Ban on the Display of Aborted Fetus Signs (Need help in Wisconsin, please FREEP this poll)

WISCTV3 ^ | January 15, 2002

[Ronaldus Magnus]

MONROE, Wis. -- An abortion opponent who publicizes his protests with large scale pictures of aborted fetuses said he's ready to continue his fight against Monroe if the city adopts another sign ordinance.

The Common Council will hold a public hearing tonight on a second try at a sign ordinance.

The first one it adopted was declared unconstitutional after Pastor Ralph Ovadal (pictured last summer at a Mazomanie nude beach protest) and Christ the King Church challenged it.

The previous ordinance restricted the signs to 3 square feet, except for business signs.

Ovadal and his followers had taken their large signs to the city's business square where Planned Parenthood has an office.

City officials agreed to repeal the first ordinance and dismiss citations against Ovadal and his group to settle the federal lawsuit.

Ovadal says the new sign proposal is simply the old one dusted off.

Ovadal and other church members were cited earlier last year for placing literature on parked cars in Monroe that was critical of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin and for displaying signs in a grassy area along side Highway 69 in Monroe.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

#4) I think the use of photos of aborted fetuses is offensive

#24) I'm just arguing that common sense tells you that you shouldn't do it, unless your goal is to offend people and be hated.

#105) Your characterization of anyone who doesn't support the wisdom of it as a coward is offensive.

#105) But that's in keeping with your whole approach to the issue, isn't it? Win people to your side by being offensive.

#113) The difference between you and me is that you think offending people is an effective tactic.

So you are offended by my statement about you being afraid of offending people with actual pictures of abortion that you also find offensive. What doesn't offend you?

[Dog Gone]

Are you expecting an answer to that ridiculous question?

At this point, I don't care what you do. I've explained my position and you are free to reject it, which you have.

Hope that helps.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

I would posit that an ad which showed an ultrasound of a fetus followed by the sight of some blood and indistinct ground-up gore running down a drain would be more horrifying

You might be right, especially if it was on one of these.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

At this point, I don't care what you do.

Now I'm offended!!!

;-)

[Salvation]

yes-55%
no-45%

Not bad for Wisconsin.

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

FReeped & Bumped

[Dog Gone]

LOL

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Thank you for your help. It was 23%(68)"Yes" to 77%(223)"No" when we started. I would have thought that the first amendment aspect would have made it more palatable for all the bleeding hearts around Madison. Their priorities, however, clearly place more importance on not permitting dissent against abortion than maintaining free political speech.

Thank goodness for all the good people here!

[antienvironmentalist]

Freeped> BTTT!

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

Of coarse the pictures are offensive, the abortion issue is so polarized there is nothing one side can do to change the others minds. The effect of the pics is to wake up the sleepers in your base ones that would turn a blind eye to a less graphic (shocking) presentation. As a bonus they serve as an embarassment to the abortionists and put them on the defensive. I have held these signs up in front of an abortion mill in DC with tears in my eyes. Believe me they have impact.

44,000,000 american babies murdered since 1973. How can we not do SOMETHING?

[ninenot]

FReeped--by another Wisconsinite. At this time, it's 56-to-44 with the GOOD GUYS on TOP!!!

[ninenot]

You still don't get it. The First Amendment is only enforced for those who hate life, the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and property rights--in about that order.

The First Amendment does NOT apply to others.

[nomad]

Done! I guess the liberals don`t feel we "the unwashed masses" should see their handi-work.

[supercat]

Of coarse the pictures are offensive, the abortion issue is so polarized there is nothing one side can do to change the others minds. The effect of the pics is to wake up the sleepers in your base ones that would turn a blind eye to a less graphic (shocking) presentation. As a bonus they serve as an embarassment to the abortionists and put them on the defensive. I have held these signs up in front of an abortion mill in DC with tears in my eyes. Believe me they have impact.

How much violence was actually shown in the shower scene in Psycho? How does the impression created by that scene compare with far more graphic slasher films that have appeared since?

I would suggest that a far more subdued approach could yield more of a favorable reaction and less backlash than the graphic approach these ads take. Another thread may provide some useful ideas. For example, an abortionist mentioned there supposedly offered would-have-been mothers footprints of the fetuses he destroyed. Combining such footprints and "family photos" [which he also offered] with photos of some of the stacks of containers would IMHO be much more effective than pictures of dismembered corpses.

[kassie]

We held them up in Texas. My husband had a woman stop and scream at him,"this is horrible, horrible..." and my husband told her, "yes it is". Of course that wasn't what she was talking about.

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

Yes, I've heard "That's disgusting" and "That's sick" and I replied yes it is and it's happening right in there.

[kassie]

Both of your replies are correct and truthful.

[kassie]

Sorry should have said both of THEIR replies are correct and truthful.