Graphic Abortion Photos displyed in my town...is this right?

[julietchicago]

So my sister and I were driving to our office today, in our hometown that we have lived in all of our lives, when we see a sign that says...CAUTION: Graphic Photos Ahead. I was like WTF?

Traffic was a little backed up, I was trying to look ahead and see what these huge signs people were holding up had on them. There were people on both sides of the 4 lane road (2 lanes on each side, they were holding them up in both directions). The people were spread apart about 25 feet from eachother and there was about 10 on each side.

So the first couple of signs had a picture of a fetus, and the sign said "8 weeks"

Then the next batch of signs were actual photos of a baby after an abortion. It was awful. The baby was covered in blood and I just can't even explain it without getting upset. UGH. I am just thankful my niece was not in the car.

Does anyone think it is right for these people to be out there, in a good family oriented community, at 12 noon on a Saturday??? People are out with their children...!!! What does a parent say to their child when they ask what was wrong with the baby in the photos???

I am so pissed off about this. I called the non-emergency police number and asked who the group was so I could call or write a letter. They didn't know and said the group usually gives them notice before they go out there with the signs, but they didnt give notice today! The guy I spoke w/ said they were within their rights though. :confused:


WTF is wrong with people? Do they honestly think this is the right way to get the message across? Would you be pissed too?

Thanks for listening.

[Zelda Von Yitz]

You said it right: suppose a youngster saw the signs?

[Kristy]

This happens in my college town, usually sometime during the first few weeks of classes. Protesters set up huge signs at one of the main parts of campus, and it just sickens me. My freshman year, my roommate and a bunch of other girls on my dorm floor received letters from the same group. Inside the envelope was a plain brochure, nothing out of the ordinary, but inside were pictures of aborted fetuses. Everyone was freaked out. Not a good way to get messages across at all.

[Wilsmom]

I would be really pissed! :mad: I saw this once in a town where I used to live. There were literally hundreds of people lined up for miles with signs. Thankfully no graphic pictures, but all kinds of "Stop Abortion" signs.

I would definitely be writing someone a letter or making a call. Children don't need to see that. Others can make up there own minds and I highly doubt that some graphic pictures are going to make them change what they believe. Sheesh! :mad:

Can you tell I'm pro-choice?

[onomatopoeia]

Graphic pics like that have been up for Years and years at my home town. There's an abortion clinic literally right across the street from a Catholic grade school. The school has a grave facing the abortion clinic and all it says on the grave is: in memory of the unborn child.

Well, almost every Saturday morning (esp. in the summer months) protestors stand outside the clinic with HUGE GROSS signs. I can remember driving by when I was 16 wondering what the little kids would think if they saw those photos.

Although I am prolife I think those graphic pictures shouldn't be shown esp. when they are standing right across the street from a grade school and a church.

I think the little grave speaks more than those disgusting pictures they have up.

[Clubqueen]

That's just really disturbing. Do they really think that those pictures are going to change anybody's mind? If you're pro-choice, odds are you're still going to be pro-choice even if you see those images.
I respect people's right to demonstrate and protest peacefully, but sometimes I think they go way too far.

[mmeblue]

I am adamantly pro-life, and I think those kinds of displays are unnecessary. If you ask someone if they'd like to see the pictures and warn them that they're graphic (without forcing them on the person), that's one thing, but it's not a good idea IMO to show them on the streets. There are other ways to explain the position without going for shock value.

[mrs_pell]

I'm pro-life, and although they are in their rights, I don't agree with what they are doing. Honestly, I don't mind showing graphic pictures in *certain places,* but a busy street, where innocent children (who shouldn't have to be faced with certain realities of the world yet) could see them isn't really the most *appropriate* place for it.

All I think they are doing is turning people off to their message. It's sad, really. It gives all pro-lifers a bad name.

[ManteoChik]

To me, I feel like everyone has the right to believe what they want to. I also don't feel like someone else's beliefs should be forced upon me. Regardless if you are for or against abortion it's no one's place to tell you what you should or should not think! I get really angry when people try to force their beliefs on me regargless if they are religious, political, sexual, or anything like that. I think those people should have been shot! (well not really, but ya'll know what I mean)

[wendalah]

They're within their rights. It's not exactly to my taste, but as I always say--do you support the right to protest freely or don't you? You can't have it both ways. If someone wants to protest in a way you find distasteful but is still legal...which would you rather have? Them stopped, and everyone stopped? Or let them do it?

I drive by a street corner nearly every day where a bunch of anti-war protestors hold up signs. One says, "BUSH IS A LYING SACK OF SHIT" in huge letters. Do children need to see that?

[JillyBean]

I saw something similar at college. They had a huge display set up with the "graphic photos ahead" signs. I'm pro-life, and I know that they're within their rights, but I don't agree with it. I think most people realize what an aborition is and don't need pictures to accompany it. Cori said it best:
It's sad, really. It gives all pro-lifers a bad name.

[Esq.]

Wendalah summed it up for me...

[mrs_pell]

Wendalah summed it up for me...

Me too...great post!

[keska]

I totally agree with Wendalah. I'm for free speech. We tread a dangerous path when we start to regulate by the content of the speech.

In addition, I feel the abortion protesters have a very valid point in showing photos to make their argument. I know I stopped eating meat after I read stories about meat packaging. It was so disgusting, I couldn't face the reality of it. If you think about it, why was Abu Ghraib such a scandal? I think in large part because the photos were upsetting. As long as people didn't have to see what the government was doing, they weren't too concerned. Once they were faced with it, they were really upset. It's the same reason PETA shows sad photos of puppies who are experimented on. People will ignore or deny that unpleasant things occur unless they are directly confronted with it.

Now, I can see regulating whether the photos can be shown on a busy street if they're endangering safety by causing traffic problems. I don't know how I feel about the child issue. Then again, the protesters did give a warning about graphic photos ahead, so anyone with children was forewarned.

[mrs_pell]

In addition, I feel the abortion protesters have a very valid point in showing photos to make their argument. I know I stopped eating meat after I read stories about meat packaging. It was so disgusting, I couldn't face the reality of it. If you think about it, why was Abu Ghraib such a scandal? I think in large part because the photos were upsetting. As long as people didn't have to see what the government was doing, they weren't too concerned. Once they were faced with it, they were really upset. It's the same reason PETA shows sad photos of puppies who are experimented on. People will ignore or deny that unpleasant things occur unless they are directly confronted with it.

Excellent point!!

[Irish Elf]

Regardless of content they were creating a traffic hazard. The orignal poster mentioned traffic was backed up - this created unnecessary potential for accidents, etc.

While I agree that when you start to limit one group then it's a slippery slope until your own voice is limited, but common sense needs to be used. No graphic signs should be forced on anyone. Even with the warning, if I'm driving in a car I can't close my eyes or turn my head. I will end up seeing bits and pieces of the signs.

Protesting where people walk and can avoid the pictures? Great, I'll bring you refreshments. Do it like the above protesters and force people to see them? No support here, regardless of the content.

[BrownEyedGirl]

Okay, so let me see if I understand...It's perfectly legal to show gigantic photos of very disturbing, very graphic, probably very traumatizing abortions...but god forbid someone show a nipple ring on accident ;) during a half time show.

WTF! This country is just f***ed up. We are just full of hippocrites! Everyone has a double standard. Nobody has an open mind anymore. People don't listen to what other people have to say...they only judge!

Sorry, that was a bit of a rant. I'm just saddened every day when I look around at what's going on in the country...and the world while we're at it.

But, to answer the original question...I think it is in extremely poor taste for someone to have pics like that in a very public (and dangerous) place.

[chrisinluv]

I'm worried about how this might impact people other than women who may or may not need to rely on the right to choose.

As a woman who has had two miscarriages, I don't think I would appreciate seeing these pictures. During those experiences, I realized that what I was looking at was tissue, but emotionally, the first time left a disturbing imprint. Talk about shock and awe. I don't need an extremist to show me some shock and awe, thanks.

[julietchicago]

"I don't know how I feel about the child issue. Then again, the protesters did give a warning about graphic photos ahead, so anyone with children was forewarned"

The warning sign did not allow the appropriate amount of time to parents to prepare or distract their children from viewing the images. And why should they have to? I think protesting is stupid, in any form, it does not accomplish anything. These people today did not accomplish anything other than pissing people off. I was so angry and emotionally disturbed that I almost pulled over and wanted to start yelling and screaming at them all.

For someone who is trying very hard to have a child, I did not need to see those photos. My cousin who miscarried twins at 5 months preg would not have enjoyed seeing those pics either. And she WOULD have gotten out of her car and possibly beat some ass.

There needs to be a law in place that limits these sick people from posting these images....it is insane.

[julietchicago]

"In addition, I feel the abortion protesters have a very valid point in showing photos to make their argument. I know I stopped eating meat after I read stories about meat packaging. It was so disgusting, I couldn't face the reality of it."

I think abortion is a little different from eating meat. How is a picture of a dead baby change someone's mind on the issue? It is disturbing, nothing educational about it! People are well aware of what an abortion is.

I wonder if the (approx) 10 year old girl out there holding a sign today (with a dead baby on it) actually knows what an abortion is. How can a young child, not even old enough to conceive, be out there protesting such an issue...she is not old enough to know what decision she would make if she was in a certain situation....blows my mind!

[Natasha]

Horrible. Yes, freedom of speach is something I hold dearly, and I would never dream of trying to draw a line at how you can and cannot peaceably assemble. But, me personally....I would be horrified. Women who have had miscarriages and children who know no better could be seriously traumatized by photos like that. In a pamphlet is one thing, on a huge sign is another. Again, not trying to make the rules, I just think it's useless for anything outside of shock value..

[Chimichanga]

I've seen the pictures you're describing and they make me sick.

What's worse in my mind - the protesters recruited us during our Catechism (SP?) classes! :eek: I was a sophomore or junior in high school and preparing for my confirmation. We HAD to watch a video of an abortion. Then after the video the Pro-Life group from our diocese came in and asked (almost told all of us) for volunteers to protest that weekend.

I was the only one who refused (personally I'm pro-choice) and nearly wasn't confirmed. My friends who went said it was the most horrible experience - the pictures were so graphic.

[gayle]

I completely agree with free speech and although I am vehemently pro choice, I do feel these people have every right to peacefully assemble and express their viewpoint.

However, the use of very graphic, horror photos to shock people into taking notice of their point, is pushing the boundary of that important law, well past the point of acceptability IMHO.

It would be no different than me, as a strongly anti-war supporter, taking out billboards of soldiers in Iraq who had been horribly disfigured, wounded and/or killed. I would in no way find this any more acceptable.

[mamahammer]

I agree that those pictures were totally inappropriate and, IMO, harmful to the pro-life cause that these people are trying to support. But as far as children seeing them - of course I don't want to explain them to my child! But there are many other billboards I don't want to explain to my child, either - the adult sex toys and XXX video billboards around Dallas. The "gentlemen's" club billboards - the Paris Hilton cheesburger adviertisements. I don't want to explain the pictures of people coming out of the London bombings, or the magazine covers depicting this horrid war that we see at every grocery trip. But my not wanting to expose my child to those things just yet doesn't rid me of that responsibility, kwim? I wish those people would stop and think about the harm they could be doing, but I don't expect them to anytime soon.

[lawyergirl25]

ITA with Wendalah.

[Irish Elf]

I almost brought up the miscarriage side of it last night. I know if I had seen this after my D&C for the miscarriage I would have been even more upset. And like an above poster. beaten one of the protesters with the sign.

I'm not the kind of person who is swayed by emaotional pleas or shock value. Chances are that approach will have the opposite affect on me. I watched Supersize me and got hungry b/c it was half facts, half sensationalism. Same with PETA's antics. Yes, there are some people who can be swayed by the gut reaction method, but chances are they are already on one side or the other.

I dread the day I have to explain something to me child earlier than planned. I have this great timetable but realistically it's out the window. Children are exposed to so much earlier than I was. But I can limit that exposure. WHile I think it's important for children to know about and understand the London bombings, I don't think they need to see the dead and wounded. Same with abortion. yes, I will explain what it is when they are ready but I won't be showing them pictures.

[camberne]

Protest if you want... protest the war, protest abortion, protest animal testing, protest whatever.

However, when you hold up graphic pictures of any kind in a public place in the middle of the afternoon, it's in EXTREME poor taste and counter-productive. Every group that practices protests like this HURT THEIR CAUSES. Whether they want to believe it or not, they are turning more people off than they are recruiting anyone to join their cause. Honestly, even when I think that I could in any way find common ground with a group, I see them do something like this (even if it is a vigilante portion of the group) and I back off again.

I also think it is irresponsible parenting to take a child into a protest like that (displaying graphic photographs). If you believe something great. Educate your kids and maybe they'll agree with you... maybe they'll choose to join your fight when they're older. But I don't agree with parading children in these protests AT ALL.

[Mystikal]

While I totally support free speech and the right to protest I agree with the previous posters that said the way this group displayed the photos was in extremely poor taste. You can believe what you want, you can support what you want, but you have to think about the children that are out there seeing the photos you are displaying. Since these photos were displayed on the side of the road I am assuming that no matter how many signs they had warning of the graphic photos ahead if there were children in the car and only one parent (the one driving) there would be no way for the parent driving to keep the children from seeing those photos. You know if you tell a child not to look at something the first thing they will do is look at it.
Honestly, use some common sense, people.

[MLA]

I don't understand these people. It doesn't help their cause. And the fact is that most abortions (88%) in this country happen before the 13th week (most in the 8th week).

I'm sure the graphic photos they were showing were not pictures of a 3.1 inch aborted fetus but rather of a late-term abortion of a nearly fully-formed baby. Late term abortions and first trimester abortions are very different in terms of the way they look . . . and, in my opinion, very different PERIOD.

[oceaneast]

I completely agree with free speech and although I am vehemently pro choice, I do feel these people have every right to peacefully assemble and express their viewpoint.

However, the use of very graphic, horror photos to shock people into taking notice of their point, is pushing the boundary of that important law, well past the point of acceptability IMHO.

It would be no different than me, as a strongly anti-war supporter, taking out billboards of soldiers in Iraq who had been horribly disfigured, wounded and/or killed. I would in no way find this any more acceptable.


I agree completely.

[dionysia]

ITA with Gayle and Alice.

I also wonder if most pictures that these folks show are actually from abortions at all and not D&Cs or stillborns, let alone late-trimester abortions.

But I suppose that's not the original topic at hand.

Di

[julietchicago]

Does it matter if the pics were from a D&C or miscarriage? It was a dead baby, period. Sick, Sick people...

[MLA]

Does it matter if the pics were from a D&C or miscarriage? It was a dead baby, period. Sick, Sick people...

Actually, I do think it matters. They’re trying to portray these photos as being those of a “typical” abortion, and they’re probably not (as most abortions happen before the fetus is even 4 inches long). I think these people are not only sick but deceitful as well.

[dionysia]

What MLA posted.

Di

[katmg]

I've seen these posters. They used to have huge (2 story) posters displayed on campus during protests. I seem to remember there were some questions raised about separation of church and state since it was a state school.

I agree with MLA's point about the validity of showing these picture as "typical" abortions.

[jimmysgirl424]

I am pro-choice. My mother is pro-life and has not only participated in demonstrations with the same signs mentioned in this post, but she ALSO carries a large picture in her checkbook. It depicts an aborted fetus at 6 or 8 weeks (can't remember which). The fetus was aborted using the saline abortion method, and it was absoultely horrible to look at. She carried it in her checkbook so that every time she went shopping somewhere and whipped out her checkbook, everyone could see the picture. I cannot even tell you how many cashiers, sales clerks and customers behind her in line that she completely horrified with her 'burned baby'.

As someone else mentioned here, these methods are very counter-productive, to say the least.

[villanelle75]

I'm not sure where the discussion about them having the "right" to do this is relevant, or the notion that if we want the right to free speech, we can't be uspet by this particular free speech.

I agree wholeheartedly that the KKK can have their klan rallies and meet in public areas to spread their views. That doesn't mean I cna't think that their veiws are vile and dispicable. Likewise, these protestors certianly had the legal right to do what they did, and I haven't seen any posts suggest otherwise, but that doens't mena it's the morally right or responsible thing to do.

Perhaps someone should take pictures of the autopsies of some children beaten and horrifically abused to death by their parents after they came in to this world unwanted, and they can hold those signs up across the street from these people. No one really wants to see a child covered with cigarette burns, bruises, sores and feces, and who was starved to death, but it's their right to hold that sign up, and it makes a strong point, so it would be okay, right?

[wendalah]

"No one really wants to see a child covered with cigarette burns, bruises, sores and feces, and who was starved to death, but it's their right to hold that sign up, and it makes a strong point, so it would be okay, right?"

Personally, I think that would make a very strong statement.
I don't agree that shock value always has a detrimental effect. Sometimes it wakes people up and forces them to think about issues.

[julietchicago]

I would not want to see photos of beaten children either. It's not my belief that upsets me about the abortion pictures, it's the graphic nature. To be honest, I am torn in the middle when it comes to abortion. I beleive it should be an option, but not used as birth control. If a woman is raped, her pregnancy endangers her own life or for some other extreme reason...I think it is OK. Would I ever do it? No, but I am just one person.

Nobody should EVER be forced to look at those photos while driving in their hometown, those people are lucky it was a busy road and I didn't pull over....

[jimmysgirl424]

To be honest, I am torn in the middle when it comes to abortion. I beleive it should be an option, but not used as birth control. If a woman is raped, her pregnancy endangers her own life or for some other extreme reason...I think it is OK.



ITA with this completely.

[dionysia]

Just as an FYI, abortion is rarely used as 'birth control.'

Di

[lawyerlee]

To be honest, I am torn in the middle when it comes to abortion. I beleive it should be an option, but not used as birth control.

Are you saying it should be legal, but up to someone else to decide for a woman when her situation warrants it? Cause that isn't much of a choice, IMHO.

[chefker]

Just as an FYI, abortion is rarely used as 'birth control.'

Di

In the U.S., it's certainly very rarely used as birth control. Sadly, as we know, it's used as mandated birth control in China. I don't think the U.S. will ever follow in China's footsteps in this regard.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Sadly, as we know, it's used as mandated birth control in China.
Yup- you definitely couldn't call that government "pro-choice."

[dionysia]

Sorry, I should have qualified, 'abortion in the US.'

Di

[villanelle75]

Curiosity question for those of you who believe abortion shouldn't be used a birth control. This position has always puzzled me a bit but I've never really asked about it. If abortion is okay (in the sense that is isn't "murder" becasue it isn't yet a life), then why is it only okay when used in certain cases? It seems to me that it's either a medical procedure with no inherhent moral implications, or it's not, and if it is, then I can't imagine why I should much care if someone uses it irresponsibley or instead of other available options. It seems a bit liek sayign nose jobs for anyone not disfigured or suffering froma birth defect should not be an option. If we accept that they are okay procedures, then why shouldn't they be available to everyone after each individual makes the decision on if it's right or wrong for them, no matter how they got there? I always try to understand where the notion that it's dispicable for someone to use abortion in certain cases but not others comes from because in my mind, while it is certianly irresponsible to have unprotected sex, doing so and then terminating a pregnancy is really no less resonsible than doing so and not getting pregnant. Just curious if anyone wants to guide me through the logic of this very common view that I just can't seem to fully grasp.

[Irish Elf]

I think there is a difference in having an abortion if the fetus isn't viable or the mother is in danger than having one b/c you were too lazy/stupid to use birth control.

[julietchicago]

When I said I do not agree with abortion when used as 'birth control', let me explain what I meant.

I mean the girls who have numerous abortions because they can't invest in a $5 box of condoms. If a woman is old enough to have sex, and consents to it, then she should have to deal with the consequences if she becomes pregnant (give the baby up for adoption, keep it, whatever). Why should an unborn baby suffer from her mistakes?

I know someone who has had several abortions, her son that she decided to keep was ALMOST an abortion (she went and walked out). Everytime I look at her son I wonder how he would feel if he knew he was ALMOST an abortion.

I know someone else who got pregnant and had an abortion because it simply "wasn't the right time for a baby". I will never understand those women. How can you throw your child in the trash and then just act like there are more where that one came from?

Then there are women like me who are trying desperatly to have a child and would DO anything for just 1...

I believe in freedom, I believe in everyone having a choice, but if you are being just plain irresponsible...abortion should not be an option to you.

If a woman was raped, or her life is in danger due to the pregnancy, I agree.

I guess my views are strange, but thats my opinion...

[dionysia]

Replying to Julie & Rachel at the same time, sort of.

I personally don't give a fig WHY someone gets an abortion. It's her choice, plain and simple.

What I do have issue with and will contest is the assertion that many/most women use abortion as a form of birth control.

Di

[hockeybrat]

Replying to Julie & Rachel at the same time, sort of.

I personally don't give a fig WHY someone gets an abortion. It's her choice, plain and simple.

What I do have issue with and will contest is the assertion that many/most women use abortion as a form of birth control.

Di


I agree.

[lawyerlee]

I believe in freedom, I believe in everyone having a choice, but if you are being just plain irresponsible...abortion should not be an option to you.
The right to be what you term "irresponsible" is a choice. Choice isn't just about the alternatives of which you approve.

[villanelle75]

I agree with that whole-heartedly as well.

I think my questions was unclear, or perhaps there isn't really un answer for it, but let me take another stab. To me, the choice to be pro-life or pro-choice comes down to a moral one. I could never condone legalizing something that was murder, but if abortion isn't murder, then it should absolutely be left to each woman to judge what is right for her. And if there is ambiguity in that question, then we must err on the side of personal freedom and allow each woman to decide if she feels it is morally accpetbale for her and only her to abort. So in a sense, I believe there are three options: abortion is murder and therefore shoud be illegal, abortion isn't ending a life and shoudl be legal, or there is uncertainty about that so personal freedom shoudl allow each woman to decide on her own. Based on that, I can't see how it is more right (or less wrong) for a woman who got pregnant despite using a condom to abort than it is for a woman who regularly had unprotected sex with the knowledge that is he ever got pregnant, should could always just abort. If the act of having an abortion isn't morally wrong, then do the motives or the circumstances that lead to the pregnancy have any relevance at all?


ETA; Lawyerlee posted while I was writing and managed to get across much of my point far more clearly and succinctly.

[Georgiana]

I would be pissed if I saw those pics. Although I'm pro choice, It would not make me change my mind and be pro life because someone is holding up signs of graphic photos. If anything, it would piss me off at them more for trying guerilla tactics to make people believe in what they believe in. It shows me that their cause is not as concrete as they think it is and how desperate they are Think about it: bombing clinics, killing abortion doctors,etc... Sounds like domestic terrorism to me.

[wendalah]

Graphic photos can and do make a difference to many people.

Would this make you think differently about war? Say you are a recent cancer or diabetes survivor and you have had an amputation. You go to this site from Google to get some information about living as an amputee and see this:

http://www.amputee-online.com/

(warning: VERY GRAPHIC)

Of course this is different from having it on the street, but there's no warning here as to what you're going to get. I dunno about you but I think that's a pretty strong image and would make people think as well as piss others off.

ETA: I don't see why showing graphic photos of an abortion automatically equates with "not having a concrete cause."

[Georgiana]

Graphic photos can and do make a difference to many people.

Would this make you think differently about war? Say you are a recent cancer or diabetes survivor and you have had an amputation. You go to this site from Google to get some information about living as an amputee and see this:

http://www.amputee-online.com/

(warning: VERY GRAPHIC)

Of course this is different from having it on the street, but there's no warning here as to what you're going to get. I dunno about you but I think that's a pretty strong image and would make people think as well as piss others off.


If I am going to the site to get information about living as an amputee, I would be pissed to see that photo. Although it his 1st admendment right to post that pic and his views, I don't think that someone that is going to that site for information should be subjected to that.... I would be definately offended and it would not change my views on the war. If anything he is exploiting the war for his own agenda and that is definately not fair.

[lawyerlee]

Graphic photos can and do make a difference to many people.

Would this make you think differently about war? Say you are a recent cancer or diabetes survivor and you have had an amputation. You go to this site from Google to get some information about living as an amputee and see this:

http://www.amputee-online.com/

(warning: VERY GRAPHIC)

Of course this is different from having it on the street, but there's no warning here as to what you're going to get. I dunno about you but I think that's a pretty strong image and would make people think as well as piss others off.
There's a big difference, though, Wendy, when people are putting up billboards they proclaim to be one thing when they are actually another.

I did not click on your link, but I think it is safe to assume that what you have linked is what you say it is, not something else, which you've busted out to try to make a weak point stronger.

[wendalah]

Again, I thought it was a very powerful image and it definitely made me think about war and its implications. And I voted for Bush!

ETA: Diana, I'm not arguing for the pro-lifers. I'm making the point that shock tactics of these sort can and do reach people, which is why they are used and why people resort to them. Shock photos of all sorts, from PETA's to these to anti-war, often misrepresent--but if you're passionate about a cause, anything you can do to make people think about it is often the goal.

[lawyerlee]

Diana, I'm not arguing for the pro-lifers. I'm making the point that shock tactics of these sort can and do reach people, which is why they are used and why people resort to them. Shock photos of all sorts, from PETA's to these to anti-war, often misrepresent--but if you're passionate about a cause, anything you can do to make people think about it is often the goal.
I know that you're playing devil's advocate, so to speak.

Passionate or not, though, if you have to lie to people (through omission or otherwise), you really oughta rethink your stance, IMHO. I don't respect anyone who resorts to the extreme of lying to try to further a position, ya know? :)

[Irish Elf]

but if you're passionate about a cause, anything you can do to make people think about it is often the goal.
being passionate is one thing, forcing another to view disturbing imahes is another. If I'm driving alone I can't look away and my choice has been taken from me. That's the problem I have with it.

[Georgiana]

My neighbor's daughter was so spooked by video that was made by PETA that she is now a vegan. She is only 14.... My opinion is that she made a decision based not on her convictions but Peta's opinion and that is not fair to me. If she was older and can make a sound decision on her own to be vegan then that fine. But to me Peta basically manipulated this kids head when it's very impressionable. That's wrong.

[wendalah]

"I don't respect anyone who resorts to the extreme of lying to try to further a position, ya know?"

Oh Diana, you asked for this one :). You must have a hard time respecting ANY politician ;).

[lawyerlee]

"I don't respect anyone who resorts to the extreme of lying to try to further a position, ya know?"

Oh Diana, you asked for this one :). You must have a hard time respecting ANY politician ;).
True, true. ;) :D

Thank goodness I'm non-partisan staff, right?!

[camberne]

Graphic photos can and do make a difference to many people.Yes, they do. To all the people I know, graphic photos discourage people from supporting the causes that use these tactics. This is the reason I hate PETA. I don't give a flying f*** what they stand for anymore. The way they set up their headquarters in our town and then bulldozed themselves around mading the most disgusting spectacles of themselves (they actually handed out the Un-Happy Meals to kids at the McDonald's around here, remember those?). You don't have to show disgusting pictures to get a point across. I remember reading The Jungle and not being able to eat almost anything for weeks, mostly meat, but everything was suspect. I didn't have to see pictures of it.

As far as the amputee photos, no it doesn't make me any more aware of the war. It doesn't make me more/less upset about the war. War sucks, war is unpleasant, in wars people die and are maimed. I don't need to see graphic pictures to illustrate the wounded, I know it already. If someone actually thinks that war is glorious and clean and tidy, then they need more of a reality check than some photos.

[BTB]

I always try to understand where the notion that it's dispicable for someone to use abortion in certain cases but not others comes from because in my mind, while it is certianly irresponsible to have unprotected sex, doing so and then terminating a pregnancy is really no less resonsible than doing so and not getting pregnant. Just curious if anyone wants to guide me through the logic of this very common view that I just can't seem to fully grasp.

I'll take a stab at this, with the disclaimer that this is my opinion, I'm not going to debate it as it isn't going to change (and mostly because I don't have time, as I usually thoroughly enjoy a good debate) ;) and it may or may not be logical - so may not meet what you're looking for in your last sentence. :)

I was raised by a very liberal mother in a staunchly pro-choice household, and was thus pro-choice until I went to college (ironically at a very liberal institution) and took a lot of science classes, including more embryology than I care to recollect. I was confronted with the knowledge that biology does not support distinctions of personhood for even the earliest embryos (if an embryo's not a person, then neither am I). One must rely on philosophy or religion to make those distinctions if one wishes to do so. I was also shocked at how early development occurs - an embryo's heart is organized, begins beating, and pumps a baby's blood, for example, three to three and a half weeks after conception. It may look like a "blob" but it's a highly organized collection of very busy organ systems, even at that stage.

Eventually, science turned me prolife, and a couple years later I found religion (or rather, it "found" me). :) I then went through a phase of completely inflexible antiabortion beliefs, no exceptions allowed - it is to me after all, a person we're discussing, and I'm not okay with killing people, no matter how much good it does you (generic) or how much you (also generic) want to. (for clarity I'll state now that all future "you's" are generic) :D

Now, I believe exceptions should be made for rape and incest. How do I reconcile the idea that a person is dying when an abortion is performed with allowing this choice for victims of crimes? Because I DO believe in choice for all women, but I believe that choice takes place before a life is conceived. You should get all the choices you want, ceasing only when another life is at stake. I think BC should be free, and educational BC programs should be coming out our ears in every possible venue, and they should include the information that no birth control is a guarantee: sex can not be fully separated from reproduction.

Yes, pregnancy can be a terrible burden, and giving a child up for adoption is not easy. But when a woman and man have placed themselves in that situation, I can't justify allowing them to kill to get out of it. However, if a woman is forced into that situation, without the opportunity to choose it, although I still mourn the person I believe is lost, a secular society should not be able to prevent her from every recourse in making her situation less difficult if possible.

It helps that I don't think abortion is the worst possible thing that could happen to a soul - while I feel a person has a right to their life, this planet is not the be all and end all, we're here for 80ish years, if we're lucky; if we're luckier still it's a good ride, but it's not all there is, and abortion victims don't cease to be - but of course the permanence of the soul is no defense to going around shooting people for no reason. For me it really boils down to who's rights take precedence: I believe the baby's do when the mom is half responsible for the baby existing, and the mom's rights have priority when she is not.

[wendalah]

"To all the people I know, graphic photos discourage people from supporting the causes that use these tactics. This is the reason I hate PETA."

I get you, but I know many people (including myself) who have become sympathetic to PETA's cause based on seeing some of their graphic material.

Some do some don't. It obviously works in some cases or they wouldn't do it.

[villanelle75]

Is whether or not it works really even relevant when considering whether or not it's the right thing to do? I suppose it the age old question of the means justifying the ends, but really IMO, even if it does convert people to your cause, it's not automatically exempt from being a really awful thing to do and an irresponsible choice. Taking aways people ability to avoid seeing disturbing images, putting gory sights in open view of children, well, in my line of thinking, it's wrong even if it "works".

[wendalah]

I don't know. It depends on how you feel about the issue at hand, and the means justifying the ends, as you said. What if it were, say, photos of that ad campaign of the girl who was severely burned and deformed in the car accident caused by a drunk driver? Is it worth it to let children see her, in order to get a powerful message across about abusing alcohol?

[lawyerlee]

"To all the people I know, graphic photos discourage people from supporting the causes that use these tactics. This is the reason I hate PETA."

I get you, but I know many people (including myself) who have become sympathetic to PETA's cause based on seeing some of their graphic material.

Some do some don't. It obviously works in some cases or they wouldn't do it.
The thing that bothers me about the tactics, though, is that I think you're a damn sight more intelligent and informed than the average person who comes into contact with that message. I suspect they caught your attention with it, then you went on to find out more information from a variety of sources, right? Unfortunately, I don't think very many people do this. And I don't understand how you (general you) can say you've swayed someone to your way of thinking if all you've done is frighten them into supporting your cause.


I remember reading your thoughts about abortion on the other *cough, cough* message board ;), BTB, and your position does make sense to me. And I respect that you've come to it after much thought and study. However, I doubt that very many people who espouse your view have had the education you have had. But I could be wrong, of course. It certainly wouldn't be the first time! :)

[lawyerlee]

I don't know. It depends on how you feel about the issue at hand, and the means justifying the ends, as you said. What if it were, say, photos of that ad campaign of the girl who was severely burned and deformed in the car accident caused by a drunk driver? Is it worth it to let children see her, in order to get a powerful message across about abusing alcohol?
I guess I simply question the assumption that the powerful message even works. Which is where we probably have to agree to disagree. :)

[katmg]

However, I doubt that very many people who espouse your view have had the education you have had.

That got me to thinking. Would you rather have someone support your point of view based on scary, graphic pictures or after careful thought and analysis about what 'life' really means and where it starts? Kinda makes you wonder what type of person they're trying to recruit with these posters.

[wendalah]

"Would you rather have someone support your point of view based on scary, graphic pictures or after careful thought and analysis about what 'life' really means and where it starts? "

I'm being an argumentative grump today :) but seriously. In response to the above, let's be fair and note that there are undereducated, misinformed people on both sides of this issue.

For example, I cannot tell you how many women I know who vote based solely on the issue of choice and are quite vocal about saying they don't care about other issues. To me, that is not necessarily acting with careful thought.

[lawyerlee]

I'm being an argumentative grump today :) but seriously. In response to the above, let's be fair and note that there are undereducated, misinformed people on both sides of this issue.
I don't think you're being a grump. And I enjoy a pleasant debate! ;)

I agree completely that there are misinformed people on both sides of every issue, including this one, and I hope my posts didn't insinuate otherwise because I certainly don't think that. :)

[wendalah]

No of course not.
But seriously, I am a grump today. I'm sleepy and I have work to do that I am avoiding. I myself am not acting with careful thought, if you will. :p

[dionysia]

Wendy, it wasn't clear from Katmg's post who the 'you' referred to.

Seriously, on every single issue, I hope that people have come to their conclusions after educated, rational discussion and research. Did I mention I'm an idealist on the days I'm not a cynic? :p

Di

[lawyerlee]

Oh, and I've been meaning to mention that I only believe this outside the context of elections, of course. I don't give a rip why other people vote for the candidates I like. I'm happy for them to help that person's chances of being elected! :)

[lawyerlee]

I have work to do that I am avoiding.
Don't ya just hate that?! That was me all day long today. Blech! :(

[wendalah]

I'm really in fine form if I'm hauling out amputee-online.com. That's some good Wendy at work right there. I could run this company if I put half the same juice into my actual career. ;)

[wendalah]

"Wendy, it wasn't clear from Katmg's post who the 'you' referred to."

She was referring to me, dammit. The world revolves around me.

[lawyerlee]

I'm really in fine form if I'm hauling out amputee-online.com. That's some good Wendy at work right there. I could run this company if I put half the same juice into my actual career. ;)
Your own personal "Hitler" reference, eh? Quite impressive. ;)

[keska]

I'm not sure what difference it should make if someone is "scared" or "disgusted" into taking a position as long as what scared or disgusted them is actually true. Heck, I saw an Oprah show a few weeks ago where a lady with half a face that wasn't even healed was on talking about how her boyfriend shot her. It was disgusting and shocking and made you think about the seriousness of domestic violence. Was Oprah trying to scare us or just make us realize what domestic violence really looks like?

I mean, it's one thing to think abortion is a medical procedure on a bunch of a cells and another to be confronted with something that has identifiable body parts and human shape. If someone sees a photo of a practice they find digusting and decides they never want to support that practice because they find it repulsive, why is that any less valid than if they philosophized their way to a conclusion?

As for the comments that the photos used by abortion protesters are not true, I haven't seen anyone back that up with any evidence. None of us have any clue how representative their photos are of the numbers and types of abortions performed in this country. It seems to me that people are jumping the gun a little claiming they are misleading. Even if they were only the most graphic images, that doesn't make them less true.

I also haven't seen anyone back up the idea that most abortions aren't used to prevent regular unwanted pregnancies -- i.e. as a back up birth control method. I tend to doubt that the majority of abortions in this country are the result of rapes and life-endangering conditions to the mother. It would be interesting to see some figures on that because I admit I really don't know.

[dionysia]

I don't think someone having an abortion after their primary birth control method failed is using 'abortion as birth control.'

As for abortion stats, please refer to this recently published report by the Alan Guttmacher Institute:
http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf

"53% of women who have unintended pregnancies were using a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant, although usually not correctly every time."

That to me says we need better sex education and resources for people to learn how to use birth control correctly and effectively.

Di

[julietchicago]

The right to be what you term "irresponsible" is a choice. Choice isn't just about the alternatives of which you approve.

Yes, I understand that. In MY "perfect world" though, it would be as I earlier described.

[keska]

I guess we disagree then. What reason is abortion used for in those cases if not birth control? Is the mother not trying to prevent an unwanted birth? There's no medical reason endangering the mother's life. It's not to get past the trauma of rape. The only reason is birth control. You may not want to admit it semantically, but that's what it is.

The statistics that Dionysia posted say that only 3% of abortions are for fetal health, 3% for mother's health, and 1% for rape. That leaves 93% of abortions for simple unwanted pregnancies. To me, that says that the vast majority of abortions are for birth control purposes.

My post didn't actually refer to abortions caused by failure of birth control, just to the numbers that were not due to rapes or danger to the life of the mother. However, if someone doesn't use birth control methods correctly, then it's quite nearly the equivalent of not using anything at all. That just goes to demonstrate that the couple is actually relying on abortion as a birth control method, though they may not have thought of that at the time they had sex.

Birth control is not that difficult. I understand there is a limited failure rate, which can be overcome by using multiple birth control methods; all of which is clearly marked on all birth control packaging. However, I don't feel ignorance of how to use birth control is an excuse. I've never met anyone who didn't know that sex could lead to pregnancy, except for children, though I'm sure if you searched hard enough you might find someone. I agree more with BTB's observation that choices were made by the parents that put them where they are. We make people responsible for the consequences of their unfortunate choices, whether intentional or negligent, all the time. I don't feel this should be different.

[dionysia]

Keska,

You are correct in your earlier post; approximately 10-15K of the abortions in the US each year are for pregnancies brought about by rape or incest.

That just goes to demonstrate that the couple is actually relying on abortion as a birth control method, though they may not have thought of that at the time they had sex.

No, no it doesn't. But as you say, semantics.

We make people responsible for the consequences of their unfortunate choices, whether intentional or negligent, all the time.

And how is terminating a pregnancy not being responsible for consequences?

Anywaaaaay, we've gone off the OT, for that I apologize.

So back on topic:
Images are very powerful tools. I despise it when a side of any store distorts or manipulates images to attempt to mislead people into support for their cause.

WARNING!!! Graphic Photos!!!
http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/printer_friendly_pages/truth_about_photos.pdf

Di

[BTB]

Not sure whether the abortion nurse in the file that's linked means nine weeks gestational age, or nine weeks menstrual age, (I assume the latter since that's the convention more likely used in a clinic) but I've seen embryos (not properly termed fetuses until 10 weeks) of both ages, and they were recognizable, not merely clots. Small, yes, covered in blood at first, yes, but clean the blood off and something more than clot can be seen.

[katmg]

wendalah - it was a general you referring to both sides of the issue not a specific you. The example I gave was in reference to the photographs the thread was started about and BTB's post about how she became pro-life. I didn't include an example for the pro-choice side b/c I was too lazy. Sorry for the confusion.

[Kimberland30]

Personally, I don't think it's right to use graphic photos in any public protest. I'm with Alice in that when I see tactics like this used, it makes me turn against the group displaying it, not draw me closer to them. We both have PETA in our backyard. I've taken my kids to the circus which essentially is PETA's playground for handing out fliers of abused animals. I don't disagree with this, it's my choice to open the flier or not. But I think that posters with a "BAM, IN YOUR FACE" approach are wrong no matter what the issue is.


On a side note, I just want to say that I can't believe this has already reached 9 pages and everyone is still being nice. It's a nice change. :)

[keska]

For me, the picture of the 6 week old "teardrop" on the website still looks human. It's got identifiable arms, legs, head and eyes.

FWIW, I know I've been advocating the anti-abortion side here, but I'm not actually for reversing Roe v. Wade. I don't think the Court should take away a right that they've already recognized. I do think people shouldn't use abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies, and if they do, they shouldn't do so saying it's only a bunch of cells. If the majority of abortions occur b/w 5-8 weeks, then from the pictures and descriptions it's already got a beating heart and it develops arms, legs, eyes, mouth and even a tongue during that period (pictures of 1st trimester: http://www.wprc.org/trimester1.phtml). To me, if it's got identifiable body parts, it's not a bunch of random cells anymore. And, after that point, it only gets more defined.

Besides, if anti-abortion protesters shouldn't use pictures of D&X abortions b/c they account for only 1.5% of the abortions, then pro-choice people shouldn't advocate to keep abortion legal on account of rapes, which account for only 1% of abortions. I think both have a point to some degree. After all, many people people wish abortion was illegal but are willing to bend on the issue of rape and others want abortion to stay legal but are willing to compromise on the issue of later term abortions and certain procedures like D&X.

[dionysia]

Keska,

I have moral issues telling someone that they can't terminate a pregnancy. I have moral issues 'punishing' someone for having an unwanted pregnancy. I have moral issues telling someone that they can't believe that a pregnancy is 'just a bunch of cells.'

My problem is with anti-abortion protesters showing late-term abortions as if they are the majority of procedures.

Di

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I think both have a point to some degree. After all, many people people wish abortion was illegal but are willing to bend on the issue of rape and others want abortion to stay legal but are willing to compromise on the issue of later term abortions and certain procedures like D&X.
The problem I see with saying abortion should only be allowed in cases of incest or rape is, how do you determine if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest?

My personal guess- that number of 1.5% of abortions being rape/incest cases is probably not correct and probably quite low. As much as things have improved over the past 50 years or so, rape and incest are still very underreported. And the rate at which charges are pressed and convictions attained are that much lower.

Women and girls are still subjected today to a lot of shame, scorn and disbelief when they claim rape or incest. Can you imagine how much harder an unwanted pregnancy would make the situation? Does it really make sense to force a woman to open up her life to the public, put herself on trial in front of a bunch of strangers, to be able to end a pregnancy that was forced on her?

[msnicolea]

ITA with Littlefred. So, a woman should have to prove that she was raped or molested in order to be granted the right to have an abortion? Give me a break. I imagine this would only have two consequences--women will tell a lie to a provider in order to be eligible for the procedure. I would have lied when I had my abortion at 16, if it was the only way I could have had one. Or, women will return to the days of self-aborting. This solves NOTHING.

I also want to echo Dionysia's important point--the failure in this country to provide adequate sexuality education in our schools is really what we should be focusing our attention on. There is a reason so many men and women fail to use BC correctly. I'm not even going to comment on the post re: hoe failing to use it correctly is indicative of some sort of "stupidity or laziness"--actually, yes I will. I was in college at age 16 when I got pregnant, and was also on the pill. There was nothing ignorant or lazy about me, and yet, I still got pregnant. It is beyond demeaing to me and other women for such comments and assumptions to be made.


As for the original post, I agree with Wendy and others. I HATE those pictures, I think they are beyond disturbing and often misleading, but I am all for free speech and demonstration, as long as those ****ers don't try to block my access to my clinic. Say what you want, believe what you want--but don't infringe upon my legal rights.

Every child a wanted child.

[T&M'sMommy]

This is only MY thought and no one will ever agree 100%, but I think abortion is horribly wrong and should be illegal. Unplanned babies are not neccessarily unwanted babies. I have several friends that can't get pregnant and would adopt a baby in a heartbeat. I think there needs to be more done to help women that find themselves in situations of unplanned pregnancies. More counselling and assistance, more options, etc...

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I have several friends that can't get pregnant and would adopt a baby in a heartbeat.
Just MHO, but I don't find this to be a very convincing argument. There are thousand upon thousand of adoptable children in the world. There's no shortage of parentless children such that that should be a reason to make abortion illegal.

[Irish Elf]

That was me who made the comment about women who were too lazy or stupid to use protection. I must not have made myself clear; not every woman who gets pregnant does it b/c they are stupid or lazy. i was referring to the women who have unprotected sex b/c they know abortion is available. I was referring to the repeat offenders who have multiple abportions rather than practice safe sex.

I guess I should have added a disclaimer that there are those who have accidents with birth control and find themselves with a hard choice. In my post I was referring to the opposite poles; I wasn't mentioning the middle ground.

Sorry of I came across as saying all women who are pregant did it either b/c they were raped or stupid.

[keska]

I was actually thinking the opposite about the rape statistic and also about the birth control statistic. I actually think women would be more likely to tell the abortion clinic they were taking birth control but it failed or that they were raped than admit that they were just plain stupid and didn't use birth control -- pass the buck on responsibility so to speak. I mean, it's not like telling the abortion provider is like reporting it to the police. Just my first thought, though, maybe I'm too cynical.

[MLA]

I have several friends that can't get pregnant and would adopt a baby in a heartbeat. Just MHO, but I don't find this to be a very convincing argument. There are thousand upon thousand of adoptable children in the world. There's no shortage of parentless children such that that should be a reason to make abortion illegal.

ITA! I'm chiming in a little late here (I contributed to the thread way back before it was a debate on abortion) . . . But there are so many children in this world who need parents, that it seems more wrong to put a baby up for adoption than to have an abortion.

[honeygirl]

ITA! I'm chiming in a little late here (I contributed to the thread way back before it was a debate on abortion) . . . But there are so many children in this world who need parents, that it seems more wrong to put a baby up for adoption than to have an abortion.

Wow, I can't believe I just read that last line. "more wrong to put up a baby for adoption than to have an abortion". What? As a therapist that works exclusively with challenging but beautiful and very-loved adopted children I find this statement incredibly henious. How is putting up a child for adoption "wrong"? The children placed for adoption from birth are very wanted and seeked out, their parents spent a lot of time, money and emotion to expand their families through adoption. And for personal and logistical reasons these couples may not be able to adopt "all the many children in the world that need parents". Yet, if they can adopt a child that was available for adoption because a mother didn't want to terminate the pregnancy, how is that "wrong"?

I hope that I am misreading your statement, it is so callous and cold.

[MLA]

Wow, I can't believe I just read that last line. "more wrong to put up a baby for adoption than to have an abortion". What? As a therapist that works exclusively with challenging but beautiful and very-loved adopted children I find this statement incredibly henious. How is putting up a child for adoption "wrong"? The children placed for adoption from birth are very wanted and seeked out, their parents spent a lot of time, money and emotion to expand their families through adoption. And for personal and logistical reasons these couples may not be able to adopt "all the many children in the world that need parents". Yet, if they can adopt a child that was available for adoption because a mother didn't want to terminate the pregnancy, how is that "wrong"?

I hope that I am misreading your statement, it is so callous and cold.

I understand your point. It just seems that so many children end up in foster care or in the system for their entire lives and are so often mistreated in the system (take a look at Florida for example) that it seems selfish to me to put a child into that system. I suppose if you already have adoptive parents picked out it's different, but when a woman does that, doesn't it, in effect, mean that there's another unwanted child in the child welfare system who isn't going to be adopted? And I'd like to know what the "personal reasons" you mention are. Because if the personal reasons have to do with race/ethnicity (which they seem to an awful lot), I don't think they're valid. Sorry if I sound "callous and cold" to you, but I'm really not. It breaks my heart that there are children in this country and throughout the world who don't have parents to love them; it really does. I think that adding to that population is much worse than terminating a pregnancy.

[honeygirl]

MLA - I guess because this is my profession I have a different perspective than you. Without sounding rude I'd like to think that mine is more informed than yours. It isn't a valid comparison to say that if a woman chose an abortion than somehow a child in the state system could be saved. That just isn't how it works.

Many couples not only choose to adopt privately or to adopt infants, but they go out of our country to do so. You cannot force these couples to adopt a child from state custody, that is their right to choose. And to take it futher, nor should they be forced to adopt a child from the "system". Not all couples (or singles) are equiped or able to handle and appropriately raise the children that come out of the state systems. Many of them have been terribly hurt and damaged by the family system from which they came. Adoptive (and foster) parents need to have skills including patience, realistic expectations, understanding of development - attachment- and affects of abuse on a child, etc. In the past I've had jobs where I DID NOT recommend a couple for a high needs child.

In addition, the children in the state system aren't there b/c a woman decided to maintain a pregnancy but then relinquish her rights. No, those children are in custody (most often older children, teens, etc) b/c their parents used drugs, neglected them, sexually abused them or physically abused them. It is a completely different problem, although one that is terribly important and close to my heart.

Linking the foster care system and the "thousands of children that need parents" to abortion and pictures by abortion rights people just doesn't connect or make sense!

[MLA]

MLA - I guess because this is my profession I have a different perspective than you. Without sounding rude I'd like to think that mine is more informed than yours. It isn't a valid comparison to say that if a woman chose an abortion than somehow a child in the state system could be saved. That just isn't how it works.

Many couples not only choose to adopt privately or to adopt infants, but they go out of our country to do so. You cannot force these couples to adopt a child from state custody, that is their right to choose. And to take it futher, nor should they be forced to adopt a child from the "system". Not all couples (or singles) are equiped or able to handle and appropriately raise the children that come out of the state systems. Many of them have been terribly hurt and damaged by the family system from which they came. Adoptive (and foster) parents need to have skills including patience, realistic expectations, understanding of development - attachment- and affects of abuse on a child, etc. In the past I've had jobs where I DID NOT recommend a couple for a high needs child.

In addition, the children in the state system aren't there b/c a woman decided to maintain a pregnancy but then relinquish her rights. No, those children are in custody (most often older children, teens, etc) b/c their parents used drugs, neglected them, sexually abused them or physically abused them. It is a completely different problem, although one that is terribly important and close to my heart.

Linking the foster care system and the "thousands of children that need parents" to abortion and pictures by abortion rights people just doesn't connect or make sense!

Look, I'm not uninformed, and I understand that it's a complicated issue -- I do. But not every woman who decides to put her child up for adoption does so privately. That's why there are laws that allow a mother to drop her baby off at a fire station or hospital without any consequences (in California, at least). Maybe I'm wrong, but don't the children who are given up in this manner usually end up in the state system? And being a counselor, I'm sure you've had at least some experience with what the state system does to these children. That's where my problem lies. I guess if I were going to adopt, I'd really want to try to get a child from the state system rather than do a private adoption. I understand that that's not what everyone can or maybe even should do.

Anyway, back to the original topic -- I stand by my belief that graphic abortion photos are misleading and in bad taste.

[honeygirl]

Okay, I just can't let this one go :) I hope you don't mind if I share more information MLA.

I looked up some statistics, the last national ones were in 1998, but back then approximately 31,000 babies were abandoned (hospital or public place) that year. However, the total amount of children in foster care was 520,000. That is a huge difference! Of the children that are abandoned, they don't automatically stay in the system. Initally yes, pending an investigation. But if the state can find an appropriate parent or relative, that is where the baby would go (and often does).

Also, not all of the children in the foster care system are eligible for adoption, many go back to their parents or to other family members (going back home is the primary goal). It's not like I could call up my local DCFS if I wanted to adopt and ask for an abandoned infant. In order to adopt through the foster care system you have to be a foster parent first.

I think that it is great that if you were to adopt you'd go through your state system first. More couples that feel that way are needed!

[MLA]

Okay, I just can't let this one go :) I hope you don't mind if I share more information MLA.

I looked up some statistics, the last national ones were in 1998, but back then approximately 31,000 babies were abandoned (hospital or public place) that year. However, the total amount of children in foster care was 520,000. That is a huge difference! Of the children that are abandoned, they don't automatically stay in the system. Initally yes, pending an investigation. But if the state can find an appropriate parent or relative, that is where the baby would go (and often does).

Also, not all of the children in the foster care system are eligible for adoption, many go back to their parents or to other family members (going back home is the primary goal). It's not like I could call up my local DCFS if I wanted to adopt and ask for an abandoned infant. In order to adopt through the foster care system you have to be a foster parent first.

I think that it is great that if you were to adopt you'd go through your state system first. More couples that feel that way are needed!

Point taken. Perhaps I was looking at this a little too simply. I guess what we really need is for abortion to remain an option and for schools and parents to provide better education about birth control.

[papergirl]

I understand how seeing these signs can be offensive to people but I believe that we have certain constitutional rights that must be preserved - therefore I would have to say I support what they are doing. That is not to say I support the message but I do support their actions.

Their message may be uncomfortable for some to see but mostly I imagine they are trying to get a reaction out of people and clearly their attempts are working. It made you think. It made you talk and come online and write.

As for small children seeing the signs, I think more of what horrifies them is seeing the reaction of their parents. Not to say that small children may not be sad/scared/freaked out but I don’t think it’s something that would “damage” them. I’m sure many parents would disagree but is it any different then passing a car wreck that is gruesome on the road? Or passing a dead deer that is bloody with body parts hanging out? They are not all the same but each can be just as upsetting and unavoidable. It’s what happens in the real world.

I just want to repeat – I am not saying that the way these people are trying to get their message across is the best way but I am saying that I support their constitutional right to do this.

[lawyerlee]

Please don't forget about this rule in posting on CC:

16. Three words are blocked from the site (2 c’s and 1 f). Do not use these words.

We received a report about a post breaking this rule, so I wanted to remind all of you about it and ask you to follow it in the future. Thanks!

Diana

[udsweetpea]

Seeing those graphic, disturbing pictures will never change someone's mind if its already made up. I'm pro-choice and will always be whether or not I've seen those photos.

In the lovely days of Photoshop, how can I believe those pictures are real anyway?

[miel]

I think they are trying to show people who support abortion what it is they support. I don't know where they get the pictures, or if they are accurate. If you think what they do--that abortions are murder of millions of innocent humans--then you will go to great lengths to try and show that it's horrible.

I was just thinking that if it came down to it I would totally be in people's face about gruesome things about slavery or the Holocaust or anything I thought was totally evil that most people either support or are complaisant about. For that matter, I would support anti-war protestors showing all the gruesome bloody death the war in Iraq has caused--and the horrific injuries. If you are for the war, then you should at least know what you have supported. Same goes for nuclear war--e.g., Hiroshima. If Americans are going to drop an atomic bomb on an innocent civilian population then they should at the very least be forced to see what that bomb does.

Animal rights protestors use images from factory farming to show people what eating meat causes--and I totally support their right to do that. I think if you want to eat meat, then you should at least face the things that happen to get you your meat. If you can't face it, maybe you shouldn't eat meat.

If something is morally wrong then why should people be polite and let everyone be comfortable?
--------------------

Sorry...I just can't help but add that the 'bad life' argument for the legality of abortion is so disturbing. Oh, a kid might have a bad life. OK, it's OK to kill that kid as a fetus, then. I really wish people wouldn't use that argument! Let's say there is a country of people who are poor and often suffering--should we bomb it into oblivion? No more people with bad lives! Use the privacy argument, or the right to control one's body but please stop using the argument that someone who grows up poor or who is in foster care would be better off dead.

[lawyerlee]

I think they are trying to show people who support abortion what it is they support. I don't know where they get the pictures, or if they are accurate. If you think what they do--that abortions are murder of millions of innocent humans--then you will go to great lengths to try and show that it's horrible.
Please remember that pro choice does not equal pro abortion.

[chefker]

If something is morally wrong then why should people be polite and let everyone be comfortable?


If it's morally wrong for an individual, fine. Not everyone has the same beliefs!

The point is--I would NOT want to have to explain to a small child, after driving by a display of graphic abortion photos, what abortion is. Why should some third party force my hand into having a discussion about this with MY child, who may not even know 'where babies come from' yet??? THAT is why I'd object.

Picket in front of clinics, have marches in Washington. I don't object to someone having a cause, and feeling passionately enough about it to speak out. However, there is a time and a place for everything.

There is NO reason to be displaying graphic photos--whatever cause it's for, be it anti-abortion, anti-war, what have you--in a heavily traveled public thoroughfare, where the average joe whizzing by in their car full of kids is NOT going to have time to react and avert their kids' eyes from seeing something they may not be ready to see.

[miel]

Lawyerlee-- You know I really love all the posts you do, especially the news ones so let me respectfully disagree.

In one way it is true that pro choice is not pro abortion...in another it is not. If you are pro-choice and believe abortion should be legal in precisely the way it is legal now, then you support people's ability to get abortions very easily and in many different circumstances--as we have now. You may personally hope that people don't get abortions but you are certainly in favor of their ability to get them. Isn't it kind of hair splitting to say you are not 'supporting abortion'?

If by 'pro-abortion' you mean: You actually hope and want people to get abortions, then pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.

If you don't think abortion is ever wrong, and you are pro-choice then I think you support women's ability to get abortions. You support abortion, in short.

However, I can see another possible position: You think abortion is morally wrong, maybe even seriously morally wrong but you think that criminalizing it (a) would not really decrease the abortion rate or (b) would be very harmful to desperate women who would be imprisoned or (c) some other bad thing.

If that is one's position, I don't see why you would favor the current practice. More stringent practices will cut down the abortion rate considerably and don't have to lead to criminal charges for women who get abortions. If you think abortion is wrong then it seems you would have to be in favor of those things that make it less likely for someone to have an abortion.

However, if you do oppose the current practice (e.g., you are in favor of waiting periods, or of some kind of education that could lead a woman to change her mind) then you will not be seen by most pro-choice people as being pro-choice.

Unfortunately, in the current debate there is very little room for nuance or complicated positions.

[miel]

Chefker --I see your point.
I'm probably wrong that if you think you are facing an atrocity, it's OK for you to put it in people's faces at any time. But I can see that there could be a case where it won't be wrong.

I really want my daughter to have an innocent childhood for as long as possible. I remember reading "The Diary of Ann Frank" and it totally shattered my world. There is evil in the world and I understand not wanting kids to know about it. So I do understand what you are saying--it's just that human life matters more than children's innocence. If you could save lives by political actions, I do think you might have to take the risk that a child might find out about something disturbing.

OK, who put a nickel into me? I've suddenly become so opinionated. I want to say something if I've annoyed you but I have to get off this site for a couple weeks! If you want to yell at me for my views, pm me and I'll read it later...

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

If that is one's position, I don't see why you would favor the current practice. More stringent practices will cut down the abortion rate considerably and don't have to lead to criminal charges for women who get abortions.
What "more stringent practices" though? I see people talking about how they think women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest should be "allowed" to have an abortion, but how exactly do you think that allowance should be made?
If you think abortion is wrong then it seems you would have to be in favor of those things that make it less likely for someone to have an abortion.
I think abortion is wrong for me. I'm not comfortable with making that decision for everyone though. I definitely am in favor of things that make it less likely that someone will have an abortion. The things that actually have been shown to work though, are not more restrictions. They're things like education about birth control, availability of birth control, and - most importantly - financial stability. Women facing an unplanned pregnancy are much more likely to have the baby if they know that they'll be able to provide for it.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Not all couples (or singles) are equiped or able to handle and appropriately raise the children that come out of the state systems. Many of them have been terribly hurt and damaged by the family system from which they came. Adoptive (and foster) parents need to have skills including patience, realistic expectations, understanding of development - attachment- and affects of abuse on a child, etc. In the past I've had jobs where I DID NOT recommend a couple for a high needs child.

In addition, the children in the state system aren't there b/c a woman decided to maintain a pregnancy but then relinquish her rights. No, those children are in custody (most often older children, teens, etc) b/c their parents used drugs, neglected them, sexually abused them or physically abused them. It is a completely different problem, although one that is terribly important and close to my heart.
Just wanted to go back to this for a minute...

It seems to me that any person looking to raise a child should be prepared to deal with the worst. You know of course when you're adopting a special needs child that you're going to have to have extra patience, dedication, etc. But thousands upon thousands of parents every year give birth to special needs children- without having done anything "wrong." Is adopting a baby with fetal alcohol syndrome necessarily going to require more than having triplets? Will adopting a toddler who's been abused be more work than having mildly retarded twins? Or suppose you have a girl who was going to have an abortion, but she's been pressured into keeping the baby and putting it up for adoption. Maybe the reason she didn't want to have the baby is that she's severely depressed. And maybe the baby seems to be fine, but ten years later, baby is cutting herself, acting out, threatening suicide. Does that require less patience and dedication?

IMO, parenting is a crapshoot. You can tell yourself, if I do this, this and this, it'll be easy. Or at least, easier. But there are no guarantees. And I think it's truly naive to try to pick and choose your child based on what will be easiest for you as opposed to what will be best for the child. (General "you," not talking a specific "you")

[miel]

Little Fred-- I wrote you this long post but I am always nervous about arguing on the internet. I think I always disagree respectfully but I never know how someone will take my disagreement. So one thing I did say is that you are right that education and easy access to birth control is the best way to prevent abortion. :)

I think I better unsubscribe from this thread...I wonder why I can't resist this debate right now. I like that it is about a lot of interesting things and not about the same old way of thinking about these issues.

[gayle]

How about if the law stops making a woman wait 12 weeks to have an abortion?


How about, if when a 37 year old woman, who has never screwed up, and has always used birthcontrol, finds herself in a position of having to make this HUGE decison, who is forced to wait, by law, and then is asked over and over (to the last possible minute) "are you sure?" Is that cruel? or unfair?

No, every woman has to answer this in her own soul, and within her own body. No one, and I mean NO ONE, ever has the right to intervene in a decision that is so deeply personal.


My personal abortion experience was horrible, due in great measure, to right to lifers. I fully believe, that the state of CA and the "right to lifers" wanted my experience to be as bad as it could possibly be. What purpose, did that possibly serve?

All that did, was make me more inclined to stand up for basic human rights.

And become incredibly, pro choice.

In addition, although it is clearly, somone else's right to bombard me with offensive (and probably not even realistic photos), It is also my right to be apalled at such tactics, and say so.

[chefker]

The bottom line (for me personally), is I do NOT want the government making PERSONAL decisions for me. This includes abortion, breed specific legislation, heck, even whether junk food should be allowed in schools.

I don't believe leaving personal decisions in the hands of a bunch of primarily white, middle aged men, is the 'American Way'. We all have free will and the ability to make our OWN choices. It's iroinic that many people will complain about the government getting 'too big' or 'too powerful', yet will still support the taking away of personal rights.

It's no more appropriate for some third party to tell me whether or not I could or should have an abortion, than it is for someone to tell me when is the 'right time' to intentionally conceive a child (which my mother has told me recently, that we're having a baby 'too soon' after the wedding....) ;)

It's a PERSONAL decision. Period. The government has no place in it. JMO

[keska]

I do agree that I don't like excessive government regulation. However, when it comes to abortion, it really depends on what you believe about the essence of abortion. We let the government regulate all kinds of things that affect our daily choices without complaint because we think it is for a greater good - either the protection of others or the good of society. For instance, I've never seen anybody argue that we should allow people to freely disfigure, dismember or kill other people. So, it naturally follows, for people who believe that abortion is about taking a human life, that it isn't about trampling the woman's personal rights as it is about protecting another. We often make laws in this society that limit a person's behavior if will endanger the safety of others. So, I don't believe that one can simply say conclusively that it's a personal choice the government has no right to make.

As for abortion being a right, well, that's a long legal argument about how the justices got there. But, you should remember that it was a bunch of white, middle aged men that gave you that right too.

[chefker]

As for abortion being a right, well, that's a long legal argument about how the justices got there. But, you should remember that it was a bunch of white, middle aged men that gave you that right too.


Agreed. But that was then (when women had no 'voice'), and this is now, when we do. OT, but I just I think we're overdue to have a woman in the White House.

[gayle]

"I've never seen anybody argue that we should allow people to freely disfigure, dismember or kill other people."

I personally think this particular comparison is a bit extreme.

Nonetheless, you definately have the freedom and the legal right to feel otherwise and express it.

[keska]

Gayle

I hope I didn't upset you personally. I tried to make it clear that that is a rational viewpoint if a person believes that a fetus is actually a life. Most abortion methods involve suctioning the fetus out at some point, which therefore would cause dismemberment and premature termination of what an antiabortion supporter considers to be a human life.

Of course, if someone doesn't believe that a fetus is a life, then it would not be the same. As I said, it comes down to the essence of the abortion debate - is it a life or not. Both viewpoints make logical sense depending on the underlying presumption they're based upon.

Chefker I'd like to see a woman too, but I can't think of anyone I'd like to see there. Unfortunately, that's just a sign that there still aren't enough of us in highly visible positions.

[gayle]

I absolutely see your logic Keska, and no, you didn't upset me personally, so no prob.

Thank God we live in a country where we CAN disagree.

I think that anyone who has actually walked this path (having had an abortion) is going to just have VERY strong feelings about it. Feelings that come from an experience, rather than an idealistic perspective.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Of course, if someone doesn't believe that a fetus is a life, then it would not be the same. As I said, it comes down to the essence of the abortion debate - is it a life or not. Both viewpoints make logical sense depending on the underlying presumption they're based upon.
I agree- and actually, this is the reason why I don't really understand how some people can be okay with limiting abortion rights- as opposed to either completely allowing or disallowing abortion.

Because, if a fetus is absolutely a life... Well, we wouldn't allow a born child to be killed just because it was conceived through rape or incest, right? So why allow that for an unborn child?

On the other hand, if a fetus is maybe a life but we're not sure, then shouldn't we allow the person who is carrying that fetus be the one to decide? ETA: This isn't really directed at you, Keska, it's just what I started thinking after reading your comment. :)

And miel, don't worry about me! :) A good disagreement is the best way that I learn what I really believe. ;)

[keska]

This is something I've thought about a lot too. That's why, personally, I wish abortion was not used at all because I do believe it is a life.

On the other hand, as I posted earlier, I can't really get myself to agree with reversing Roe v. Wade because the government has already allowed people to believe that abortion is a fundamental right. They created it, now it exists. I'm not really into taking away rights once they exist. I do believe they can be limited, though. I wish that the Supreme Court had not held that prohibiting partial birth abortions is unconstitutional. I think the government should be able to limit some techniques that are just beyond the line.

[mrs_pell]

I think that anyone who has actually walked this path (having had an abortion) is going to just have VERY strong feelings about it. Feelings that come from an experience, rather than an idealistic perspective.
(bolding mine)

I've tried to catch up with this thread, though I'll admit I haven't read it all. But this quote from Gayle really jumped out to me. I don't think that just because someone hasn't had an abortion they can't have feelings that come from an experience. Their feelings aren't just "an idealistic perspective." There are several people who are pro-life who have had very REAL experiences, including having a baby when they weren't prepared for it. My mom got pregnant with me when she was in HS. It wasn't planned, and she definitely wasn't ready to have a child. But, she didn't believe in abortion, and thus never gave it a though. She had me. It happens every day, and these people have just as real of an experience as someone who made the opposite choice.

I really doubt that you meant it to come across the way it did (to me at least), but I thought I'd post my thoughts anyway.

[gayle]

I definately did not mean that to come off the way it did to you mrs. pell. All I was trying to say is that people who HAVE had abortions have been through some feelings regarding that specific experience, in a way that someone who has not had to walk that path, hasn't dealt with.

For example, I have never skied, but I can imagine what skiing might be like. However, I have not experienced it in the way that someone who actually skis has.

Hopefully I expressed that better that time :)

[lawyerlee]

This is something I've thought about a lot too. That's why, personally, I wish abortion was not used at all because I do believe it is a life.

On the other hand, as I posted earlier, I can't really get myself to agree with reversing Roe v. Wade because the government has already allowed people to believe that abortion is a fundamental right. They created it, now it exists. I'm not really into taking away rights once they exist. I do believe they can be limited, though. I wish that the Supreme Court had not held that prohibiting partial birth abortions is unconstitutional. I think the government should be able to limit some techniques that are just beyond the line.

The term "partial birth abortion" really bothers me because it is a misnomer. First of all, the medical procedure is actually called "intact dilation and extraction". There is no medical procedure known as partial birth abortion. This is, at best, a political term. Any woman who has suffered a miscarriage is familiar with the dilation and extraction procedure and should be aware of the attempt to mislead by giving this fairly common procedure a different label in certain, rare circumstances.

Further, this procedure is not being conducted willy nilly with no regard for the need or lack thereof to perform such a procedure to save the mother's life. That law had no effect and would have had no effect had it been allowed to stand because it provided for an exception in the case of a risk to the mother's life. It was nothing more than an attempt by neocons to make it look like they could actually pass a law limiting abortion when nothing could be further from the truth.

Finally, either abortion is legal or it is not. It is incredibly ridiculous for Congress to attempt to control the mechanism by which doctors may perform a Constitutionally-protected procedure.

[lawyerlee]

Here are some resources about this:

Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Laws By The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religioustoleran ce.org%2Fabo_pba.htm)
For Release February 12, 2002

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called "partial birth abortion" bans. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

In June 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself."

As stated in a 1997 Statement of Policy issued by ACOG's Executive Board, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to find it disturbing that legislators would take any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's 1997 Statement of Policy affirmed that position and explained why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement noted that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision."

The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. Such "partial birth" laws are invariably overly broad or imprecisely drawn, frequently using terms — such as "partial birth abortion" — that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize. They purport to address a single procedure, yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology. Thus, even when legislators add an exception to a so-called "partial birth abortion" ban that includes protecting a woman's health, the ban may fail to have the necessary specificity to avoid encroaching on other safe and constitutionally protected medical procedures. For this reason, the ban would fail the two-part test outlined by the Supreme Court in the Stenberg decision.

The misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

# # #

Dilation and Extraction Procedure - ReligiousTolerance.org (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religioustoleran ce.org%2Fabo_pba.htm)

[miel]

Lawyerlee This is a genuine question, not an attempt to contradict you.

Does the D&E or PBA allow abortions past the second trimester?

Are there any restrictions placed upon viability/health of the fetus?

What I'm asking is whether I could be in my 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th month of pregnancy and receive an abortion for health reasons (e.g., I have cancer and pregnancy makes it more likely to be fatal or some similarly genuine medical issue).

I think this is what the opposition was about.

As an aside, I know that you can have an abortion around the 20 week mark or perhaps even past it if you discover that your baby has Downs'. (Personally, that freaks me out, speaking as someone who is planning to get pregnant after I am 40--i.e., I run a high risk of conceiving a baby with Downs. The genetic counselor was horrified at the idea that you would not abort a Downs baby, as was my mother. I hope and pray I am never in that situation. It's such a hard choice to make but what was confusing for me when I got the tests was that everyone totally assumed it was a no-brainer--you abort, of course!)

I don't actually know much about this issue. I think the reason the issue appealed to people who even support legalized abortion at the earlier stages is that they were afraid that a viable fetus--one that could potentially live outside the mother--was being killed. It's hard to stomach the idea of killing a viable infant (or possibly viable) even when the mother's life is in danger. But if I knew the facts and the medical details (e.g., explaining why she couldn't deliver early or have c-section) then I might think differently about it.

I.e., I could be misinformed and so could a whole bunch of people. What I think is true for many, many people is that they support abortion in the first trimester and grow much more uneasy about it as the pregnancy progresses.

[keska]

The term "heart attack" is not a medical term either, but we use it commonly. If you want to sanitize the language by using the medical terminology, go ahead. I'm not making a legal argument, so I don't have to use the most precise language. D&X still involves partially removing a live fetus from the woman before destroying it (note that "live" can occur slightly before "viable", which has to do with lung development). I don't understand permitting a procedure that allows us to remove a fetus partially to destroy it when at the same time saying that if the fetus was completely removed from the woman it would be protected by law from such actions. That is an irrational distinction in my view.

I simply don't agree that the government can't limit certain procedures. We do limit people's constitutionally protected actions in many ways if we find an overriding reason, so that is really no excuse at all. It had been a while since I'd read Stenberg, but if you note, it was not an overly decisive decision - 5-4. It turned on the lack of an exception for the mother's health (there was one for her life) and the potential overbreadth issue w/ D&E. I'm not a fan of D&E either as I don't agree with deliberately dismembering another living being except in the case of most horrific life threatening emergency (which D&E is not limited to), so I can't say I agree with the outcome but I can see how they reached it. I think the Court would most likely uphold a D&X ban, though, with a life/health exception.

[HeatherFL]

I am vehemently pro-life. HOWEVER, there is a time and a place for everything. While from a legal standpoint I do believe these people were within their rights, I also think they were completely out of line. Children are not mentally equipped to deal with those images and parents should explain things to children on their own terms.

I am not one of those people who thinks graphic portraits of aborted fetuses will do more good than harm. I would assume these people want to protect children yet they are doing the very opposite by potentially exposing children to something that could be psychologically disturbing.

H.

[lawyerlee]

The term "heart attack" is not a medical term either, but we use it commonly. If you want to sanitize the language by using the medical terminology, go ahead. I'm not making a legal argument, so I don't have to use the most precise language. D&X still involves partially removing a live fetus from the woman before destroying it (note that "live" can occur slightly before "viable", which has to do with lung development). I don't understand permitting a procedure that allows us to remove a fetus partially to destroy it when at the same time saying that if the fetus was completely removed from the woman it would be protected by law from such actions. That is an irrational distinction in my view.
"Live" is not a legal standard. And it is not sanitizing something to be correct when you refer to it.

[lawyerlee]

Lawyerlee This is a genuine question, not an attempt to contradict you.

Does the D&E or PBA allow abortions past the second trimester?

Are there any restrictions placed upon viability/health of the fetus?

What I'm asking is whether I could be in my 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th month of pregnancy and receive an abortion for health reasons (e.g., I have cancer and pregnancy makes it more likely to be fatal or some similarly genuine medical issue).
It depends on the state, but the United States Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey said that states could not limit abortions in a manner that places an undue burden on a woman's right to choose before the fetus is viable, but that states can limit abortions after viability, except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Intact dilation and extraction is only used in situations where other, better methods are no longer available because of the stage of the fetus. It is not used in the first trimester at all, and I believe it is rarely or never used in the second trimester. So we are basically talking about outlawing a procedure that was only ever used to save women's lives, but allowing an exception for situation's where the woman's life is in danger. That just makes no sense to me at all.

[Sarah]

The point is--I would NOT want to have to explain to a small child, after driving by a display of graphic abortion photos, what abortion is. Why should some third party force my hand into having a discussion about this with MY child, who may not even know 'where babies come from' yet??? THAT is why I'd object.

I think that's a bad argument. Suppose I have a problem with interracial dating/marriage (I DO NOT, for the record, it's just a comparison), and I see an interracial couple holding hands on the street, kissing. Maybe I don't want to have to explain this to my child, but too bad for me. Or maybe I don't want my kid to see gay couples holding hands or kissing, but I don't make that choice, either. For many people, seeing those things is horrific and offensive and frightening, much like seeing an aborted fetus. We don't get to control what others do in public because we don't feel like discussing it.

For me personally, I don't want to explain why some women wear really revealing clothing, I don't want my DD to see the overt sexualization of breasts and women's bodies, I don't want her to breathe other people's smoke from their cigarettes, etc. But it's part of living in a society.

FTR, I am vehemently pro-life, and although I am grossed out by those images, I have no problem with them being used, as long as they are truthful (I have no clue if they are) and they work (no clue if they do). I want my child to be aware-from a young age- of the horrific murders being sanctioned by our government and our citizens. If my child has to lose a little innocence in order to understand the reality of the world, too bad for me and her.

Just like I hate that she has to know about homelessness, but I don't avoid homeless on the street, and talk about these issues with her, because I think it's important that she know the truth, even at a young age. I don't think protecting small children from reality is a good thing.

[julietchicago]

The way I plan on raising my children, they wouldn't even think twice if they saw an interracial couple or a gay couple holding hands. I am not going to teach my children that any of that is out of the norm, because I do not feel it is (IMO).

The fact is, these people are holding the signs up, practically forcing them in your face by standing along a very busy road. Not fair, not fair at all. A gay couple, an interracial family, or the way a skanky girl dresses does not even come CLOSE to comparing to graphic photos of an aborted baby. Freedom of speach has gone TOO far.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I always get uncomfortable when people start saying, freedom of speech has gone too far.

The thing is, what is and is not "appropriate" is almost