Bowsite.com

There, fixed it.

Cant' say the content above surprises me. If you restrict people's rights, there going to go where they aren't restricted. If you make it illegal, they're going to find alternatives.

"Welcome to Colorado...where we'll help you kill your baby!"

Don't like guns? Don't own a gun

Liberty and Freedom. What novel idea.

I think BEG nailed it.

Do we have a responsibility to protect one another ? the vulnerable ? the most vulnerable of all ?

Clearly we have laws that prohibit the infringement upon others... It seem that the two sides differ as to where the rights of "a being" begin or end.

At some point it is not about the woman only. There is your Novel idea .

Apparently : If we don't " restrict rights " some won't know rights from wrongs . The Law is for those that need to know the line that they threaten to cross. Just because something is legal does not make it moral. But it is the bottom line and not necessarily a persons right unless that law says it is. Therefore, when the law changes, the right is gone.

For moral people there is no need to nitpick about laws and rights ... We don't get that close .

I fail to see how a billboard highlighting that abortions are legal in a state will somehow infringe upon the privacy of a woman choosing to get an abortion.

And agree with your statement that just because something is legal doesn’t make it moral to everyone.

Everyone establishes their own morals and they aren’t the same for everyone.

The old billboard smoking advertisements for another example, that is similar to this.

She has the rights to privacy and others have the rights to not be infringed upon. For example the current removal of public religious objects, the mention of God, flying flags, expression of speech with clothing or hats ... for the sake of the offended atheists and such.

Prohibition, War on Drugs, Human trafficking, you just force stuff underground. If their intent is to exterminate life they will do it.

Sad that those in poverty and rich liberals have no regard for life but I guess they think they are doing their part for global warming and overpopulation.

40% abortion rate among poor blacks, Margaret Sanger would be proud...

Well then I’m not sure why referenced me because the only reference I made to privacy was about the desire for many women to keep this decision to have an abortion private.

If you want to have a different conversation, then that’s fine and dandy, but it didn’t seem to have anything to do with the point I’m making which is why I responded the way I did.

In my opinion making a billboard announcing the " welcome all " for this act , in a public space, has nothing to do with a persons privacy . It infringes on other peoples rights to live without this in their face.

I referenced your comment simply to make the point that it is not a private act if its on a public billboard. It's a public notice . A sad and rather disgusting one at that.

Agreed....... I don’t want this crap nor the guy with the aborted fetus picture shoving this crap in the face of my family....

Understood, though I disagree that the nature of an act being public has anything to do with that act being referenced in any kind of media.

The next Billboard could be just as BB is concerned about. It could get really ugly.

Inconvenience is not a health issue.

And where did she get this idea ? "Truth is, most Americans are in the middle, but our politicians on both sides aren’t representing that very well."

That stated, we do need to remove the element of shame from unwanted pregnancy. That is particularly true in a society that perversely delays by years the onset on legitimate adulthood for our youth.

Agree with Owl. When they bring up the "rare" issue of pro-choice, it flies in the face of pro-choice politicians cheering the passage of late term abortions right up until delivery, or the denying of medical care to those that survive an abortion.

Great post at Patriot Retort...and true.