Posted on 12/05/2007 6:33:29 AM PST by Nextrush
LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. (AP)-A suburban Atlanta prosecutor has dropped a disorderly conduct charge against an anti-abortion activist who was arrested for driving a truck emblazoned with images of aborted fetuses....
Police had arrested Robert Dean Roethlisberger Jr. 44, of Missouri near the Mall of Georgia the day after Thanksgiving when he refused to remove images on a "Truth Truck," owned by Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group. Police, who said the images were "obscene and vulgar", also impounded the truck and removed the banners.
In an e-mail Monday to the Gwinnett Daily Post, Szabo (County Solicitor) said, "To ensure no abridgement of constitutional rights, application of this statute must neccessarily be narrow and limited...I have reviewed the evidence and law in this case and concluded the physical display of the images in question-as shocking and offensive as they are-does not constitute 'obscene and vulgar or profane language' as specifically prohibited by this statute."
Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said the decision vindicates Roethlisberger and condemns the police officer "who so aggressively violated our constitutional rights." He said the organization is considering a lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
My mom said something similar once and I asked her that if that 'material' had stayed in the womb, what would it have become? A labrador?
She said I had a point!
I should probably clarify what I opined. I don’t think it should be illegal to put up pictures of the victims of abortion. I would make different choices as to where to put them up, though.
No problem, I wasn’t attacking your view, just following up to all with my own rhetorical question.
This probably is not the most effective method of getting out the message, but I see no shame in it. The media and politicians instruct us that this is nothing bad but they do not want to confront the reality or permit open discussion of another point of view. 40-50million dead in America alone.
That far more than the number of illegal immigrants we have today.
Pushing for requiring ultrasound and a 3 day waiting period on abortions to contemplate the procedure would probably make a difference.
I don’t understand why Pro-Aborts would be offended. I mean, it’s just a clump of tissue, right?
OK. But what if the government was calling Auschwitz a "federally protected work farm" or the Milwaukee police said Dahmer was just "practicing home meat cutting"? I'd say there is a place for calling a spade a spade and not pretending abortion is anything but slaughter.
It's a question of age. A parent has a right and a duty to determine whether a child has the maturity to absorb images of human mutilation from abortion sites, Auschwitz, Hiroshima, or Jeffrey Dahmer's basement. Billboard-size or tractor-trailer size images of murdered children obliterate my parental role of discretion, and that's wrong.
Well-intended, but wrong.
I myself, personally, have shown such images to more people than possibly the whole readership of Free Republic. But I showed them to adults, not indiscriminately to a "general public" which includes our tenderest little ones.
Out of sight, out of mind...
My other children will likewise learn about these things when they are a little older (aged 3 or 4).
Not saying everyone should do this, just saying that is how it is for my children. I will not lie to them about the most common cause of death of children, or about the people around them who think it's just dandy.
Sorry, was talking about my four-year-old daughther - rearranged things and posted prematurely.
Graphic images are not an argument. They are an appeal to revulsion and emotion. Operation Rescue uses pictures of fetuses. PETA uses pictures of bullfights, and the slaughter of cattle and swine. "That looks gross" is not a moral or logical argument against eating meat, and it is not a moral or logical argument against abortion.
If you have to resort to gross-out pictures to make your case, it doesn't give the appearance of a strong case. Make the case rationally; no need to get vulgar and go into Larry Flynt territory.
Truth is hard. Hiding our faces from it does not change it for these little tykes.
That "crap" as you so elegantly put it, is the remains of a child's body and is, by far, the single most effective way to get across to any human being the nature of the act.
Will such efforts overturn Roe vs. Wade? Probably not. But what it does do is force every pro-choice person that sets eyes on the display to consider the indisputable truth.
Every other function of the fight for or against abortion is trumped by those images.
As far as kids go - I don't want very young kids to be forced to see them but I also will not concede the more important right of adults to see the images that they probably would never otherwise see. I do not support the liberal notion of "it's bad for the children" argument. Under that view, almost nothing could be "shown" of the reality of abortion and in this situation the most important people that need to be shown that reality are are kids themselves before their whole world is skewed by the public education system.
Sorry but the kids will survive. They already have once - when their mother chose LIFE.
The bloody images are PART OF the argument. They show the subject, in fact, and what separates a mere sophist from a true scholar is knowledge of the subject matter. The pro-abortion movement is built on sophistry - manipulation of words: murder becomes abortion; abortion becomes termination of pregnancy; termination of pregnancy becomes "choice". Their persuasion therefore rests on keeping true knowledge behind closed doors.
The First Amendment protects this speech, and since it is truth and not slander, it is perfectly legal. Beyond that, it is our moral obligation to future generations.
Graphic images cut through all the bs arguments put forth by pro-abort activists, legislators, executives and down the line. "That looks gross" is not the moral or logical argument against abortion being made by these displays. "That's a small baby chopped into pieces" is the moral and logical conclusion that any rational person would come to when seeing these images. You can describe the act all that you want but the images say a million words and the pro-abort crowd has no argument but denial, anger, and "gross" just for starters.
If only that was as far as it went. PETA frequently uses pictures of piles of corpses from concentration camps to equate carnivores with Nazis.
"That looks gross" is not a moral or logical argument against eating meat, and it is not a moral or logical argument against abortion.
When people eat chicken, they know they're eating a dead chicken. When people eat turkey, they know they're eating a dead turkey. When pro-choice people talk about "D & X" or "late term abortion" of a "fetus," they're pretending they aren't talking about a dead child, slaughtered as if it were a chicken or a turkey.
If billions of people around the world ate fetuses, it wouldn't be a moral or logical argument. But we don't. So it is.
They will not be shocked when it is shown in public as on these trucks.
Isn't it fascinating... Isn't it fascinating that those who think nothing of scrambling a little tiny baby to bits are so very concerned about - not physical harm - but merely upsetting children who escaped their mothers' wombs? Isn't that just dandy...
Evcery Freshman in public high school should watch a graphic HD vidio of an abortion that includes a through examination of the results in sex education class. The truth should not be held back from them. Only then can they decide on sex and abortion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.