Free Speech or Slander?

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
TyrantOfTheWeek's picture
Joined: 12/26/05
Posts: 1147
Free Speech or Slander?

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/jilted-ex-boyfriend-puts-abortion-billboard-194142831.html

ALAMOGORDO, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights.

The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant. The text reads, "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"

Fultz's ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy. A domestic court official has recommended the billboard be removed.

But Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.

"As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech," Todd Holmes said.

The woman's friends say she had a miscarriage, not an abortion, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.

Holmes disputes that, saying his case is based on the accuracy of his client's statement.

"My argument is: What Fultz said is the truth," Holmes said.

The woman's lawyer said she had not discussed the pregnancy with her client. But for Ellen Jessen, whether her client had a miscarriage or an abortion is not the point. The central issue is her client's privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, Jessen said.

"Her private life is not a matter of public interest," she told the Alamogordo Daily News.

Jessen says her client's ex-boyfriend has crossed the line.

"Nobody is stopping him from talking about father's rights. ... but a person can't invade someone's private life."

For his part, Holmes invoked the U.S. Supreme Court decision from earlier this year concerning the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for its anti-gay protests at military funerals and other high-profile events. He believes the high court's decision to allow the protests, as hurtful as they are, is grounds for his client to put up the abortion billboard.

"Very unpopular offensive speech," he told the Alamogordo Daily News. "The Supreme Court, in an 8 to 1 decision, said that is protected speech."

Holmes says he is going to fight the order to remove the billboard through a District Court appeal.

Adding a pic of the billboard.

Does the ex have a case, or is this just a case of an angry ex?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

UGH.

Legally, I would think that the woman has a right to medical privacy. I would think that trumps the whole Free Speech argument. Otherwise, no one has a right to expect any privacy about anything, right? If I learned my ex's social security number, I could post that and all of his pertinent info on a billboard and just wait for someone to steal it, right? No. I think that there are certain types of information (medical among them) where the person has a reasonable right to expect privacy.

On a side note, what a psychotic douche. I'm kind of glad that his picture is on a billboard so women everywhere have some advance warning not to date this creepazoid.

TyrantOfTheWeek's picture
Joined: 12/26/05
Posts: 1147

As trashy as this guy is, I don't think she has a case. He didn't use her name at all. To me, that billboard looks like any other pro-life propaganda billboard.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"TyrantOfTheWeek" wrote:

As trashy as this guy is, I don't think she has a case. He didn't use her name at all. To me, that billboard looks like any other pro-life propaganda billboard.

Yes, but he used his picture, and people who would recognize him might well know who he's talking about. Obviously they did, since this was brought to her attention and now there's a lawsuit about it.

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Yes, but he used his picture, and people who would recognize him might well know who he's talking about. Obviously they did, since this was brought to her attention and now there's a lawsuit about it.

I still don't think she has a case either. He didn't use her name or picture. He could be referring to a girl he was seeing on the side. Even if he did refer to her its not slander if it true, correct?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"elleon17" wrote:

I still don't think she has a case either. He didn't use her name or picture. He could be referring to a girl he was seeing on the side. Even if he did refer to her its not slander if it true, correct?

So as long as I get my ex's social security number correct, I am allowed to post it on a billboard? What if I don't post his actual name, just a picture of me and a note that says "Remember who I used to date from 2000-2003? :D"

ETA: And she's not suing him for slander.

Fultz's ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy. A domestic court official has recommended the billboard be removed.

I think this is both harrassment and a violation of privacy. I hope she wins.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4138

I agree that it isn't slander because he didn't use his name or her name. Even if people saw the picture they wouldn't automatically assume it was really him personally since many billboards use models.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

For those of you who don't think she has a legal case, do you think what he did was morally okay?

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

[QUOTE=Alissa_Sal]So as long as I get my ex's social security number correct, I am allowed to post it on a billboard? What if I don't post his actual name, just a picture of me and a note that says "Remember who I used to date from 2000-2003? :D"

ETA: And she's not suing him for slander.

QUOTE]

Didn't realize she wasn't suing for slander.

I don't think that it is the same as putting a SSN up on a billboard. He isn't her doctor so I don't think this is a right of privacy either. If her doctor put up a billboard saying this could have been my patients baby with a direct reference to the patient it would be different.

Although, I think what he did was wrong, ridiculous and over dramatic, 99.9% of the people seeing that billboard will have no idea who it is reference to, so how is it a violation of her privacy? What he did was akin to writing her friends and family a letter telling them what she did and I don't think she would have a case then either.

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

For those of you who don't think she has a legal case, do you think what he did was morally okay?

People do whacked out things after break ups. This all comes from hurt. I don't think it is 'moral', but neither is backstabbing, gossiping or other horrible things couples do to each other after going their seperate ways.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"elleon17" wrote:

[quote=Alissa_Sal]So as long as I get my ex's social security number correct, I am allowed to post it on a billboard? What if I don't post his actual name, just a picture of me and a note that says "Remember who I used to date from 2000-2003? :D"

ETA: And she's not suing him for slander.

QUOTE]

Didn't realize she wasn't suing for slander.

I don't think that it is the same as putting a SSN up on a billboard. He isn't her doctor so I don't think this is a right of privacy either. If her doctor put up a billboard saying this could have been my patients baby with a direct reference to the patient it would be different.

Although, I think what he did was wrong, ridiculous and over dramatic, 99.9% of the people seeing that billboard will have no idea who it is reference to, so how is it a violation of her privacy? What he did was akin to writing her friends and family a letter telling them what she did and I don't think she would have a case then either.

See, I think it's akin to writing a letter to her friends and family saying that she had an abortion (which would also be repugnant) but with the added emotional element of a good old fashioned public shaming.

I think it would be a different law suit (probably for much higher stakes) if a doctor did it, but I just can't see how you can argue that this isn't harrassment, which is what she is suing him for. If taking out a billboard to try to publically shame someone that you're angry with isn't harrassment, what is???

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"elleon17" wrote:

People do whacked out things after break ups. This all comes from hurt. I don't think it is 'moral', but neither is backstabbing, gossiping or other horrible things couples do to each other after going their seperate ways.

Really? I'm honestly amazed that you don't find the idea of taking out a billboard to publically humiliate someone a little more appalling. I guess I must just have delicate sensibilities. LOL

elleon17's picture
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Really? I'm honestly amazed that you don't find the idea of taking out a billboard to publically humiliate someone a little more appalling. I guess I must just have delicate sensibilities. LOL

Wink

For me it's all appalling, but unfortunately very human (if not very nice) to react irrationally when hurt.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4138

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

For those of you who don't think she has a legal case, do you think what he did was morally okay?

Yes. Maybe a mean thing to do depending on his motives but not morally wrong. I do think it was morally wrong for her to abort the baby against his wishes, and I can understand his feelings of helplessness that his child was murdered and he had no choice in the matter. I can also understand him thinking that maybe bringing awareness to the situation might help change people's minds about abortion.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

See, I don't think he did it to "bring awareness" to the situation. I think he did it to try to publically humiliate her. I don't care if you're pro life or not, that is a really ugly thing to do. I am actually surprised that any pro-life organization would want their name attached to that - it makes them look as petty and ugly as he does.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4138

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

See, I don't think he did it to "bring awareness" to the situation. I think he did it to try to publically humiliate her. I don't care if you're pro life or not, that is a really ugly thing to do. I am actually surprised that any pro-life organization would want their name attached to that - it makes them look as petty and ugly as he does.

See I don't really buy the privacy issue. She has brought more attention to it by bringing a lawsuit and her name into it. Before that she was faceless and nameless except to possibly the people who knew them both, and those people probably already knew anyway since I'm sure he already told everyone before he put up the billboard.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

Honestly, if I had seen the billboard I would have thought it was a hypothetical situation. Honest. I would seriously have thought it was just put up there to make someone think about dad's who don't have a choice.

I think the guy is a prick and a jerk-- and I wouldn't do what he did. But I'm not sure he is on the hook for much being that he didn't use her photo or name....

I'll have to think about this one some more.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1722

As much as I want to find a reason to support her position, I just can't. He didn't use her name, for all the community knew, he was just a paid actor/model.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Again, I think it's like writing a letter to her friends and family telling them about it - but with an additional emotional impact of it feeling (to her) like the whole world knows about it because he put it on a freaking billboard.

ETA: I absolutely believe that he did it to be malicious, and I think that matters. If you set out to stir up trouble and hurt someone, maybe you have a little trouble coming your way too.

Gloria - I don't agree that if it were about the privacy issue she wouldn't have sued. I think that people typically feel compelled to stand up for themselves, even in the case of a privacy violation.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I was reading about this. Her name is Nani which is the Acronym used for his new organization that is on the billboard and nowhere else. He doesn't even know if she really aborted the baby and admits it easily. The pro-life organizations had him take their name off the billboard when they found this out. It's trashy in the same way the Westboro Baptist Church is and they both have the same legal rights to do it despite the fact that it's trashy.

I'm as pro-life as they come and think Dad's should definitely get a say in what's going on, but there is a real chance this woman freaking miscarried and the douchebag felt the need to rub salt in the wound. What kind of Father would he really have been? :puke2:

eta- more changes to the billboard: changed the first letter of his acronym to a C so it's CANI now.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

I am very pro-life, but I think this was in poor taste. If he did not use her name than I don't think she has the right to sue him, but still not the right way to go about things.

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

Good for him. I don't think he did anything wrong, as there was no mention of who the girlfriend is or a picture of her... so who would know? This is absolutely freedom of speech, and he has every right to do what he did. Was it over the top? Absolutely, but he didn't violate her privacy rights because no one knows who she is!

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"Starryblue702" wrote:

Good for him.

What???? You are saying that it was morally good for him to do this?

I don't think that she has a case. In the US there is no law against being a sleazebag. It's too bad it's against the law for her to beat the crap out of someone who made her miscarriage public.

It amazes me how immoral some anti-choice organizations are.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"blather" wrote:

What???? You are saying that it was morally good for him to do this?

I don't think that she has a case. In the US there is no law against being a sleazebag. It's too bad it's against the law for her to beat the crap out of someone who made her miscarriage public.

It amazes me how immoral some anti-choice organizations are.

They organizations had him take their names when they realized that their was even a chance it was a miscarriage. The vast majority of women have a choice, there are very few who don't. Expecting consenting sexual partners to use birth control instead of aborting a fetus isn't anti-choice, it's pro-baby. Wink

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

Taking choice away from women is only anti-choice.

They gave him money and put their names on an ad vilifying a woman they knew nothing about. He's an immoral jackass. They are rich, powerful immoral jackasses.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

Anti-choice implies that pro-life activists are forcing women to have unprotected sex, get pregnant, and then carry the baby to term. I don't know of anyone who is asking that the law be changed to anything of the sort. Just that once a woman is pregnant, that she doesn't get to choose to do something that harms another human being. How CRAZY is it that in 2011 when birth control is offered in sooooo many places for such a cheap price that we are even having the debate still? It just freaking amazes me that people are getting pregnant when they aren't ready to have a child.

If we can use the term anti-choice in regards to abortion, can we also use the term murder?
Because if so, then we are currently allowing women to murder their unborn children while we aren't going to be allowed to decide for ourselves whether we want to have health insurance or not. Just appalling.
eta-
http://newmexicoindependent.com/70368/greg-fultz-taken-to-court-over-alamagordo-abortion-billboard-domestic-violence-charge

The dude is freaking nuts, but to call an organization deranged because they are pointing out that men don't get a choice about what happens to their baby is silly.

daniellevmt's picture
Joined: 07/25/06
Posts: 213

Like another poster said, if I saw this, I would think it were a hypothetical situation used to promote the rights of fathers having rights in these situations.

And as far as that goes, I think it's an awful double standard that exists in America that a father has no say in the decision to abort but must pay child support if the mother chooses to have the baby. Do I have a solution in mind to that? Nope. But I still think it's wrong.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Solution - The Dad within 5 months of knowing the woman is pregnant, they can terminate their parental ties to the child. They would have to file with the state (giving up parental rights to the mom, and they would not be the father anymore, and have no rights nor responsibilites to the child). If they go over the 9 months then they are automatically liable.

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"blather" wrote:

What???? You are saying that it was morally good for him to do this?

I don't think that she has a case. In the US there is no law against being a sleazebag. It's too bad it's against the law for her to beat the crap out of someone who made her miscarriage public.

It amazes me how immoral some anti-choice organizations are.

No, I simply meant good for him for exercising his right to free speech and not slinking away when she threatens with a lawsuit. I don't agree with what he did, but we can't go around taking away people's freedoms, whether we agree with it or not.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

The more I think about this, actually, the more I think there must be something that can be done to punish the jerk and the organizations exploiting this woman. Maybe domestic abuse?

If after I lost the baby that I wanted so much my husband had left me and put up a billboard of this kind to make my private pain a public shame I would be much more hurt than if he had hit me, I think. I think this qualifies.

Wlillie, the only thing that organization is pointing out to me is that they did not do due diligence, that they are personally attacking a woman, and that they don't care who they hurt.

I want to reduce abortion too, that's why I give money to Planned Parenthood.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Solution - The Dad within 5 months of knowing the woman is pregnant, they can terminate their parental ties to the child. They would have to file with the state (giving up parental rights to the mom, and they would not be the father anymore, and have no rights nor responsibilites to the child). If they go over the 9 months then they are automatically liable.

Are you saying that a father should just be able to sever all ties, wipe his hands clean and walk away? Do you not think a child has the right to be financially supported by both parents?

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

Are you saying that a father should just be able to sever all ties, wipe his hands clean and walk away? Do you not think a child has the right to be financially supported by both parents?

Well, if you think about it, according to our laws, right now they don't even have the right to live. So why shouldn't a father be able to say he doesn't want the baby if a mother can? They are both involved, both made some bad decisions, but the way it's setup now, only one person gets to make any important decisions.

blather-how exactly was this woman personally attacked by the organization?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"wlillie" wrote:

Well, if you think about it, according to our laws, right now they don't even have the right to live. So why shouldn't a father be able to say he doesn't want the baby if a mother can? They are both involved, both made some bad decisions, but the way it's setup now, only one person gets to make any important decisions.

blather-how exactly was this woman personally attacked by the organization?

Because biology is unfair, and because as a society, I think that most of us agree that if a baby is born, we prefer it's biological parents to take care of it when possible. It's not fair that the man has no say about whether or not the baby is born when they both made the decision to have sex. It's also not fair that it's the woman's body and health that is always in question in regards to a pregnancy when they both made the decision to have sex. Life is fundamentally unfair, but I don't think that the way to fix it is to make it even more unfair for the child and for society if the child is born.

By the way, for those of you that are pro-life, I believe that allowing a man to sign away his responsibilities as a father will only encourage MORE abortions. That's not my goal, and I doubt it is yours either.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Because biology is unfair, and because as a society, I think that most of us agree that if a baby is born, we prefer it's biological parents to take care of it when possible. It's not fair that the man has no say about whether or not the baby is born when they both made the decision to have sex. It's also not fair that it's the woman's body and health that is always in question in regards to a pregnancy when they both made the decision to have sex. Life is fundamentally unfair, but I don't think that the way to fix it is to make it even more unfair for the child and for society if the child is born.

By the way, for those of you that are pro-life, I believe that allowing a man to sign away his responsibilities as a father will only encourage MORE abortions. That's not my goal, and I doubt it is yours either.

This is how I feel. It would be tragic for a woman who would otherwise keep her baby to decide to terminate solely in the face of a legal remedy that absolves a father's responsibilities to his child.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I really do agree with you guys, but I wonder how many women would change their minds about that in comparison to the women who are physically harmed by men who don't want the baby?

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

Does anyone know the TRUE AND REAL details of this story? Everyone keeps saying that she had a miscarriage... and if that's the case I would be upset at the billboard... but where's the proof of either a miscarriage or an abortion, either way? If anyone could find a news story and post it that would be awesome...

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"Starryblue702" wrote:

Does anyone know the TRUE AND REAL details of this story? Everyone keeps saying that she had a miscarriage... and if that's the case I would be upset at the billboard... but where's the proof of either a miscarriage or an abortion, either way? If anyone could find a news story and post it that would be awesome...

It does not matter. No matter what, this was a private issue that does not need to be publicly mocked for all her friends and family to see by an abusive ex-boyfriend. Miscarriage is within the realm of possibility.

If this had happened to me after my miscarriages, I would not have been able to go to media outlets to "set the record straight". Not possible. The burden should not be on the woman who had the possibly spontaneous abortion. It should be on the abusive creep who posted this and the morally bankrupt organization who bankrolled this.

Whether or not you agree with this, abortion is still a legal procedure, but there are lots of Americans who think its reprehensible. This may affect this woman's future career, the people she associates with, even what people say in the grocery store.

Would you anti-choicers hire this woman to babysit your kids or do another job after you saw this?

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

No, it doesn't matter about how she lost the pregnancy, anyone who is taken in by an idiot like the abusive boyfriend isn't someone I'd trust with my child. Her decision making skills aren't all that great since she also took the step to take him to court making this a HUGE deal in the media instead of just letting it go. I feel for her and I'm sorry if she did have a miscarriage, but the sign does draw attention to all of the anti-male choice people in the world who don't care about the murder of those male's children. Can you imagine someone telling you that they choose for your baby to die no matter what and you can't do anything about it?

b525's picture
Joined: 06/06/07
Posts: 298

My gut reaction is that you can't legislate being a jerk. What he did was jerky, no doubt, but he didn't put her personal information out there, so I think there's nothing she can really do.

Blather, "anti-choice?" Really? Does this mean your new label is "anti-life?"

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"wlillie" wrote:

No, it doesn't matter about how she lost the pregnancy, anyone who is taken in by an idiot like the abusive boyfriend isn't someone I'd trust with my child. Her decision making skills aren't all that great since she also took the step to take him to court making this a HUGE deal in the media instead of just letting it go. I feel for her and I'm sorry if she did have a miscarriage, but the sign does draw attention to all of the anti-male choice people in the world who don't care about the murder of those male's children. Can you imagine someone telling you that they choose for your baby to die no matter what and you can't do anything about it?

I think that this is incredibly harsh. Talk about blaming the victim. I know lots of people who dated (or married) good people who changed, who became bad people, or who did bad things. I applaud them for leaving the jerk, I don't condemn them for ever dating them in the first place.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"Potter75" wrote:

I think that this is incredibly harsh. Talk about blaming the victim. I know lots of people who dated (or married) good people who changed, who became bad people, or who did bad things. I applaud them for leaving the jerk, I don't condemn them for ever dating them in the first place.

So you'd leave your children with her? Because that was the question. I wasn't talking about being friends with her or working with her, but I wouldn't leave my children with someone that makes decisions that lead to having portions of their life plastered on a billboard. Maybe I'm just overprotective.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I have no idea if I would leave my children with her, I've never met her! I certainly would not base something like that on the decisions of an ex boyfriend of hers, that would be ridiculous! I would hope that no one judges me on some of the people I used to date. There is a reason I USED to date them, but chose to marry my husband.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"b525" wrote:

Blather, "anti-choice?" Really? Does this mean your new label is "anti-life?"

No. I am certainly not anti-life. I don't think I have given any indication I am. Where does this come from?

Not sure why people are upset about the word "anti-choice." I mean, that's the terminology in the USA, right? Someone could certainly be anti-abortion but not support legislation taking away appropriate removal of third-trimester miscarriage surgeries from obgyns, obviously.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"wlillie" wrote:

So you'd leave your children with her? Because that was the question. I wasn't talking about being friends with her or working with her, but I wouldn't leave my children with someone that makes decisions that lead to having portions of their life plastered on a billboard. Maybe I'm just overprotective.

But with "free speech" anyone could post a billboard about anyone as long as they have the money. You post on the internet all the time, what if you piss someone off enough for them to put up a billboard lying about you? Would that be okay? Would it then be your fault that you got fired or your kids' friends were no longer allowed to play with your kids? Of course not!

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"blather" wrote:

But with "free speech" anyone could post a billboard about anyone as long as they have the money. You post on the internet all the time, what if you piss someone off enough for them to put up a billboard lying about you? Would that be okay? Would it then be your fault that you got fired or your kids' friends were no longer allowed to play with your kids? Of course not!

That's just a silly comparison. I'm not sleeping with people on the internet. :rolleyes: I never said I would fire someone or not let their kids be friends with mine, I just wouldn't trust their judgement to watch my child.

I don't like the term anti-choice because that sounds like women don't have any choices. They most definitely do and just because they chose to not use any of them to prevent an unwanted pregnancy doesn't mean an innocent child should be murdered because they made bad decisions. If you are supporting women's "right" to harm their fetus, then you can't be upset about people saying anti-life when you continue to use anti-choice. You aren't asking people to have abortions, and we're not asking people to have unwanted children. I'm sure everyone wishes abortion wasn't an issue and that people made responsible choices. We just differ on when those choices end. I think it should end when a life starts and anti-life people think it ends when the mother feels like it unless the child is able to live on it's own.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"wlillie" wrote:

You aren't asking people to have abortions, and we're not asking people to have unwanted children. I'm sure everyone wishes abortion wasn't an issue and that people made responsible choices. We just differ on when those choices end. I think it should end when a life starts and anti-life people think it ends when the mother feels like it unless the child is able to live on it's own.

I guess that is where we disagree. Not only are the anti-choicers in the US (and I get that they are not all the same!) lobbying to make women keep unwanted pregnancies, they actually force women to risk their health by delivering miscarriages (wanted babies) instead of having appropriate surgical removal procedures.

I do think you are right on the second part though, one of the reasons why I am so active in reproductive choice issues is that I want people to choose birth control, I want unwanted pregnancies to be reduced, but I know the only way to do that is with education, better sexual health care for men and women, improving adoption processes, destigmatizing adoption, and expanding the number of sexual health providers in places where there are few, whether that is central Africa or South Dakota.

I don't think that publicly harassing women who have had miscarriages in any way shape or form will decrease the abortion rate or increase birth control use.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

Has anyone ever had a problem getting their birth control on this board? It's an honest question. In your life (at any point including as a teen) when you were sexually active did you not have access to some form of birth control? Have you met someone that had children or got an abortion because they didn't understand birth control or have access to it?

I've literally never met anyone who didn't have access to either a health clinic or some other place to get birth control. Our high school had condoms in a little bowl in the counselors office in a very very Conservative Christian area. It's not that people don't know what they should do or don't have the means to do it, it's just they know they have a backup if they need it and most don't think it will happen to them. If abortion was illegal, we wouldn't have to worry about Dad's rights or women's rights as much because if you take away the safety net, a lot of people will start using Planned Parenthood for the reason that we can all agree on. Preventing pregnancy instead of "terminating" it after it's already happened.

You can't compare the data from decades past with the abortion issue IMHO. In 2011 there is literally no reason for people to be making babies they don't want. And if they do, there are SOOO many people that want to adopt. So many.

Dad's should have the right to voice their opinion and not have their babies killed if they want them, even if the mother doesn't. It's wrong.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6697

If I remember correctly the original article said nothing about a miscarriage, but an abortion. If I was a man and someone aborted my child without my consent I would be devastated. And I can totally see someone so heart broken and devastated wanting to get back at the person who did it however possible.

The real issue is when does life begin? If you believe that a baby still inside the womb is a real live baby, then there is no way you would believe abortion should be legal. A 2 day old baby would completely change my life. I would have to use my money to feed and cloth a baby, it could change my social life. No one would ever dream of saying it was ok for me to kill my already born child because it was inconvenient.

If you believe the baby is not alive and not a real person but just an extension of the mother like a appendix or a kidney then maybe I can see where you are coming from. But consider this. If life ends when the heart stops beating, wouldn't it make sense that life begins when the heart starts beating?

I have 3 premature girls. My last daughter spent 2 1/2 weeks in the NICU. I saw plenty of premature babies there. Yes there is a huge cost involved in their care, but how could anyone say it should be ok for a mother to kill those babies if it was inconvenient if they were still pg. I also have been in the position where my life was in extreme risk while pg. With DD1 I had pre-eclampsia. It came to the point where it was my life or hers. They did not kill her, just delivered her with the best doctors there to give her the best chance possible.

This said, while I strongly believe abortion should be illegal, I do not hate anyone who has had one. You deserve all of the love and support you can get. In this case, the abortion has already happened and this man will not get his child back by publicly humiliating is x.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"wlillie" wrote:

Has anyone ever had a problem getting their birth control on this board? It's an honest question. In your life (at any point including as a teen) when you were sexually active did you not have access to some form of birth control? Have you met someone that had children or got an abortion because they didn't understand birth control or have access to it?

I've literally never met anyone who didn't have access to either a health clinic or some other place to get birth control. Our high school had condoms in a little bowl in the counselors office in a very very Conservative Christian area. It's not that people don't know what they should do or don't have the means to do it, it's just they know they have a backup if they need it and most don't think it will happen to them. If abortion was illegal, we wouldn't have to worry about Dad's rights or women's rights as much because if you take away the safety net, a lot of people will start using Planned Parenthood for the reason that we can all agree on. Preventing pregnancy instead of "terminating" it after it's already happened.

You can't compare the data from decades past with the abortion issue IMHO. In 2011 there is literally no reason for people to be making babies they don't want. And if they do, there are SOOO many people that want to adopt. So many.

Dad's should have the right to voice their opinion and not have their babies killed if they want them, even if the mother doesn't. It's wrong.

I had access to birth control but only thanks to planned parenthood in my early 20's, I had no health insurance. I've also had birth control fail me (we got pregnant before we were planning to, though we were planning on more children and were married and financially secure so it was nothing but good news to us). I think that you act like birth control is fail proof. It isn't.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"Potter75" wrote:

I had access to birth control but only thanks to planned parenthood in my early 20's, I had no health insurance. I've also had birth control fail me (we got pregnant before we were planning to, though we were planning on more children and were married and financially secure so it was nothing but good news to us). I think that you act like birth control is fail proof. It isn't.

Just one form is a minimum of 90% effective with proper usage. You can use 6 different types of birth control together, so unless you are raped then I do believe that a woman should be able to keep herself from accidentally becoming pregnant. Maybe because my first serious boyfriend's brother had two kids while on birth control scared me and I'm overly cautious, but I've never used less than three kinds unless I was in a stable committed relationship where a baby would be if not completely welcome, definitely taken care of.

Don't you think if abortion wasn't an option other people would be scared into being more cautious too?

Today in 2011, you can use condoms (male or female), a diaphragm, hormonal birth control in the form of pills, shot, patch, and inplant device, spermicide, a non-hormonal IUD, natural family planning, and the old-fashioned and not reliable pull out method. I'm sure there are more, those are just the ones I've been exposed to. Abortion, except in cases of rape and medical necessity, should be a thing of the past.

eta-I have no problems with Planned Parenthood in general. I used to donate to them before I realized they also performed abortions and if circumstances change and they become only a Prevention Planned Parenthood, then I'll donate again.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Last I read something like 50% of ALL PREGNANCIES in the US are unplanned. I get what you are saying "in theory"...but "in theory" I also get why no one should ever smoke, everyone should eat a well rounded diet and no one should be overweight, in such a wealthy nation no one should be hungry, etc etc etc.

The reality of life is a lot different than the "in theory". I don't think that it is realistic to believe that all people will effectively use and have access to multiple forms of birth control at all times.

ETA: No, unfortunately I don't think that people would be scared into using three kinds of birth control at the same time if abortion was illegal. Just like the threat of death and cancer isn't enough to stop people from smoking cigs, or the threat of heart disease and early death isn't enough to get people to put down the twinkie.

Pages