eviltwin wrote: » I haven't seen any 'pro abortion' posters, have seen quite a few Repeal the 8th ones for various things but that is not the same as advocating for abortion. I'd like to see examples of these posters so we can see for ourselves how offensive they are. Unless they break any laws I think defacing them is childish at best. Do you not believe that in any debate both sides have the right to put forth their position? Do you not think that its gross arrogance to decide that because you personally find the posters message to be offensive that that somehow gives you right to remove that message on behalf of your community? Perhaps you should allow the people in your locality the chance to hear both sides and form their own opinion. I'd imagine if someone defaced an anti abortion poster you wouldn't appreciate it.
the headbanger wrote: » We'll repeal the 8th is a pro abortion stance so let's clear that up. And what's all this about breaking the law/within the law. I'm talking about right and wrong. You don't win an argument about what is right and wrong by simply pointing at "the law." I can only repeat again that it is ghastly to post pro abortion posters near schools. I don't propose to repeat that again. And you are incorrect; I wouldn't really have any view if someone defaced a pro life banner.
the headbanger wrote: » Yes I do agree both sides should be heard. That's my point. Abortion isn't axiomatically ok. In fact I hope the very opposite view. But there's a time and place and I feel that the abortion side do themselves no favours when they place pro abortion posters near schools. Which as I say is my gripe
eviltwin wrote: » No its not. Repealing the 8th just repeals the 8th. Abortion will still have to be legislated for and that's a whole different ballgame. Lots of people who do not support abortion want a repeal because of the impact its having on maternity care and patient rights in this country. Who are you to decide what is right or wrong? Your opinion is just your opinion. You don't have any right to decide what the rest of the population should be able to see or not see. You'd be far more productive discussing the issue and trying to argue your case than being a vandal. Both sides have the right to have posters up, you can't shut down debate.
the headbanger wrote: » Repealing the 8th is a pro abortion stance. If you believe the unborn has equal status as the mother you cannot justify repealing the 8th or abortion. If you don't believe that, then fair game. Yes my opinion on right and wrong is one view. Who are you to say otherwise? No one. It's a discussion forum so I guess we are supposed to thrash it out. I don't think we can reconcile the two views though. If you think that kind of debate is one that should be had around lampposts in residential/school zones then we simply won't agree. But you adopting that position will only fortify my view. Guess we'll just have to disagree on the appropriateness of that medium.
the headbanger wrote: » Repealing the 8th is a pro abortion stance. If you believe the unborn has equal status as the mother you cannot justify repealing the 8th or abortion. If you don't believe that, then fair game. Yes my opinion on right and wrong is one view. Who are you to say otherwise? No one. It's a discussion forum so I guess we are supposed to thrash it out. I don't think we can reconcile the two views though. If you think that kind of debate is one that should be had around lampposts in residential/school zones then we simply won't agree. I think it's vile and that the debate belongs on prime time or something. But you adopting that position will only fortify my view. Guess we'll just have to disagree on the appropriateness of that medium.
the headbanger wrote: » Just to be clear. By all means have a rigorous debate but do you seriously justified placing pro abortion posters near school? I say, respectfully, that's it's most inappropriate
eviltwin wrote: » It depends on what they say. In principal, I have no issues at all with posters for either side being placed near schools. With all due respect, what you find inappropriate is for you to decide for you, its not for you to decide for anyone else.
the headbanger wrote: » I happen to think that the subject matter is inappropriate. I appreciate your candidness though
eviltwin wrote: » Is it a specific image or wording of the poster that you don't agree with or just the fact its expressing an opinion you don't agree with?
the headbanger wrote: » As I said. It's the subject matter and messaging that I take objection to.
eviltwin wrote: » So really it wouldn't matter what the poster looked like or what it said, you'd still have a problem with it? Is that really going to achieve anything though? You won't stop the debate by getting rid of a few posters.
the headbanger wrote: » I'm not trying to stop the debate. The debate is needed. I am trying to say "not here". It's a reverse to the argument that pro abortion clinics make when pro lifers campaign outside their clinics. The argument they advance is essentially "not here please"
eviltwin wrote: » I think there is a big difference between directly targeting people who are vulnerable to your message and putting up posters near a school. Pretty much every part of the country where posters go up are near children, most are so boring that I doubt many children even notice them. So I don't know why you think they shouldn't see them.
the headbanger wrote: » Once again. I genuinely appreciate your candidness. It essentially bring us to a position where I simply have to say "I disagree with you" and the positions are irreconcilable. Unborn children who would be aborted are in my own opinion just as "vulnerable" as the prospective mother contemplating abortion.
eviltwin wrote: » I can see why you take that position. I don't believe there is any justification for making life more difficult for women accessing these services or the people who work in them. I don't believe in using intimidation which is what this is.
the headbanger wrote: » Like I said, I won't bash onwards with more replies on why I am pro life. But please don't mischaracterise my conscientious objection to the MEDIUM of debate/messaging selected by playing the "making life difficult for the mothers" card.
looksee wrote: » but it is not for anyone else to decide whether they should or not. s.
rainbow kirby wrote: » if your objection is to the medium, why are you getting your underwear in a twist over "Repeal" posters and posters about public meetings when your side is the one waving posters with gory pictures of foetuses at people? :rolleyes:
the headbanger wrote: » That type of poster isn't Showing up outside schools though. Besides its just a reality check. It's like showing shocking ads of car crashes.
eviltwin wrote: » I don't need to see graphic images of car crash victims and their injuries to know that I should drive carefully. I don't want my kid to see gore no matter how 'real' it is.
looksee wrote: » You still haven't told us what is showing up outside schools though. And I would have thought that scribbling it out would attract much more attention from children who otherwise would probably not even notice them.
the headbanger wrote: » Well, logically, you wouldn't be offended about anti abortion posters for showing the horrors of abortion. But I think, respectfully, that you are shifting the ground here. My gripe is with actual posters outside actual schools which are pro abortion in content.
looksee wrote: » Unless you are clear on what it is we are discussing the headbanger, I may have to get out my mod hat and suggest you are trolling. Please say specifically what the wording/image on the posters is that you object to, and have boasted of vandalising.
the headbanger wrote: » Let me be clear so. What I am discussing is pro abortion posters of any sort near a school. That's what I regard as offensive; the wider rubric of pro abortion posters, not the formulation of words found in specific posters. So my own view is that the information you are looking for isn't relevant to the argument I am making
