Professor assaults youth

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
People who carry signs at a protest depicting "graphic images of aborted fetuses" don't get to claim the moral high ground, IMO.
Nor should they be surprised to be attacked by a pregnant woman. :rolleyes:
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
So the people who are for killing them are the ones who should claim the moral high ground? And it's ok to assault someone if it's in the direction this was? I guess the woman's bs statements in the second article just justify everything.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
People who carry signs at a protest depicting "graphic images of aborted fetuses" don't get to claim the moral high ground, IMO.

Why not? According to your view it is nothing more than a growth or a tumor.

Nor should they be surprised to be attacked by a pregnant woman. :rolleyes:

So being physically attacked and stolen from should be expected simply because there are people that don't agree with you?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
You guys are hilarious. I'm not defending the Professor, just observing that graphic images of aborted fetuses are intentionally inflammatory, the display of which in public is not moral behavior, IMO.
That the images provoked a pregnant woman to behave irrationally would surprise no one who has ever been pregnant - those hormones can make you nuts, lol. [I never attacked anyone, but I do recall bursting into tears in the middle of a poker game, because my neighbor looked pretty, and I felt ugly.] Pregnant women do strange things, and the Professor admits she was wrong to grab the sign.
I wonder how proud the parents are of the students who paraded the posters with graphic images were/are? I'd be very disappointed if my offspring displayed such intent to provoke those who disagree.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
I wonder how proud the parents are of the students who paraded the posters with graphic images were/are? I'd be very disappointed if my offspring displayed such intent to provoke those who disagree.

I personally don't like the posters but they are simply confronting people with the truth. I can see why the pro-abortion crowd doesn't like them and that is because they provide a powerful image that goes against what they want. Nothing can hurt your side more than an image that forces people to deal with the truth.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Why is the REALITY of KILLING a living being objectionable? Life, according to the lord god of science, begins at conception. That IS a fact. NO "religion" states that, science does.

When that living being ceases to exist, it is DEAD. That too is a FACT. Whether "nature" kills that being or man kills it, it IS DEAD!

Fairy tales need not apply.

FACTS are FACTS.
(NOTE: NO "religious dogma is invoked in the above) The end.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I personally don't like the posters but they are simply confronting people with the truth. I can see why the pro-abortion crowd doesn't like them and that is because they provide a powerful image that goes against what they want. Nothing can hurt your side more than an image that forces people to deal with the truth.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

So you'd be fine with protesters against rape showing graphic images of lacerated vaginas?
How about protesting child abuse by showing images of beaten children? Or sexually abused toddlers?
There is a point beyond which civilized discourse doesn't venture, and graphic images of aborted fetuses deliberately goes beyond that point, to shock and disgust people.
Provoking an emotional response is admitting that reason has failed to persuade people to agree with you, and the 'pro life' argument is all about emotional responses.
Rational people don't make decisions based entirely on emotions.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
So you'd be fine with protesters against rape showing graphic images of lacerated vaginas?
How about protesting child abuse by showing images of beaten children? Or sexually abused toddlers?
There is a point beyond which civilized discourse doesn't venture, and graphic images of aborted fetuses deliberately goes beyond that point, to shock and disgust people.
Provoking an emotional response is admitting that reason has failed to persuade people to agree with you, and the 'pro life' argument is all about emotional responses.
Rational people don't make decisions based entirely on emotions.

I said I personally don't like them but that I understand why they are used, the truth is brutal. I wouldn't say that I would like any of the other pictures you mentioned being used but I would support protesters that wanted to confront people with the truth. We can't just say you shouldn't do that because it is shocking, facing the truth is a necessary part of life.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I understand why they're used, too, and the truth has nothing to do with it - it's all about manipulating emotional responses. They use the same tactics on everything from billboards with adorable already born babies to the forced ultrasound & 'counseling' requirements: all designed to make women feel guilty.
When women don't oblige them, [knowing they'd feel guilt much worse for deciding to have a child they can't afford &/or don't want] they get conservative legislators to sponsor regulations requiring clinics to use doctors with local hospital admitting privileges - not because women need admitted to the hospital [abortion id much safer than childbirth], but because they know the doctors don't have such privileges [and it isn't necessary, in an emergency the woman would be admitted regardless], and can't get them, either. Hospitals restrict admission privileges to docs who do a fair amount of business with them which the abortion docs usually don't, because they're not local. Both the docs and the hospitals are afraid of attracting the attention of those 'protesters', naturally.
The irony is, if they have their way, those women and 'babies' they wanted to protect will once again be at the mercy of untrained back alley kitchen table practitioners - what a victory, eh?
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
I understand why they're used, too, and the truth has nothing to do with it - it's all about manipulating emotional responses.

They are using the truth to confront people and show them reality, the pictures are real whether we like them our not. It is certainly an emotional response that is happening but the entire debate is one of emotion.

The irony is, if they have their way, those women and 'babies' they wanted to protect will once again be at the mercy of untrained back alley kitchen table practitioners - what a victory, eh?

Oh no, those poor women forced to have abortions performed on a kitchen table. I forgot, who is using emotional propaganda to make their point? You are using a talking point that you can't even prove is an issue to provoke an emotional response but take issue with the people on the other side that do the same.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 
Top