Anti-choice "person" looking at 6 mos. in the slam

[Loonman]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=102-01202004


Troy Newman is a certified idiot.

[bryant69]

1. Some people would benefit . . .

from taking Marketing 101.

But on the other hand, maybe it's better Mr. Newman doesn't.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Jane Roe]

2. Ice T said it best:

Freedom of speech -- just watch what you say.

[PVnRT]

3. That article was a little slanted...

Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll be locked up without a trial, since, you know, we can do that to terrorists now.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. A little slanted?

It was an Operation Rescue press release! My ghod, that's like saying Chimpy is a little stupid.

[EstimatedProphet]

7. Speaking of slanted...

I looked up more articles on the host site. Seems like the site is a clearinghouse for anti-abortion news articles.
One of the things I hate about the way "news" is being done on the internet today is these pseudo-news outlets. If you ever do a search on Google news, several sites that are really political agendas pretending to be news sites will show up. Even Rush's idiotic spew comes up as "news", like it's some sort of factual reporting! The average person who is making an in-depth research of some topic may not catch that these sites try to replace news and factual reporting with opinion and political agenda.

[karnac]

4. They actually diminish our civil rights...

Every time these bozos come up with a new tactic to intimidate and publicize their agenda, they force the comunity to come up with new law to limit their speech. Sometimes ours too.

Tree

[Jane Roe]

8. Maybe freedom of speech is the answer, then? nt

[karnac]

9. Oh I don't disagree with you at all.

But one person's free speech Is another's abuse of the right. I'd rather have a no-holds-barred freedom. But unfortunately most of us don't feel that way. Particularly when we are challenged in a particularly obnoxious way. That's why freedom of speech has to be written in stone in this country.

But sometimes some of us push the limits too far and are checked. When they are checked, we all lose eventually.

Karnac

[Jane Roe]

10. and why do DUers want to limit freedom of speech here?

a. safety and noise issues?

b. the gory-ness of the speaker's illustration?

c. the speaker's political beliefs?


I don't think anybody here has seen the illustrations or heard the noise level. Are we filtering political speech based primarily on political content? Based on the limited information that I have, it looks to me like that is exactly what is going on here.

[Bandit]

13. This is a private site

In your home you can allow or disallow any thing you wish. If you don't want someone to say something you can ask them to leave. That is your right of ownership. the same thing applies here. You have no "Freedom of Speach" here. You have the permission of the owners to participate in discussion but if they don't like what you say they can ask you to leave. It's called America.

[Jane Roe]

16. agreed, see post #15 for further explanation. nt

[LeahMira]

14. Rights have responsibilities...

and why do DUers want to limit freedom of speech here?

Here on this message board, or here in this case?

If you are talking about in this case, Jane, I have seen the posters that these anti-choice groups use. I work on a college campus where one group (which shall remain unnamed) put up a display on the green right outside the dorms. Students had to walk past the display on their way to classes and/or on their way to and from the dining hall. The students objected to being forced to walk past the display claiming that it was sickening and inappropriate. We do have a pro-life group on campus, but even they felt that the display was over the top. I happened to have reason to walk that way on that day, I saw the display, and I agree with the students.

Now, as to posting the same sort of stuff on billboards and signage where the general public comes and goes, I can say that as a mother of grown kids I would have been most upset to have my children exposed to that sort of thing when they were small. I guess that by high school age they would have been capable of dealing with it, but little kids get nightmares and they ask questions about which I certainly would not ever have planned to start a discussion when they were that young.

I agree that visuals have an impact that words do not. Words are sort of an intermediary that bring logic and reason to bear on issues while visuals have the power to bypass logic and go right to the emotions. There is a time and place for that sort of thing, and a public display is not the time and not the place.

No one is trying to silence these pro-lifers, much though we may disagree with them. People can hope that they will be defeated in an open public debate in which all sides are aired and people have the opportunity to ponder all sides of the issue and come to a conclusion. BUT, their defeat or their victory has to be the result of the free give and take of ideas among adults. If the pro-lifers expect that freedom, they need to make more responsible, more respectful decisions about how they choose to conduct the debate.

[Jane Roe]

15. Clarification

Sorry about the ambiguity. I was referring to posters on this thread who seem to be glad that the speaker may go to jail for his Truth Truck display.

I understand and acknowledge DU's right to limit speech on its board and, of course, I have no problem with that.

I don't doubt that some antichoicers make horrific display -- even displays as horrific as the video from the Iraq War that was linked from DU today.

However, just because the Truth Truck man is antichoice, does not mean that it is safe to assume that you know what the Truth Truck display looks like. The Truth Truck should only be prosecuted for his own speech (if even that), not the speech of others.

Besides, I can't see how terminated z/e/f pictures could ever be that gripping or disturbing to anybody -- it is not like they are actual dead people or anything remotely like that.

[LeahMira]

19. There was a link posted...

However, just because the Truth Truck man is antichoice, does not mean that it is safe to assume that you know what the Truth Truck display looks like. The Truth Truck should only be prosecuted for his own speech (if even that), not the speech of others.

Excuse me, Jane, but there was a link posted in this thread that led to a photo of said "Truth Truck." I know exactly what it looks like now, as well as several of the alternate "Truth Truck" designs currently in use.

Besides, I can't see how terminated z/e/f pictures could ever be that gripping or disturbing to anybody -- it is not like they are actual dead people or anything remotely like that.

Well, I guess that would depend on the individual, wouldn't it? I might be able to stomach a picture of tonsils that have been removed, or perhaps an appendix, but there are some folks out there who faint at the sight of blood... men and women both. Frankly, though, I'd prefer not to have to test my own strength. I find it strange that you seem unable to understand that.

[Jane Roe]

21. Now you want to make it illegal to show pix of tonsils or blood?

Wow, you are not much of a free speech person.

Besides, if you have seen the Truth Truck then you should address what it is about *that* truck that puts it beyond the kind protections of Free Speech -- people you saw on college campuses (who had different displays) are not relevant and it is confusing to bring up this irrelevant info without explaining how it relates to the guy actually being thrown in jail.

[sybylla]

41. Restrictions on public speech are not equal to restrictions on free speech

Public media like television, radio, billboards and more are restricted by what they can display for free and open consumption by the general public. Some of this is self-regulation and some of it is federal, state and local government regulation. As a parent, I have no problem with restricting what my children can see and hear from those types of public media and I believe a certain amount of decorum in those areas is acceptable.

But that doesn't you or I are restricted in our free speech rights. You and I can say what ever we want on a street corner, provided it doesn't endanger the public (yelling fire and such). You and I can print out our message and distribute it freely to any and all who would take it. Except we may get into trouble for littering or worse, for exposing a minor to that message depending on how graphic, threatening or sexual that message was.

The situation with this truck and every other anti-choice truck like it is no different. It's too graphic for open public consumption.

[Jane Roe]

42. Its not graphic at all

Its just a z/e/f.

Besides, I am concerned that people suddenly develop sensitivities (or sensitivities of their children) just because they don't like the underlying political message. I remember that the Bush Admin recently made a rule about no images flag-draped coffins out of sensitivity to the children of dead soldiers. Your argument here reminds me of Bush's argument there.

[sybylla]

44. Yes, it is graphic

It is a subject "written or transmitted in a specified way" as Webster defined. It is a graphic depiction of a dead fetus. No "over the top" connotation can be found in the definition though that is a common mistake.

But what you are totally avoiding is the fact that if this kind of graphic depiction were part of a movie, it would earn it at the very least an R rating. No bill board owner would ever consider nor most likely be allowed to place such a depiction on a billboard.

And, if you cannot see where my arguement has validity and chimpy's did not, then I am certain I am wasting my time. I have no problem with my children viewing draped coffins. I have no problem with my children viewing open coffins and they have. I even have no problem with my children viewing death under certain circumstances. Death, after all is part of life.

If anyone can view a graphic depiction of an event or an object and be physically sickened or emotionally harmed by it, which we all know is the goal of Operation Rescue, PETA and others, then it should not be allowed to be "broadcast." You see, the difference is that I have a choice. I can choose to view a "graphic" movie or listen to the local nutjob in the public square when they hand out "graphic" literature. And usually I am thrilled to have a chance to freely express my opinions at that time just as they do. But I cannot choose to not be bombarded by public communication systems.

And I believe that is where the Supreme Court has drawn the line. Until you can change their mind, you lose. End of argument.

[Jane Roe]

48. This guy was not using the airwaves

He was using public streets.

That is where Free Speech took place at the time the 1st Amendment was drafted. It is still a good location for free speech, even under Supreme Court precedents.

As far as graphic-ness and the standards that you would like to set for your own children: What if a protester used a picture of a bloody Iraqi soldier or a maimed Iraqi child? 6 mos. in the slammer for her? Too much for your kids to handle?

If you are answering "yes" to the last 2 questions, then I somewhat understand and respect your opinion -- it is nice seeing people according fetuses as much respect as citizens of enemy nations.

If you are answering "no" to those questions, then I suspect that you and your children's sensitivities are tied in too closely to your political opinions and "sensitivity" becomes a handy excuse to stifle dissent.

[sybylla]

50. Yeah, and you're in denial

So I'm either ignorant of free speech laws and overly protective or I'm a hypocrite? Give me a break.

What you are condoning is no different than if, on January 24, 1994, I had taken my 5 year old and my 7 year old out the old shed and showed them their uncle's body after he blew off half his head hours before and told them that this is what happens when you commit suicide, don't do it.

Do you think I wouldn't have had my children taken away for such an act, that I would not have come under scrutiny by some government agency and at the very least been forced into counselling for such an act? And now you are asking me to condone allowing someone else to do essentially the same thing?

If someone wants to seek that kind of information out they are free to do so and there is plenty of it available. But it should never be foisted upon the public at large, regardless of the political, religious, or other motiviations behind the message. I would never condone this, regardless of the entity perpetrating it.

[Jane Roe]

51. Your uncle was a person

The fetus is, for many, a mere glob of tissue. I am glad to hear you compare the late term fetus in the photo to your uncle. I think it is an apt comparison and that you are perceptive in making the comparison.

[sybylla]

52. As I suspected

Another blustering bitch-fest focused on nit-picking arguements merely for the sake of post count - or was it attention? Would have been nice if you had admitted you understood what many of us have been saying 50 posts ago and saved us the trouble.

Or perhaps you really were persuaded by my fine skills at debate. I'm sure when the discussions of RKBA and religion come up you will feel right at home. Welcome to DU.

[Jane Roe]

53. I needed to have this discussion

I know at some point in the future, the following things will happen in the following order:

1. somebody will argue that late term fetuses are mere globs of tissue, completely different from human beings

2. I will disagree and point out that many DUers see late term fetuses as something at least closely akin to human beings.

3. I will be challenged on my point set forth in #2 above.

4. I will then cut and paste from the helpful responses on this thread to prove I am correct on point #2 above.

5. After point #2 is established, discussion will then smoothly shift to the crafting of sensible prohibitions and permissions for 3d trimester abortions, in the spirit of Roe v Wade.

So, see, I need your responses in order to meet my future objectives.

Also, you only "convinced" me in a limited sense. Gory images don't bother me. I don't even think gory images are bad for children, as long as the images are real and substantially connected to a bona fide political belief, sincerely held by the speaker. So we still have different gut-level feelings about the Truth Truck. You are affected. I am not. Different strokes, I guess.

[Pithlet]

54. What does it matter?

Oooh, we're just tools in his devious little plot to convince everyone that he's right! Scary....

Really what does it matter that some people at DU were bothered by the pictures? How could that possibly matter? How could opinions of some DUers be used as an effective argument for anything?

[Jane Roe]

55. As I stated above:

a threshold issue I am concerned about is whether a late term fetus is more like a person or more like a hunk of tissue, like a tonsil or a tumor.

Our emotional reactions to pictures of late term fetuses are a great help in answering this threshold issue.

Normally we don't have pictures of late term fetuses for viewers to to react to here on DU. However, today was a rare day and we did and I was glad.

[Pithlet]

56. That still doesn't answer my question

although truly I'm not surprised.

What does it matter? So, some DUers are bothered by it. How does that answer the question you pose? Whether or not anyone at DU agrees with you does nothing to bolster or weaken your argument. Surely, you must have more than for your argument than what we think?

I happen to agree that a late term fetus is more like a person. How does that help your argument?

I think you hold a certain position on the abortion issue, and you're trying to trip up people who disagree with you with(what you think are)clever manipulations. It is transparent, to say the least.

[Jane Roe]

58. Is there some better way to resolve a disagreement?

I thought you were supposed to look for inconsistencies and apparent inconsistencies in your own opinions and those of others, and to constantly think and rethink the issues in light of comments made during the discussion.

I don't want to "trip" people up, I just want to lead them from falsehood to truth as quickly and smoothly as can be managed. I want others to do the same for me. Using people's expressed opinions to get to the truth is a totally legit tactic, which is why I am so up front and open about my motives here.

You seem to think I should be ashamed of engaging in an ongoing discussion which may be fully developed only over the course of several threads. However, I am pro-discussion and unashamed.

[Pithlet]

64. You'll have to do better than that.

Really. Why would I seem to think anyone should be ashamed in ongoing discussion when I actively participate on a discussion board. I'm merely pointing out how obvious it is the tactics that you're using.

Brush up on your debating skills. State your position openly. And back it up on your own. You don't and shouldn't need others pointing out their own logical fallacies if you have the goods. Doing that only makes you appear transparent, even if you aren't. It really doesn't matter what others think if you're right.

[iverglas]

57. well hey!

Let's try that animal-abuse stuff of yours again, shall we?

Let's say that the truck portrayed, in huge and graphic and colourful detail, that jackrabbit of yours being smashed to pieces. And let's say that it was parked where lots and lots of little kids got to look at it every day.

Would you say to parents who objected to the public display of the image in a place where their children could not avoid seeing it, and where they could not prevent their children from seeing it, and who compared the emotional impact of the image on their children to seeing their uncle's body after he shot himself in the head:

I am glad to hear you compare the jackrabbit in the photo to your uncle. I think it is an apt comparison and that you are perceptive in making the comparison.

?

I mean ... wouldn't you be afraid you'd look just a tad dishonest, or dim, if you did that?


So maybe we could now run through those questions of yours, mutatis mutandis.


1. somebody will argue that jackrabbits are mere globs of tissue, completely different from human beings

2. I will disagree and point out that many DUers see jackrabbits as something at least closely akin to human beings.

(note to the reader: this will have something to do with the "metaphysical value" -- but only "some metaphysical value" -- of jackrabbits ... but don't be asking me)

3. I will be challenged on my point set forth in #2 above.

4. I will then cut and paste from the helpful responses on this thread to prove I am correct on point #2 above.

5. After point #2 is established, discussion will then smoothly shift to the crafting of sensible prohibitions and permissions for 3d trimester abortions, in the spirit of Roe v Wade.

I guess that will only work if somebody claims that s/he sees jackrabbits as something at least closely akin to human beings -- but then I guess you've managed to do that yourself.

(note to readers: see that unwieldy awful great abortion thread, way down at the bottom, in the little exchange between Mr. Roe and myself. Oh yeah -- Mr. Roe, have you settled your USAmerican self in Canada yet, or is the move still in the future? Enjoying the weather? But I digress.)


Also, you only "convinced" me in a limited sense. Gory images don't bother me. I don't even think gory images are bad for children, as long as the images are real and substantially connected to a bona fide political belief, sincerely held by the speaker.

Oooops! Does this have some bearing on freedom of speech -- your thoughts about the conditions in which gory images are not bad for children, i.e. when they are connected to some alleged belief that the children are incapable of understanding in the first place, and are bona fide blah blah connected to that belief, when no one can possibly know that anyhow?


So we still have different gut-level feelings about the Truth Truck. You are affected. I am not. Different strokes, I guess.

Or at least she claims (did she?) to be, and you don't.

Maybe that's why something like the children's best interests, as determined in the ordinary sort of way, protection of which may in some instances amount to a sufficiently compelling state interest to provide JUSTIFICATION for interfering in the exercise of a right, oughta be our guide.

Different strokes? Not in that case. A coherent set of rules that is not dependent on your representation of reality.

.

[Jane Roe]

60. I think I answered your question . . .

in the last paragraph of post #53.

To respond more directly:

As far as I am concerned, bring on the smashed jackrabbit photos.

Let's get that unscrupulous research lab closed down! People need to see what is happening there or things will never change.

However, please consider that there are others more sensitive than I. Your photo's may end up hurting our cause more than helping it. I'll let you decide whether you think the photos will hurt more or help more. If you think they are helpful, then I will help put them up.

On edit: a question for you. How many DUers would get upset by a photograph of a smashed rock? I think very few. What is it about that rock that makes us not care?

[sybylla]

61. I am not "affected", never said I was

At least not in the way you are thinking. I've seen a guy with half his head blown away. There are few things in this world much worse. It is not the gore of a trumped up photo on the side of a van that bothers me personally. It is using gore in such a way that it cheapens the very emotions it is designed to inspire. Inspiring emotions this way rather than using the power of your argument to get your point across is like taking a short cut to nowhere. Sooner or later, your efforts are discounted and the object of those emotions, the gore in this case, becomes diminished in the minds of those exposed to it.

And just like in the movies when they get graphically gory, it has grown to have less and less effect on the audience, and the movie producers who take the cheap route are having to get more and more graphic to convey the same message. People now have a distorted sense of the effects of violence on victims, their families, and their friends. They can watch the most atrocious acts perpetrated in a movie and feel only a disconnected apathy toward the victim merely because they don't know the character or because liked the perpetrator. It is a desensitization that is troubling to me, having witnessed my share of violence and its consequences in the real world.

But you have taken us off on a tangent. You started railing about free speech. Do you or do you not agree that free speech is not at issue here?

And BTW, countering an argument that late term fetuses are mere globs of tissue by citing people who disagree is in no way a counter to the original statement. Lots of people think lots of things. That doesn't make any of them right. Knowing the excellent debaters on DU, you will have to do better.

[Jane Roe]

63. Responses

1. I strongly agree with the things you said in the first paragraph. That is one reason that I would never personally display or link to stillborn fetus photographs. Although I am trying to milk the photo's for any insights they can provide, on balance, I wish the Truth Truck had never displayed the photo's for the reasons you state in the first paragraph.

2. Just because I am intersted in abortion law issues, I also happen to be interested in free speech. As a matter of fact, these are two of my top 3 issues (antitrust law is the other). Anyway, there is good food for thought on this thread regarding both pregnancy termination and free speech issues.

3. Usually I am in pretty good harmony with DUers on free speech issues, but sometimes I think DUers apply inconsistent standards to right wing speech and left wing speech (see, eg, DU threads regarding boycotts). It is hard to tell whether the same kind of inconsistency is manifesting itself on this thread -- it looks that at least some DUers would want to similarly restrict gory left wing pictures (consistency!), but it is hard to tell.

[sybylla]

66. And what does that have to do with this?

If you had been paying attention at all to discussions on DU, you'd realize that abortion is not a left wing vs right wing issue. Choice is the issue. By claiming otherwise, you're just purveying the reich wing party line and arguing over something that is not an issue in the real world.

And you never answered the question. Is putting this yahoo in jail over the dissemination to the general public of objectionable material a free speech issue?

[karnac]

67. It will be an issue. Count on it.

Expect a Supreme court case.

There are Puritans on all sides particularly when it comes to sex. We already have enough of that. We don't need to limit speech and expression any more.

If the WRONG side comes to too much power locally or nationally, it can use the same tools of censorship to even worse effect. Using the very same excuse that the previous power used censorship too! That excuse must be denied at all costs!

It is a slippery slope that we have to be VERY careful of. And sometimes we have to put up with the objectionable to prevent the unimaginable.

Karnac

[Jane Roe]

68. Yes

Putting the yahoo in jail is an issue, especially if we are atalking 6 months in jail instead of a few days.

I think the gory-ness objections are being used as a pretext to shut down speech because of its political message. That is a free speech issue.

I think that the way the free speech issue is decided will have a negative impact that goes well beyond antichoicers. For example, if * is elected to a second term and decides to start more wars, I expect and hope to see larger war protests with gorier pictures of war victims. However, if the progressives set the bar for excessive gory-ness too low, then they will end up in jail and their opinions about the Truth Truck will be used to pre-empt their free speech arguments. This possibility makes the free speech aspect of the Truth Truck case important, regardless of whether you like Roe v Wade as much as I do.

[sybylla]

69. Then you better get ready for Larry Flint's truth truck

if you think this is a free speech issue. And I'm sure there are many others like him, should your neanderthal in Kansas win, who are ready to put their messages on the sides of truck criss-crossing our highways and negotiating our city streets.

Pleeeaassse, Your arguments have only mangaged to convince me that you're just another cafeteria conservative who thinks the laws should only apply to everyone else. You see, if this was porn on the side of a truck parked in your neighborhood, I'm sure you'd be screaming hysterically about the corruption of our values and railing about indecency. Or are you once again arguing for the sake of argument because you really do believe there should be no limitations what so ever to what can be placed upon the side of a truck?

Your neanderthal got caught violating a legit law, the same kind of law nearly every community has against public displays of indecency. And you're whining because you don't think he should have to step back into line, you want him to have special treatment. You see freedom of speech is a double edged sword, and so are the laws restricting it. No special exemptions for pet projects, as you just pointed out so well.

[Jane Roe]

70. Maybe

I express no opinion on Larry Flynt's presumably pornographic display truck.

However, I will point out that bona fide political speech is protected by the US Constitution much more than other types of speech, like commercial speech. Depending on what Mr. Flynt's truck showed, I might object to it as being primarily commercial speech, rather than bona fide political speech.

Also, I never said that there was no such thing as speech too gory to be banned or too lascivious to be banned (even assuming that the speech is political). I am more trying to point out that the standards you set on speech will apply regardless of the political content of the speech and for that reason I like to set the bar low, thereby allowing lots of lascivious and/or gory speech -- so long as there is a serious and sincere political message behind the offensive speech.

I do notice on DU that there seems to be more complaints about the Truth Truck than complaints about what DUers should consider to be far gorier pictures of Iraqi War victims. I say that the Iraqi War pictures are gorier because they involve actual human beings, not just potential human beings. Yet DUers seem to be complaining about non-human goriness, while they are inclined to allow human goriness be propagated to make a political point.

I think that this kind of stance is inconsistent and tends to hurt credibility on: (1) free speech issues; (2) abortion law issues; and (3) anti-war issues. I mean, how did the prevailing DU sense of what is gory get so far out of whack? Easy: These DUers decide what's gory based on their political preferences. This is a bad standard for free speech, especially when your favorite political party sometimes fails to control the government and the media.

[sybylla]

71. So you're saying the fetus on the side of the truth truck

isn't human?

"DUers seem to be complaining about non-human goriness"

And I'd like to see the thread where DUer's were advocating gore on the streets. You make many assumptions about DUers but don't back it up with evidence first of all. And second, generalizations will get you nowhere in a debate. I see no evidence of anyone's sense of gore out of whack except yours. Cough it up. And remember, one whack job does not equal "DUers." After all, if some looked at your posts and made the assumption that all DUer's were Republicans in disguise, it would be more than fair to say they jumped to conclusions. You'll need to provide plenty of evidence.

On edit: I'll be generous and give you the whole day to find the evidence and check back here tonight, prepared to be convinced that what you imply, assume and generalize, is actually true.

[Jane Roe]

72. All the DUers who believe that fetus is a human being . . .

please respond and be counted. It will be interesting to know how many antichoicers we have in the house tonight.

Those who think the fetus is not fully human can also respond, but don't feel obligated because your opinion on this point has been and will continue to be well expressed on other DU threads.

On edit: For example, check out this recent thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=1065

[iverglas]

77. ah, those strange false dichotomies

All the DUers who believe that fetus is a human being ...
please respond and be counted. ...
Those who think the fetus is not fully human can also respond ... .

And what about any of us who might actually think something sensible?

Is being "not fully human" kinda like being "a little bit pregnant"?

.

[Pithlet]

79. Again,

So preocupied about what "DUers" think. I wonder why that is?

[Jane Roe]

81. Because discussion helps me clarify my opinions and rhetoric

For example, a I asked whether fetuses were "fully human" or "not fully human."

Then I was accused of presenting a false dichotomy through this simple question. The one making this accusation unfortunately failed to provide any sort of example of a being which is neither "fully human" nor "not fully human." It is too bad this info wasn't presented along with the accusation, because it really could have helped all DU readers (incl me) to see the false dichotomy.

So, today I am puzzling over the issue of whether a being could possibly be something else besides "fully human" or "not fully human." Trying to come up with other possibilities is a puzzling mystery to me. However, in time I will have an answer of some sort.

Maybe I will see the false dichotomy and new ways of thinking about z/e/f's opened up to me -- that would help my opinions be more correct, which is a good thing. Maybe I will see that I did not, in fact, present a false dichotomy -- in which case I will develop a good rhetorical comeback for the next time someone makes a similar criticism of my arguments -- again, helpful.

In case there is any misunderstanding, I would like to make it clear that I am *not* expressing my opinions on this particular thread for the purpose of finding sexually active people for trysts and other romantic fun.

Final note: you are not the first person to ask about my circumstances and possible ulterior motivations. That is getting a bit tiresome because it is personal and irrelevant. If somebody brings up their personal circumstances as a vehicle for furthering discussion (or as a vehicle to try to keep others out of the discussion), then that is one thing. However, it is not nice to inquire of someone who has not first volunteered personal information.

[OneTwentyoNine]

24. Uhhh,I know EXACTLY what it looks like,see my post below...

You know what a GMC Forward truck is? Its like a moving van truck only somewhat smaller but those side panels for their gory ass pictures probably measure about 10 feet X 20 feet. I've seen it up close and in person,but it doesn't surprise me. Living in Wichita we're all to familiar with Operation Rescue and their shit tatics.

You chastize people for not knowing what the truck display looks like but then you say that you can't see how those pics could be disturbing to anyone. So have you seen the truck? Tell me,if you have seen the truck you'd have NO problem with it being parked in YOUR neighborhood,or driving up and down the street all day?

There have been and always will be limits to free speech,you still can't yell FIRE at the top of your lungs in a theater full of people without getting your ass in a heap of trouble. Try the "free speech" line when the cops are hauling you off.

David

[karnac]

27. Free speech is SUPPOSED to be annoying!

Otherwise it is just white noise. Signifying nothing.

Warning. When you "legally" are sucessful limiting what is considered free speech, you will limit yourself when it is more critical to your cause. The powers that be will use your own words against you when they shut you up.

Karnac

[iverglas]

59. where is that rule written down?

Free speech is SUPPOSED to be annoying!

It's a new one on me.

Otherwise it is just white noise. Signifying nothing.

And what ... people shouldn't make meaningless white noise?

I wonder who gets to determine the nature of the noise I make ... and what they get to do about it if it's found to be meaningless white noise.

Funny how similar you sound to the people you are presumably expressing opposition to.


When you "legally" are sucessful limiting what is considered free speech, you will limit yourself when it is more critical to your cause. The powers that be will use your own words against you when they shut you up.

Some of us have discovered a solution to that one.

It's called the ballot. Makes a whole lot more sense not to elect the bastards in the first place, and to then instruct the people you do elect to protect your interests in accordance with the basic rules of the liberal democracy you're a member of. You know ... things like individual freedom ... and protection of vulnerable individuals and minorities from harm and exploitation.

Just a thought.

.

[Jane Roe]

28. So you want to make pix of blood and tonsils illegal, too?

Or is a bloody fetus somehow different than a bloody tonsil? I simply don't understand the difference -- its all just gobs of inanimate tissue without the power to shock or disturb.

btw, I don't need to look at the truck -- I am not the one advocating jailing someone for his political statements. If the guy is blaring a speaker at 200 dB, then he should go to jail for breaking noise ordinances, but, then again, noise ordinances seldom carry 6 month prison sentences.

[OneTwentyoNine]

30. Yeah,I sure as hell do when its paraded through my neighborhood

On a GD billboard type of truck,this is going way beyond your right to free speech when its used as a harrasment tool in residential neighborhoods.

David

[Jane Roe]

32. I don't see the problem with this photo

This z/e/f was clearly never born and clearly never turned into a person. Being subhuman, it looks like she could make a nice paperweight or a tasty lunch. I must be hungry.

[Butterflies]

43. You are misnamed

why call yourself one thing when you really represent the opposite? I'll bet you're a member of the offensive group that harasses people with these trucks. All your standing up for "free speech" seemed honest at first, but you went too far and gave yourself away.

[Jane Roe]

45. Why would you disbelieve the sincerity of my free speech arguments?

I assure you that I would support the Truth Truck man whether he was advocating ideas I loved, ideas I hated or any ideas in between.

My personal opinion on the Truth Truck is that it does not represent better abortion ideas and that it is probably completely ineffective as a rhetorical device. In fact, it probably gets more people to believe the opposite of what the Truth Truck guy wants, so, in that limited sense, maybe the Truck is a good thing and we should embrace it (like * embracing the Dean candidacy a while back).

I realize that not everybody on DU sees a late term fetus as a glob of fairly meaningless tissue, but some people feel exactly that way. All I was trying to bring out with my irony is that the less value you place on human fetuses, the less you are entitled to complain about the "graphic" nature of the pictures as a gambit to shut down the speech. How you feel about the "graphic" nature of the pictures and how you feel about late term fetuses are closely related issues. If people on DU are disturbed by the pictures, then that means something. It means that DUers, as a group, value fetuses more than you would guess from reading the many text-only posts here on that same issue.

Hopefully I am making sense now that I turned off my irony switch.

[LeahMira]

35. Wish you hadn't...

On a GD billboard type of truck,this is going way beyond your right to free speech when its used as a harrasment tool in residential neighborhoods.

Can you imagine getting stuck in traffic at a red light next to that thing? Especially with a car load of eight-year olds on the way to a ball game?

People are free to speak their piece, according to the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't guarantee them an audience.

Wish you hadn't posted the photo, though. Yuk!

[Pithlet]

39. You should have posted a warning

It's bad enough that someone was driving around with that picture.

[jmowreader]

38. They look like stillbirths to me, not abortions

This is the "Truth" Truck homepage:

http://www.operationrescue.org/truthtruck/default.asp

There's one truck that has the inscription "One Dead" (over photo of 16-20-week fetus), "One Wounded" (over photo of woman with grief-filled expression). At 20 weeks you're not going to an abortionist, you're coming to me for nursery-decorating advice. (The advice that sells the best: paint the walls grass green up to about 48 inches and light blue above that, paint the ceiling the same light blue with daubed-on white spots to simulate clouds, then put big cutout cartoon characters down in the green part. New parents love it. Just painting the ceiling blue then hanging one of those wind-up mobiles with the plastic birds on it is popular too.)

I don't doubt for a minute that pro-lifers would break into clinics, steal medical waste from stillbirths, already-dead-fetus extractions (not abortions, but procedures where the fetus dies when it wasn't supposed to and they have to get it out) and other incidents where the parents wanted the child but the fetus died anyway, then claim in photos that the waste is an "aborted child." I also don't doubt that they'd cut off heads, split skulls to scoop out the brains, and other assorted atrocities. Because I seriously doubt that abortion providers photograph the fetuses they abort.

[LeahMira]

46. Bingo!

Because I seriously doubt that abortion providers photograph the fetuses they abort.

This has always been my contention. Who the heck are the people who take these photos?

I've worked in the theater (way back when) and I know how to apply make up and make special effects work. Now that we have PhotoShop, it's even easier to create images that never existed in real life. I contend that all of these gory photos are manufactured, and that these Operation Rescue types are bald faced liars who have never seen an aborted fetus in their entire lives and wouldn't know one if they were looking at it.

But I still think they are deliberately obnoxious and we the people have every right to demand they behave themselves as responsible members of society... or throw their sorry persons into jail until they learn.

[iverglas]

62. be careful, be very careful

The outfit that has made big business out of this kind of behaviour, the "Genocide Awareness Project", has an entire chunk of its website devoted to graphic descriptions of exactly what it will do to you if you make allegations like this -- that its pix of allegedly aborted fetuses are anything other than exactly what it claims them to be.

They got lawyers, and they got sworn affidavits, and they got very deep pockets with which to spread that libel chill around, and I would not be at all surprised if they were willing to share 'em with this yokel. Of course, I'd imagine that the Operation Rescue folk have a few of their own.

And we'd hope that they've all learned the lesson of what happens if and when ya do give false sworn testimony. That "Kelly" person who testified to the US Congress about being present when ghastly things were done to fetuses in abortion clinics and little itty bitty body parts were sold on the black market ... well, it turned out that s/he (nobody was quite sure, I think, just who s/he was) hadn't been telling the truth all that time.


http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/00spring.html#fetal

(btw, ProChoice Press, based in British Columbia, whose site that is, is a useful source of information)

Fetal Tissue "Scandal" Implodes

Anti-Choice Left with Egg on Their Faces

On March 9, a U.S. Congressional committee hearing took place to investigate claims that aborted fetal tissue was being sold illegally for a profit. The hearing was supposed to be a triumph for anti-choice Republicans, but it turned into a debacle when their star witness, Lawrence Dean Alberty, admitted he had lied about his knowledge of illegal activity. He also confessed to being a paid spy for Life Dynamics Inc., a Texas anti-abortion group.

Tsk, tsk.

But moi? I'm not saying anything.

.

[karnac]

17. Pro-lifers have lost the public debate long ago.

They have to resurrect emotions to start it up again. Personally, I think it will backfire on them. It demonstrates an extremism which is repulsive. Perhaps we are better off letting them have their say. Speech is not always supposed to be nice.

However, they consider even a single change of mind a victory. Particularly when a woman is contemplating abortion. That is one less person that will do have an abortion. Just placing such a truck or sign in front of an abortion of family planning clinic will have that effect every once in a while. Should that be legal?

Think about it. What if one of us wanted to place a truck/sign demonstrating the immorality of war in front of a recruitment center. Shouldn't we have the right to do so? If so, the former should have that right also. Pictures of dead people/children might be disturbing, but it is REALITY. Reality shouldn't be silenced. If it is, we are in deep doodoo.

Karnac

[Jane Roe]

18. Yes and yes. free speech all 'round.

You know those "Free Speech Zones" that they set up at some distance from wherever * is appearing?

One guess where this abbhorrent practice got its start.

Free speech is about changing minds and allowing minds of the public to be changed by whoever is rhetorically convincing enough to do the job. This should and does apply even when the speaker is saying things and changing minds in a way we personally don't agree with.

[LeahMira]

23. Do you have a problem with...

PETA messages that display pictures of animals in "test" situations? Do you think that their recent "holocaust" message with photos of caged and shackled farm animals compared with photos of caged and shackled humans in the death camps was an appropriate ad campaign?

Let the record show that while I understand where they are coming from, and in fact I agree with a lot of what they say, I found the "holocaust" metaphor disturbing and inappropriate. Their ads have not changed my meat-eating behavior one bit either, although I do object to the conditions in which animals are kept and the purposes for which they are sometimes used. Let the record also show that while I have seen the photos under discussion here, they have not changed my thoughts on abortion. I am only sorry that any woman has to be in the position to make that decision and I hope she will have the freedom to make the wisest choice for herself.

[karnac]

26. I am not Jane Roe

Though we seem to have similar thoughts, So let me say..

I am an absolutist for free speech. PETA's graphic pictures and message? I say bring it on! The more speech, the better. I've seen the graphic messages of PETA. It has never stopped me from eating steak or chicken. But if it stops somebody else, more power to PETA! Nobody is MAKING me follow their guidance. And the hamburger tastes just as juicy. And the prices are lower because of it.

Karnac

[Jane Roe]

29. Responses

Based on the limited info you have given me, here is what I think of the PETA campaign:

1. sounds like it should be legal in the US and none of the PETA protesters should go to jail.

2. on a personal level, the Holocaust comparison is overplayed, which drains their speech of its power to convince me to change my behavior one way or the other (ie, still a meateater, still avoid fur coats). Of course, this part of my answer is irrelevant as far as whether the protesters go to jail with the Truth Truck guy.

ps on edit: I may or may not be Karnac.

[karnac]

34. You are not I!

Let me state that for the record.

I wonder, Are you a fencer? I love women with swords. Just not afraid of them. :D

You are more liberal than I, mildly.

Karnac

[Jane Roe]

40. Does a meat sword count?

I have chosen to look beyond my own gender as far as choosing the inspiration for my screen name.

Sometimes people get bugged by the apparent mismatch between my name and profile info. However, I try to fight gender segregation, in thought, word, screen name and deed, when I can.

[LeahMira]

47. You're a guy???!!!

I'm sure I've typed a few things to you assuming you are a female.

I am female, BTW. And I'm wondering just why you needed to misrepresent yourself. Strange.

[Jane Roe]

49. Because:

(1) I don't believe in gender discrimination;

(2) I like to confuse people who are into gender discrimination; and

(3) I like to get people curious about the history of Jane Roe. I certainly don't agree with all her opinions (she doesn't seem that bright), but she is an excellent character study.

[LeahMira]

36. Depends on the image...

Think about it. What if one of us wanted to place a truck/sign demonstrating the immorality of war in front of a recruitment center. Shouldn't we have the right to do so? If so, the former should have that right also. Pictures of dead people/children might be disturbing, but it is REALITY. Reality shouldn't be silenced. If it is, we are in deep doodoo.


I see your point, but I don't think anyone is going to put photos of mangled body parts bathed in blood on a display in front of a recruiting center.

Think about it. When there is a disturbing item in the news, the newsperson always says ahead of time that people may not want to see it.

[liberalhistorian]

6. Well, how nice,

yet another MAN thinking he has the right to determine women's lives and decisions for them. Like the pro-life MEN on my abortion thread, God, I'm so sick of that!

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Civil disobediance is alive and well.

As Thoreau noted, everyone has the right to break the law, and the law has every right to make you pay for it.

I don't like these right-to-lifers, and I don't appreciate their tactics, some of which are truly horrific. But, I gotta admire the way they walk the walk.

Maybe we could use a few more people standing up for what they believe.

[Loonman]

12. More information on the "Truth Truck" here:

http://www.operationrescue.org/news/2002jan/tt.asp

http://cjonline.com/stories/082002/kan_abortiontruck.shtml

[OneTwentyoNine]

20. That truck was in Newton,Ks during the War protests last Feb

They had it up at Bethel College where the march was to begin. Newton is about 25 miles north of Wichita. Not only do you have the truck but some obnoxious fucker that rides on the back blowing a trumpet type horn at 200db. The people who got the permit for our march had the Newton Police pull that truck over and had them stop. The Police also wouldn't let them drive 5mph down a busy street just ahead of our march--awww,another loss for the fanatics.

Here we are marching to try and save ALL lives in Iraq and those assholes are PROTESTING our march because Liberals are for choice. Meanwhile about 30 War mongers assembled at the Newton courthouse (same place our march ended)hoping Bush would start killing Iraqi's ASAP.

So..the truck and a few anti-abortion people pull up to the court house and start their same shit right where we were gathered.Not ONCE did those anti-abortion fucks care ONE bit that bombs might kill the living in Iraq--CHILDREN included. They never once went near the war mongers gathering to protest. The 250-300 of us just ignored their little gathering and they finally left after not being able to get into a confrontation with anyone.

David

[karnac]

25. Interestingly,

Many of those anti-obortionists are consistent when it comes to death, even the death penalty. I note that Phillis Shafly was against the Vietnam war for the same reason. That our "children" die needlesly. It's a shame they don't always make the same emphasis though. You have to ask them.

Karnac

[LeahMira]

31. Good for those folks...

Many of those anti-obortionists are consistent when it comes to death, even the death penalty. I note that Phillis Shafly was against the Vietnam war for the same reason. That our "children" die needlesly. It's a shame they don't always make the same emphasis though. You have to ask them.


If they are, then I have more respect for them at least for being consistently pro-life.

Are these folks really the majority and/or driving force of the pro-life contingent, though, or not? It doesn't seem that way, but could be.

I'm afraid, though, that I disagree with the assertion that "our children" die in abortion. Actually, my religious tradition does not formally mourn the death of a newborn unless it is more than thirty days old. That's the mindset from which I come, and while you may disagree, and you certainly may make choices in accordance with your own personal beliefs, until I have convincing evidence that a fetus is no different in any meaningful way from a born infant, I'm sticking to what I believe. I don't look at my breakfast egg and think "chicken," I don't look at a piece of coal and think "diamond," and I don't look at a fetus and think "child." Given time, maybe, but without that time, no.

[karnac]

37. Oh, I don't think they are the majority of their contigent

Merely the driving force. Personally, when a fetus becomes a sentient AND viable being that is the cutoff point for me. Mere inconvenience doesn't matter then. The thing is, there is no way of me actually knowing. Should I play it safe and err on on the side of the fetus?

So troublesome. It is a cowards way out, but I will let the woman decide. More convenient for me. ;)

Tree

[iverglas]

65. what a load

Not you personally, but the load you might be in danger of swallowing.


Many of those anti-obortionists are consistent when it comes to death, even the death penalty. I note that Phillis Shafly was against the Vietnam war for the same reason. That our "children" die needlesly. It's a shame they don't always make the same emphasis though. You have to ask them.

If they are, then I have more respect for them at least for being consistently pro-life.

That one always just slays me.

I believe that a lot of us are in agreement that compelling a woman to continue a pregnancy to term against her will is a violation of her right to life. Women die as a result of pregnancy and delivery -- unexpectedly and unpreventably. My sister almost did.

If a woman died as a result of pregnancy or delivery, and had been compelled to continue that pregnancy by the state, the state would have violated her right to life, and in fact killed her. Just as, if I stopped you from climbing onto a lifeboat so that you would instead rescue my kid or dog or anything else I'd managed to lose over the side of it, and you drowned (even though 99.999% of the people in the world would have been able to swim to safety), I would have killed you.

How exactly is compelling women to do something that puts their life at risk "pro-life"?? How is it consistent with objecting to the killing of people in wars?

It ain't. And it's just one more reason never to dignify the anti-choice brigade by using the expression "pro-life" in the same sentence as them.

Don't get fooled. They're not pro-life, they're anti-woman.

By their deeds ye shall know 'em, and all that.

.

[pstokely]

74. is this the Trumpet player

http://www.maggotpunks.com/antis/files/028.htm

[KLA2004]

22. thats strange

.

[OneTwentyoNine]

33. Here's the truck

So now Operation Rescue thinks their free speech extends to having this driven through and parked in residential areas just as a harrasment tool? Their totally full of shit!

They come from the same fanatic mix of neocons that boycotted 7-11 for having magazines showing a womans body in the nude,but find no problem with parading this crap around town. Holy shit....

David

[iverglas]

78. just for info about the picture (no picture in this post)

The target of this bile is presumably a clinic in Wichita that performs (if it is still operating) late-term abortions, Dr. Tiller's clinic.

I got to know a woman on-line some time ago who had had a pregnancy terminated at that clinic.

A little less than 2/3 of the way through her pregnancy, as I recall, she had testing done that revealed that her fetus had a severe neural-tube defect.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4547

Neural tube defect (NTD): A major birth defect caused by abnormal development of the neural tube, the structure present during embryonic life which gives rise to the central nervous system -- the brain and spinal cord. Neural tube defects (NTDs) are among the most common birth defects that cause infant mortality (death) and serious disability.

There are a number of different types of NTDs including anencephaly, spina bifida, and encephalocele. In anencephaly there is absence of the cranial vault (the skull) and absence of most or all of the cerebral hemispheres of the brain. Encephalocele is a hernia of part of the brain and the meninges (the membranes covering it) through a skull defect. spina bifida is an opening in the vertebral column encasing the spinal cord. Through this opening, the spinal cord and the meninges may herniate to create a meningomyelocele.

(This is the reason women must take folic acid, starting before getting pregnant.)

She had planned her pregnancy, wanted a baby, and was devastated by the news. She (having of course discussed the matter with her husband) ultimately decided to terminate the pregnancy.

She had to travel several states to go to Dr. Tiller's clinic, since only a few in the US perform abortions at that stage of pregnancy. In order to get into the clinic, she had to make her way through a cordon of anti-choice protesters screaming at her that she was killing her baby.

It is always possible that the photograph on the truck is genuine, and is truly a picture of an aborted late-term fetus. There is no reason to believe that the fetus was one that would have survived to pregnancy or beyond (note that its back is not visible), or that there was not some other reason for terminating this pregnancy that was acceptable under local law and even that many of the people subjected to this image would have agreed with if asked.

.

[rexcat]

80. My gut feeling is the picture is not genuine..

It looks like a post-autopsy picture (chest cavity and abdomen neatly opened). Look at the fetus's face. It looks deformed.

I do believe late-term abortions are rare and medically indicated but that does not make it any easier to discuss on a rational level. I find it hard to believe that a women would abort a fetus late term for convenience sake and a physician would do the procedure for this reason.

[pstokely]

73. Troy stops abortion by sitting in his warm SUV

http://www.maggotpunks.com//2004/2004-01-07-01.wmv

http://www.maggotpunks.com/2004/2004-01-07.htm

http://www.maggotpunks.com/antis/files/017.html

[pstokely]

75. more info on Troy Newman and His Buddy Timmy

www.maggotpunks.com
http://www.maggotpunks.com/antis/files/017.html
http://www.maggotpunks.com/antis/files/011.htm

[iverglas]

76. warning, nasty picture!

http://www.maggotpunks.com/antis/files/017-02_(Troy_Newman).jpg


That's Troy Newman. ... Durn, it won't turn into a pic, so you'll have to go to the link below and on to the bottom of the page.

The link given was a little vague, so here's another:

http://www.maggotpunks.com/antis/files/017.html
"Troy Newman -- Fanatical Fundy Freak"

(edit: oops, it was in the other post above)

I neither endorse nor criticize the site; I merely offer helpful linkage.

There is a history of arrests with Troy,
largely pertaining to his more militant
days with Operation Rescue. His most
notorious arrests came while
"preaching" to gay men in a public
toilet by hanging over the doors and
supposedly shouting bible verses at
them. He was allegedly arrested twice
doing this apparently unable to get off
just one voyeuristic voyage.

.