was grossed out by what he saw (good he still has a conscience! you have not killed it yet.). He didn't like seeing pictures of mutilated babies. It turned his stomach...yet I am sure he has seen many violent images over the years on TV, video games, movies, the news, in school, and just by being a member of society! Why did these impact him? Why was he bothered if it was just some nasty pictures of medical waste from a "safe, legal" medical procedure that empowers women? Anyway, he saw pictures he would rather have not known existed because the pictures proved you have been lying to him all this time. He was not "forced"...he chose to look.

I have not known CBR to display at a high school. They may drive past a high school, but they do not "camp out". If a display was stationed at the school, it was likely another organization or signs were purchased by another group and used...more than likely presented by students of that school as "Mini GAP".

Finally, I would totally support CBR driving past and presenting to high school students because #1 high school students are having sex, getting pregnant, and having abortions...#2 high school students deserve to know the truth about fetal development and abortion as EDUCATION before they make a decision to abort that they cannot undo...it is forever. #3 Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups are IN the schools teaching kids about sex, birth control, homosexual behavior and abortion well BEFORE high school and often what students are taught is not the truth...it is very biased to toward abortion as taught by those who stand to profit financially from an abortion decision...if kids start having sex, Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics will profit from the sale of birth control, the Morning After Pill, STD testing/treatment, and abortions. They have a vested interest in kids deciding to become sexually active. #4 these students can have abortions without their parents even knowing. If they are "adult" enough to get on birth control, have sez and have surgery without their parents knowing...even to the point of being taken off school grounds during school hours by school officials to have an abortion and then being sent home without their parents having a CLUE...at ANY AGE (right to privacy for minors with anything related to reproduction and sex)...then surely these same "adults" can handle seeing a few yucky pictures that are aimed at informing them.

Joined: 18 Apr 2008 Posts: 4 Location: Oregon

Ok, yeah, we have a "right to privacy" but doesn't the RIGHT TO LIFE outmatch that right? Just look at Meagan's Law... the right to privacy is less then a person's right to protection. Life must mean so much more then privacy. There's no argument!

Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Posts: 16

What is on those trucks is the truth! Peopl have the right to know the truth! Not to tell women the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about their decision to have an abortion is deceitful. Why do the pictures bother Pro-Choicers? CBR is only advertising what Pro-Aborts support! For a Pro-Choicer to be disgusted by the pictures is illogical and absurd, much akin to saying, "I don't like eggplant, but I eat it anyway for no other reason than the fact that I want to (pure stubborness in most cases)."

Don't talk about the feelings of the children. I have conversed with children who have seen the pictures: I was one. And no, they don't like the pics. WHY? Because they look at them and see what grown-ups have done to their fellow children. They look at that and think, "That could have been me!" or "That could have been my little sister!" They behold that the children who could have been and should have been "thier best friends" have been brutally murdered by those who SHOULD be protecting them. One woman said, "No, I don't want my kids seeing the pictures. But I am more concerned about the fact that they are growing up in a society that allows this (meaning abortion) to happen." I say, "RIGHT ON!"

And what do you mean, forcing you to see? No one is holding your eyes open! On the contrary, CBR goes out of their way at GAP to warn people about the photos. And the truck... well, you have ability to close your eyes, right?

Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Posts: 16

"While you are busy trying to save the lives of unborn children- you are destroying the innocence and the mental well being of children who cannot turn away from images on a truck. As parents, we can monitor what they watch on the TV, we can monitor what they see on the internet, but you can't monitor a car window..." ~prochoicer

Next time they see the picture, you can point to it and say, "See that? I let that happen, I support it. And I am okay with it."
Look at their expressions when they hear that.

Joined: 04 Nov 2009 Posts: 3 Location: Ðîññèÿ

My Dad died 12 years ago, and my Mom has made plans of her own, to move into a certain assisted living facility of her own choosing, if and when she ever needs to.

Ive always told her that she can come live with me when she gets old and decrepit shes 73 now, and she laughs at me, and says while she loves her little grandsons, she doesnt want to have to put up with them all the time. My oldest sister still lives right around the corner from Mom, so at least theres someone close by in case Mom needs help.