Okay, follow along…
As of this morning, the controversial pro-life billboard on Cortland that was hacked, then replaced, then hacked again, and replaced again, has now been removed completely.
So the billboard is gone, but it has nevertheless been hacked again. Neighbor Andy sent along this photo, and explains:
The Bernal Heights / Pro Life billboard fight continues. It’s torn down now revealing a new message.
On the bright side, at least it’s a happy message.
PHOTO: Neighbor Andy
73 thoughts on “Billboard Saga Part XXIII: Pro-Life Billboard Removed, Yet Hacked Again. Again.”
Best version yet! I hope CBS just gives up at this point.
As billboard_guy pointed out on the other thread, the vandals just essentially forced CBS to make a donation to this hateful cause. All this is doing is giving free advertising to the group that created it. I’m sure it is cathartic to spray paint on something you don’t agree with, but it actually accomplishes nothing.
The majority of commenters on this blog would appear to disagree with you on whether or not it accomplishes anything.
You’re right – saying that it accomplishes “nothing” is too broad. Something was accomplished – the billboard has disappeared for now. What I meant to say is that nothing has been accomplished on the larger front of preserving a woman’s right to control her own body. Because that’s what we’re still trying to accomplish, right?
Once again I must disagree with you. I find the removal of a hateful misleading message to be a worthwhile goal, although I actually think it was better when the original altered version was in place. At least that exposed passers-by to the fact that people in this neighborhood are unwilling to accept such offensive advertisements here.
Nice! Victory over the forces of evil!
Herr Doktor you sound like an evil person….I was raised not to destroy others property and I thought in America our free speech was protected….guess under the current president and his administration this is slowly going by the wayside….and those who support him. Believe me there’s a lot more trashy billboards out there (pornography and scantilly dressed people) that I find extremely offensive and especially wouldn’t want children to have to look at, but you all don’t seem to find these trashy advertisements offensive…but post an innocent baby and loving father, and you liberal people are offended! And a black baby & black father…hummm…now who’s racist!!! Bet if this would have been an Obama billboard you all would have been up in arms. Sure glad I don’t live in your hate filled city!
You are a crazy person.
that sure was an interesting exercise is civics.
you know, I never notice what is on that billboard. I walk by it all the time, which is probably why I don’t notice it. I didn’t notice the pro-life message on it until I saw the graffiti on the first one.
What amuses me the most is knowing that the “joy” graffiti will probably live under whatever future billboards they place up there (pro life or not). In 25 years, future generations will discover it like the lost Coke mural, and wonder what it was all about…
I wonder if the sponsors of the billboard didn’t want to keep paying to repair/replace the defaced/message-changed billboard as those opposed persisted, or if the time they original bought simply expired.
I can imagine a possibility that the sponsors didn’t actually anticipate the backlash. And a possibility that they did, too.
According to billboard_guy, CBS would actually pay the costs for repair / replacement AND get a credit. I’m not an advertising person, but those sound like reasonable terms of service for a large advertising conglomerate.
Regardless of one’s opinion on the content of the billboard, this vandalism displays a real lack of respect for freedom of speech. The purchasers of the billboard made a legal and legitimate attempt to express their viewpoint and the parties who defaced it completely disregarded their right to do so. How would we all feel if it had instead been a pro-choice billboard and some conservative zealot had repeatedly defaced it? Righteously pissed, I’m sure.
It seems like the equivalent of coming upon a person shouting his opinions in a public square and punching him in the face in order to silence him. I would rather see those who disagree with the billboard raise funds to buy their own sign and use it to make a better argument than their opponents. It wouldn’t be that hard.
You make a good point, Shane.
Again, as pointed out on the previous posts: This was a paid advertisement. The only freedom of speech in question is the freedom of speech of those who altered the paid advertisement.
Doktor, that’s not how freedom of speech works.
Herr Doktor – to paraphrase former Senator Moynihan – you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Please stop attempting to misinform all the other readers and commenters. To quote you from the other thread:
“I understand and accept that the law currently operates under the concept that paid advertising is protected speech. The law is wrong about this, however.”
Wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true.
Everyone else – HDPDV has repeatedly stated this particular point on freedom of speech, without any data, citations, etc. to backup his claim regarding paid advertising. Frankly, he’s wrong, doesn’t understand how free speech actually works, and is forced to fall back to a “what is RIGHT / WRONG vs. what is LEGAL / ILLEGAL” argument that doesn’t hold water. His understanding of the rights involved, conveyed by the US and California Constitutions, is incomplete. He clearly has no interest in researching the facts (or has done so and didn’t like what they indicated). Nor has he grasped the huge implications to personal freedom that we would all suffer if he clapped his hands and had his way.
For a better explanation of the *actual* way this works, head on over to the earlier thread where this has been discussed extensively (particularly my post covering actual Supreme Court precent):
Happily you are incorrect about that.
thank you shane, I thought we lived in America not Libya or one of the muslim countries where we can’t speak our minds! This was a very tasteful billboard even if you didn’t agree with it!
Shane, thank you for a mature and reasonable statement.
“People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.”
Thank you Banksy! (and littlehellion).
Thank you for this post. I’m going to copy it!
By Banksy’s logic, if I’m offended by his eyebrow piercing that he wears in public, he is “bullying” me and I have every right to go up to him and yank it out.
Where does he get the idea that somebody is attacking him because of messages THEY choose to put on THEIR buses, or advertisements they hang on THEIR buildings? Banksy has failed to comprehend one of the most basic rules of living in society, which is “don’t mess with other people’s stuff.”
Just because you have the right to live in civilization doesn’t mean you have the right to stop other people from putting messages on THEIR OWN property. If you don’t want to hear a message on TV, don’t watch TV. It doesn’t give you the right to mess with the TV, or with anybody else’s property.
If you don’t want to see and hear what other people have to say, go live by yourself. If you decide instead that you have the right to mess with other people’s stuff, don’t be surprised if we take YOUR stuff and mess with YOU.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
So if I paid for an anti-muslim billboard attacking their prophet and posted it in front of the Arab consul (or a mosque, etc.) then I would be perfectly within my rights… hey free speech. And how do you all feel about prop 8 money coming from outside the state to influence that election. Whoever has the most money gets the most free speech. So I guess we in Bernal who do not want to be offended on a daily basis in our own liberal neighborhood have to pay to keep this billboard covered for the rest of our lives to prevent anyone else form paying to post inflammatory ads.
I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that would be hate speech, and therefore not just offensive but also illegal. The billboard on Cortland, regardless of the fact that you and I disagree with it’s opinion, was not hate speech. It was a perfectly legal expression of a perfectly legal sentiment.
For the record: Hate speech is not illegal in the United States.
Herr Doktor is actually correct on this one. The US is the only country that I know of where this is true (and not without a great deal of controversy). So long as you steer clear of libel and slander, hate speech is completely legal with one exception. If the speech creates / incites an immenent threat of violence then it is not protected, but it is REALLY hard to pass the imminent threat criteria. Even an anti-muslim billboard outside a mosque would probably not pass the test.
Sorry… imminent – not immenent.
Also – the real term is “imminent lawless action.”
Maybe those who support the right of prolifers to invade Bernal Heights have to ask themselves the question,”What ad would make me change my stance”. An anti-gay statement? How about something about against animals rights? Perhaps a euthanize all pitbulls ad. How many of us pay a premium price to live in SF to get away from this.
Prolifers invading Bernal Heights? Have you noticed Sat Kevin’s Church a block away from the defaced billboard? That building has been there since 1925. It’s one of three Catholic churches in Bernal. How many other places of worship of other faiths are there in the neighborhood?
I’m pretty sure there are more than a few parishioners at St. Kevin’s who don’t consider themselves to be invaders but still don’t agree with with your position on this.
Hey, I am not posting a billboard telling parents to keep their kids away from pedophile priests. I hope the nice people at St Kevin’s church did not post the pro-life billboard. Women need to the right to control their own bodies.
oddlaugh, put yourself on the opposite side of the fence for just a moment. If you posted a pro-gay-marriage statement or a pro-animal rights statement – anything about which you are passionate – and vandals destroyed that billboard, would you defend them then?
Again, as stated previously to a similar hypothetical: Of course.
You are not a woman, we are dealing with my fundamental rights, which are being advertised frivolously to be taken away by people who disregard the liberties of the living and conscious. They don’t understand logic and reason, therefore we must be more out right with our messages because they can not comprehend the gravity some experience during child birth. Many are mentally as well as physically damaged (both child and mother).
…But thank-you for your opinions on freedom of speech, Shane and other men in opposition to the vandalized billboard and our efforts to abolish an intolerant message. Do keep writing within the boundaries of subjects which are relevant to the wellness of your being.
Zola, please do not misunderstand the intent of Shane or others of us that are defending free speech. I feel very passionately about women’s rights and am truly sickened by this ad and others like it. In fact, without these free speech rights, women would never have achieved the victories they have in their political battles of the last century. There’s still a long way to go, but there are plenty of men that are absolutely on your side.
Except Herr Doktor… When this whole debacle started I assumed that he was another citizen concerned about women’s rights that was really overzealous. I was wrong. He doesn’t care – he isn’t interested in your rights. He is only interested in vandalism. I can’t even say “vandal’s rights” as it implies legitimacy.
What are you talking about? You claim to be a defender of Freedom of Speech, yet you are one of the very few on here who are arguing AGAINST free speech and in favor of some sort of hypothetical Advertiser’s Rights.
That’s weird enough on its own, but now you seem to be ascribing some odd (though, to give you credit, truly imaginative) set of beliefs to me. …And by extension, I would assume, the rest of the majority of commenters on here who have spoken up for free speech over the aforementioned imaginary advertiser’s rights.
You’re simply not making any sense.
Freedom of speech can mean two things: a belief of what you’d like to be free or the actual rights that are conveyed by our country, state, and local governments. You seem completely interested in the latter, without seeming to grasp that without those laws you wouldn’t have ANY of the former.
You accuse me of defending “Advertisers’ Rights” (and calling it weird amuses me, by the way), but you don’t seem to believe in the right of one private citizen to put up a sign on their property and rent it to a second private citizen to display their message. Who do you think these advertisers are? They’re groups of people that band together and raise some money to put their speech where someone will see / hear it. Is that process prone to abuse by people with lots of money? Absolutely. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Ask someone who has lived outside the United States to describe the free speech rights they enjoyed in their countries for comparison.
Explain to me what speech you would protect if I gave you the ability to revoke “Advertisers’ Rights,” as you call them. What meaningful forms of speech remain that can actually reach an audience to persuade them in today’s society? Because that’s really what we’re defending here – the ability of one person to use free speech to express their views and sway the opinions of others. The fact you are missing is that without “Advertisers’ Rights,” you are basically reduced to holding up cardboard signs and shouting at people. Don’t get me wrong – that has its place – but it is only one piece of a campaign to defend or secure rights. And, by the way, the only way those signs have an impact is if they attract media attention and end up covered in the news in one form or another. The news is supported by advertisers.
You insist on defending vandalism at the expense of the larger cause. You’re concerned about the risk of money being used to control or limit free speech because “advertising” is protected (and it *is* in this form, so let’s just move right past that and stick to your theories about what *should* be protected). Yet you are completely unconcerned about the risk of thugs, bullies, and intimidation controlling a dialogue. That is the problem the rest of the world grapples with every day.
Regarding me ascribing odd beliefs to you: I’ll agree that I (by proxy) am also criticizing anyone who defends vandalism, but I’ve singled you out because you’ve tried to convince others that this view you have of free speech is actually grounded in fact. Without rereading all the threads I can’t recall another single individual that attempted to convince others that it is their constitutional right to deface other people’s property. That is what I object to. If you said to me, “Look, I know that vandalism is a crime but it is the only weapon I have left in my arsenal to defend my rights” THEN I’d view what you’re doing as civil disobedience. There’s a place for that in these types of debates – I don’t believe we’re at that point of desperation yet, but it happens. There are numerous examples of individuals violating a law to defend what they believed to be TRUE and RIGHT and convincing others in the process that their cause was true. Where you’ve gone wrong is you’ve blended *the cause* and *the law that gets violated* together. In this debate, you’ve lost track of the fact that the cause we’re defending isn’t vandalism – it is a woman’s right to control her own body. Vandalism was the crime that was committed in the defense of a woman’s right – I haven’t read you defending THAT right in this debate. Perhaps I’ve missed a comment or two…
As further evidence of your pure interest in vandalism (as opposed to your treatise on “Advertisers’ Rights” here), I’ll direct readers to see what Herr Doktor has to say about the sidewalk vandalism at 299 Valencia over at Mission Mission:
“Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable says: It’s not vandalism, it’s neighborhood enhancement. [September 17, 2012 at 2:13 pm]”
No mythical evil advertisers there – just a sidewalk in front of a new residential building where someone with the welcoming message to some newcomers: “You’re not welcome here.”
Your approach to freedom as a whole scares the hell out of me.
For me it really was about the timing of the billboard… what, something like a week (or less?) after Todd Aiken made those horribly ignorant and harmful comments about legitimate rape… all in service to his personal beliefs about abortion that he and the Republican party want to legislate! and not just in some conservative small town in the South—all throughout the US. So, I am happy to see a Bansky approach to paid advertising in my neighborhood, that I walk by daily, that was not hate speech but offensive to me.
Oooops, that was supposed to be Banksy
Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable is advocating a right to vandalize anything that offends him. Surprisingly I do not agree with that. If I do a DOS attack on this site becuse I don’t like auto racing, is that ok?
Well, you’re obviously being hyperbolic, but I’ll address your question on its face, anyway. Is this website a paid advertisement? It certainly doesn’t seem like it. Once again: Personal expression is protected speech. Corporate and Paid expression is not protected speech.
Now, if you were asking if it would be ok to, say, DDOS http://www.nascar.com or something along those lines, then my answer would be: Absolutely. In fact, preventing/slowing access is one of the fundamental tactics of hacktivism, just as it is in real world activism (re: sit-ins, chaining oneself to the gates of business, laying in the path of trains/trucks/equipment, etc.)
Thugs like you make me sick.
Go start a commune and live civilization to the grown-ups, please.
Avalon: That word doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Thug is as thug does.
If you think your superior views give you the right to harm others’ property, you’re a thug.
Thugs like you should go away, so we grown-ups can live in peace.
Although, to be fair, I can’t tell you what the word “thug” means to you, I suppose you’re entitled to define it however you want.
If standing up for free speech makes one a “thug” in your estimation, well, so be it. *shrug*
Sigh… back to facts:
1 a violent person, esp. a criminal.
[mid 19th cent.: extension of sense 2.]
2 ( Thug ) historical a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s.
I think AvalonXQ has maybe overstepped slightly because we haven’t yet seen any evidence that you yourself have resorted to violence or criminal activity. I’ll stop just short and say that it is clear that you support thugs.
Well, if that is the definition of “Thug” he is using, then, once again: Naw.
I reject his/her assertion altogether.
But at least we have hearts of gold!
Good times! A pro-life website learned about the Bernal billboard, and they’ve put their spin on the story (while stealing lots of Bernalwood images without attribution) http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/san-francisco-vandalizes-pro-life-billboard-featuring-a-newborn-black-baby#dsq-form-area-665498133
Thanks for the update. That’s very sad.
Neighbor Scott says (September 7, 2012 at 18:06):
“Not to mention the fact that in the big picture, this piece of vandalism will do more to hurt the pro-choice cause at large than the billboard could ever do to change the minds of people in a community like Bernal. The vandalism happened. Pictures have been posted on the internet. I guarantee you that somewhere on the web, perhaps on a right wing news site, perhaps in a neighborhood blog for a different type of community, or perhaps on a religious website, someone is going to take those pictures and hold them up to those communities as an example of how their cause isn’t respected.”
It is almost like I can predict the future. Off to buy a lottery ticket…
True enough. I certainly don’t live in Bernal Heights, but I’ve made my way here, and am not thinking much of the pro-choice movement.
I’m no *a pro-lifer*… but my reaction to someone spraying “kill the shrimp” on a billboard sign that portrays parenthood as a good and a joy – after, of course, laughing – is that the vandal is pretty off the rails. To be moved to vandalism… if it were me, I’d have to ask myself where I’m going with my life. It’s self-hating. There is something gravely wrong when you react like this to the mere thought of children. There is something gravely wrong when people automatically say no to the mere thought of children over and over again.
Yeah, my reaction is this business has gone too far.
Also, I have to add, the lack of children in San Francisco is incredibly noticeable. Yes there are children, but they don’t have a presence in the city the way they do elsewhere. Disturbing.
Well, I think the “Kill the Shrimp” comment was not in very good taste, to be sure. But let’s be clear: This was not a “Pro-parenting” billboard, it was an explicitly Anti-Choice one.
Now I would like to know how in the world the message of the father holding his infant is not a “pro-parenting billboard” but an “anti-choice” one, where did you come up with that crazy idea? You mean the father should have been smiling saying (wih words because it’s a billboard) “I’m happy I paid for my wife’s abortion, now I don’t have a baby to love”? I think it’s especially a beautiful message because it showed a black man holding a baby (I believe I noticed he had on a ring too….that’s another nice thing to see in this high divorce society, that he was not only a father but a married father too….I bet he’s a good husband)!
Uh, the part that says “PROLIFE”? Or, possibly, the picture of a fetus?
You’re not paying attention, are you.
Say what? As hunter fosters says… I mean, if a man taking joy in fatherhood is anti-choice and not pro-parenting, how do you make a pro-parenting billboard? Exactly what do you show to be parenting positive?
On this rare occasion I must strongly agree with Herr Doktor… The “kill the shrimp” message was in poor taste, but this is not a “pro-parenting” billboard.
The billboard does explicitly state that is for the organization “ProLife Across America” which means it is wading directly into the abortion debate. It is possible to depict pro-parenting while not taking a stance on the abortion issue – this is NOT a billboard depicting parents getting involved in their children’s lives, talking to them about important issues, and raising them to be a positive force in the world.
I also think, bunnymod, that you’re going a bit too far in saying that this is a reaction to “the mere thought of children” – it is nothing of the sort. It was a reaction to an organization that is part of a move to slowly erode women’s rights. I disagree with the way that the vandals chose to express their disagreement, but the reaction is not to children.
Regarding the lack of children in San Francisco. I agree that is incredibly noticable, but I think that you’ll find many residents here who object to your characterization that it is “disturbing.” Different isn’t always disturbing. Having children or not having children is a personal choice for every individual or couple – the fact that like-minded individuals are drawn to San Francisco as a city that supports and welcomes those who have chosen to be child-free should be a good thing. It may not be the community that you are looking for, but for many of us it was an aspect that we find appealing.
bunnymod, I can think of many ways to make a pro-parenting billboard. Even though I am not a religious person myself, I think that the Mormons have done an excellent job of advertising pro-family messages and imagery over the years that doesn’t wander into overly political or even religious territory. I think the billboards that I see that encourage parents to talk to their children early about drugs and sex are another great example. I’ve seen billboards that promote reading with your children or spending family time together that are very pro-parenting and pro-family – some even that take more expanded and open-minded views on the definition of a family.
In short, I think there are numerous ways to show a pro-parenting message. Let’s be clear about this organization’s goals – they are using the imagery of a father and child because it allows them to sidestep important questions about a woman’s rights to chose what happens to her own body. It allows them to be pro-life without being anti-woman. If you look at the rest of their billboard art, it follows similar lines. There isn’t a single mention of the mother that I could find. I also couldn’t find any evidence that this organization contributes anything to support parenting. It appears that their exclusive goal is to prevent abortion, but once the child is born they are already gone.
Like most things in life, context is very important. The image of a father with a baby is, in itself, a great picture – but its use in an abortion debate context is deliberate and, quite frankly, has nothing to do with parenting.
excuse me but the last time I checked America (and San Francisco is a US city, tho sometimes I wonder)was still a free country and it’s citizens are free to use their freedom of speech, who says this billboard was supposed to speak about raising your children a certain way…it’s a prolife, pro-family, pro-marriage statement, so what?….last time I checked having a baby is definately pro-family & yes pro-life, as someone who has had an abortion, I definately don’t agree that this ad is in anyway taking a woman’s right to choose away. Personally I’m sorry that I didn’t choose life for my baby, I think this is a beautiful ad that involves the Father. I find this very appealing as a woman and in many of today’s trashy billboards I find this billboard a “breath of fresh air”….to me this is a very pro-woman ad!!! Besides women who are constantly saying they want rights over their bodies….what about the unborn baby (girl in many cases) that you conceived through your own selfish wants & desires with no thoughts about your actions? And to the person who said there wasn’t anything about a woman in this billboard…have you thought that this organization may have other adds that addresses this issue. I think all of you anti life people need to be a little more tolerant of other American’s right to post a beautiful ad as this one! I hope all of you get just as angry over the stupid male enhancement, strip club and scantily dressed women billboard advertising Abercrombie & Fitch and other such company advertise (such trashy ads) now I do believe those are a plight on our communities. And also to the one who made a comment regarding the local Catholic church in the area and mentioned their priests, I have tell you, I know lots of priests, rabbi’s, pastors etc of different church denominations and ALL of the ones I know are wonderful upstanding people! Just because there’s a few sick people in a church doesn’t mean they all are thank God we have the churches, they do many wonderful things for their communities!
Of course they are, and the citizens of our fine city were using their freedom of speech to disagree with a paid advertisement.
You are extremely confused.
In response to bunnymod says:
>> excuse me but the last time I checked America (and San Francisco is a US city, tho sometimes I wonder)was still a free country and it’s citizens are free to use their freedom of speech
Yes – you are right, this is America and citizens are free to use their freedom of speech. If you read any of the above comments you will find many of us defending the rights of the group that placed the billboard even though we don’t support the message.
>> who says this billboard was supposed to speak about raising your children a certain way…it’s a prolife, pro-family, pro-marriage statement, so what?….last time I checked having a baby is definately pro-family & yes pro-life
That’s just it – this billboard doesn’t speak to raising children a certain way. It doesn’t say anything at all about raising children. It is explicitly pro-life and I’ll grant you that, at least subtly, it is pro-family and pro-marriage. I’ll disagree, though, that having a baby is automatically those things. In an ideal world, yes, but our world is far from perfect and many babies are born into incredibly bad situations. When families are unprepared for a baby they can tear apart marriages and families – that isn’t the fault of the baby, it is a tragedy of the situation.
>> I think this is a beautiful ad that involves the Father. I find this very appealing as a woman and in many of today’s trashy billboards I find this billboard a “breath of fresh air”….to me this is a very pro-woman ad!!!
I’m glad that you find the ad to be beautiful. It clearly resonates well with you. Not everyone agrees. I’m not a woman so it isn’t my place to say whether or not it is pro-woman or not, but from the comments above it is clear that there are *many* women that completely disagree.
>> Besides women who are constantly saying they want rights over their bodies….what about the unborn baby (girl in many cases) that you conceived through your own selfish wants & desires with no thoughts about your actions?
That’s awfully presumptuous of you. Selfish desires? No thoughts? You’ve projected a whole lot of judgement onto a hypothetical set of women about whom you know absolutely nothing of their lives. It is this type of judgmental attitude that leads me to conclude that many women will not agree that this billboard (and your interpretation of it) are “pro-woman.”
>> And to the person who said there wasn’t anything about a woman in this billboard…have you thought that this organization may have other adds that addresses this issue.
Yes – I did think that… which is why I spent some time researching the organization and their other ad campaigns. I invite you to do the same – they’ve posted lots of their billboards online. I didn’t *guess* that their *might* not be. I looked myself and found nothing, although I was being gracious in acknowledging that I might not have left every stone unturned.
>> I think all of you anti life people need to be a little more tolerant of other American’s right to post a beautiful ad as this one!
I think you’ll find that I’ve been very even-keeled and tolerant throughout this entire debate. I can’t say that I find your comments to be the same. Phrases like “all of you anti life people” don’t exactly convey an attitude of tolerance on your part. The Bible is full of messages that apply here… Granted, there are some people in this community and on this blog that aren’t as tolerant as I *try* to be. There are people who don’t understand the intricacies of free speech and are applauding the efforts of these vandals based on a twisted view of the world. Not all of us think or feel that way and we appreciate not being lumped into an “all of you people” categorization. I’m going to overlook the “anti life” slur in the interest of civility, even though I probably shouldn’t.
>> And also to the one who made a comment regarding the local Catholic church in the area and mentioned their priests, I have tell you, I know lots of priests, rabbi’s, pastors etc of different church denominations and ALL of the ones I know are wonderful upstanding people! Just because there’s a few sick people in a church doesn’t mean they all are thank God we have the churches, they do many wonderful things for their communities!
I agree with you on this one. The jab at priests was in poor taste. Even I, as an atheist, personally know several priests and pastors that are good people. It is unfair to them to make such generalizations. In fact, it sounds a lot like lumping people into an “all of your anti life people” categorization, doesn’t it? To say, however, that the Catholic church has an unresolved, unacknowledged, systemic problem with covering up child abuse is a different statement grounded in fact. Churches absolutely do wonderful things for their communities and the comparative merits of their ills and merits is a completely different debate.
«hateful misleading message»? «unwilling to accept such offensive advertisements»? Are you serious? This is so beyond ridiculous, it belongs in bizarro world, where everything is backwards.
In response to Neighbor Scott, regarding my response about the pro-parenting PROLIFE Across AMERICA billbord, I don’t understand why there’s even a debate about this billboard not being a pro-parenting billboard, so what if it isn’t? I don’t think it matters does it, this organization has a right to post this ad, they paid for it! As a postabortive woman, I don’t believe an organization is “slowly eroding a woman’s rights” because they post this type of message. Again I find it a beautiful message and it sends a wonderful message to the black community as well! No Herr Doktor, you’re the “confused one” – I don’t destroy other people’s property, it’s every American’s right to say what they believe if it doesn’t harm anyone else, this billboard message didn’t harm anyone else (maybe it’s guilt from those that destroyed it?) This billboard was merely stating the love of a father for his infant. That’s the beautiful thing about a baby, it gives us hope, I find that there are more wonderful & good parents and families than bad, I think our communities should embrace this type of message, there’s enough to be down & sad about, war, unemployment, terrible economy, drugs, divorce, suicide among people. “Presumptuous” of me to speak about selfish desires when a woman chooses to kill her unborn baby? Are you serious? Of course it’s selfish for a woman to find herself pregnant and then decide she isn’t ready to disrupt her life to give this baby life because the pregnancy didn’t happen at the “right time”. The baby’s heart begins beating as early as 18 days…most abortions take place at 3 months or even at the moment of delivery (9 months). And regarding the Catholic church, I believe they are dealing with the priest scandals, which is what they should be doing, again there are many wonderful priests, preachers & rabbis, it’s too bad about the “sick” ones. “I’m intolerant?” I don’t think so, I don’t destroy other people’s property! When I said anti-life people – ok, so I’ll say those of you that are “intolerent anti-life people”, if you’re not intolerent then I don’t mean you! And if you’re pro-choice, you are pro-abortion, an abortion takes the life of an unborn baby! Ask any doctor or nurse! Doctors use to take the hipocratic oath to save life not destroy it…as doctors tell me, good doctors/nurses don’t take a life or perform abortions, these are the “doctors” that can’t quite make it, they’re at the bottom of the barrel!
You keep saying “Pro-parenting” when referring to an anti-choice piece of hateful propaganda. This seems like quite a logical disconnect on your part.
As mentioned above: You are a crazy person.
Oh really Herr Docktor, I’m “crazy” because I don’t believe the way you do, and the proper terminology is not anti-choice (because the person that’s pregnant does have a choice! To give life to her unborn baby or to end the life of the unborn baby), so you’re either prolife (for life) or proabortion (for ending the life of the unborn baby)….it’s sounds to me like you’re the intolerant one!
I’ve never claimed to be tolerant of evil. I am quite intolerant of those who wish to strip our fundamental rights from us. I’m sorry if I have somehow given you the mistaken impression that anything else is the case. The anti-choice movement that wishes to define what a woman can and cannot legally do with her own body is absolutely a force for evil in our society.
Comments are closed.