Profane, if it is legal it shouldn't be.
2007-02-24 05:21:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Actually, although only 12% of abortions in America are committed in the second and third trimester, that is still 156,000 babies a year. The picture you saw was probably the one of baby "Malachi," aborted at 21 weeks:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/babymalachi.htm
Yes, it's legal. It's called freedom of speech. The truth about abortion is covered up by the mainstream media. They like to use euphemisms like "choice," while avoiding the reality of what abortion actually does to unborn children. This guy was getting the truth out in an alternative manner. Good for him.
By the way, even the very earliest first trimester abortions are equally horrific to view:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-video.html
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures.html
2007-02-24 10:29:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
As long as he is not running out into traffic, this should be legal. He is well within his First Amendment guarentee of freedom of speech. If we took away this right from people as soon as one person was offended, no one would have this freedom. Political correctness would be an example of this type of limitation on freedom of speech.
I will agree that the sign may be disgusting and offensive, but it is protected under the Constitution.
2007-02-24 05:21:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by msi_cord 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Unfortunaly it is legal. Even ignorant people get to have freedom of speech. Also worth mentioning though, to protest you have a permit. But in this case, I'm pretty sure not. I would agree you with you though, take yur sign somplace else buddy
2007-02-24 05:27:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Wendy G 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Third trimester abortions DO happen...might want to check your facts on that.
Yes it is legal...1st Amendment
WHen people start thinking of the feelings (PHYSICAL) of babies that are killed through abortion...than those against it will think of their feelings.
No sympathy from me when you are pro-baby killer.
WHen it stops...then this type of FREE SPEECH will stop.
2007-02-24 05:27:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
It's called Freedom of Speech.
2007-02-24 05:17:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
the place is the exciting with out the threat ? i for my area think of it is going to replace wrestling as an olympic interest. as properly in case you get on JD's group you will no longer even evaluate the threat, only savour the "exercising" fee of the interest
2016-11-25 20:56:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by capallia 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
As long as there are no genitalia (or nipples, if the fetus would have been female) are showing, they probably won't get bothered. THAT would be considered indecent.
2007-02-24 05:41:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by oimwoomwio 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
That while gross and untrue, is still our Constitutional 1st amendment right.
I would not call it public nudity.
2007-02-24 05:37:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by me 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
that would be Freedom of Speech. I saw a bumper sticker-"no fat chicks allowed-my truck will scrape" (lowered Chvey).
2007-02-24 05:17:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Unless he impedes traffic (vehicular or pedestrian), I see no problem with it. If our freedoms were limited to the non-offensive, we wouldn't have any freedom at all!
2007-02-24 05:18:37
·
answer #11
·
answered by Michael E 5
·
0⤊
0⤋