twa Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 They have been. They usually win. Because they are attorneys and know the law.WBC does not do what everyone seems to think WBC does. They don't walk into funeral homes and start screaming at grieving parents. Typically' date=' the grieving parents never see them.[/quote'] So if the woman seeks out the billboard her distress is not valid? It must be imposed upon her is what you claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Predicto...why isn't WBC being sued for emotional distress then?I think you have lowered the bar too far WBC isn't being sued for emotional distress because they are clearly exercising their first amendment rights on a matter of public concern. But the First Amendment doesn't automatically protect everything that one says merely because you used your vocal cords or writing ability to say it. If you go into a bathroom and spraypaint "Anita Smith is a Slut!" on the wall, Anita Smith might be able to sue you for infliction of emotional distress. It's a complicated area of law where two principles collide, which is why the Supreme Court needed to weigh in on the Westboro picketing in the Snyder v. Phelps case a couple years ago. This case falls in between too, and you may be right, this could be viewed as a billboard expressing an opinion on a matter of public concern, not an effort to punish his ex-wife. So maybe it wouldn't survive summary judgment after all. Hmmm. It's a tough one, actually. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 And the guy who did this billboard didn't break the law, but he is a complete jerk. IMO. A father who has an indescribable love for his child that he has lost, that he wants to keep others from falling to the same trap, is a jerk ? Wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Would a reasonable person conclude that the abortion caused HIM emotional distress? No reasonable person would be able to find that she had an abortion solely to cause him emotional distress. We all suffer emotional distress in our lives, and don't get to sue people for it. We only get to sue when someone does something rotten JUST to cause distress to us. (gross simplification for message board purposes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 So if the woman seeks out the billboard her distress is not valid?It must be imposed upon her is what you claim? Her distress is still valid, but the question of "intent" would come into play. Let's say you decided to put up a billboard saying that LKB once had sex with his mother. However, you put it up on a rural highway in North Dakota - knowing that I have never been to ND, know no one in ND, and never plan on visiting ND. You also know that no one outside of this forum knows me by this handle and there is almost zero chance that anyone who knows the handle would see the sign. Are you intentionally causing me emotional distress? If somehow I found out about it, book a trip to North Dakota, and drove to the site....was that part of your plan? Probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 They are also ignoring the fact that the baby is just as much the father's, as it is the mothers. As soon as it is out of her body, I agree with you. Until then, I can't agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 As soon as it is out of her body, I agree with you. Until then, I can't agree. This goes to the "when is the fertilized egg a person" argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Predicto is always better at avoiding "yes/no" answers than I am. I should probably work on that. But that doesn't make for great message board discussion. Any case involving the first amendment has tension in it. Libel laws are one of these tensions. I have the right to express myself - but not if I lie and that lie damages someone's reputation. Likewise, I have the right to express myself, but not if in doing so, I am intending to injure another party. I don't think this specific example would be considered "political speech" as Predicto alludes to. It is far too specific. I mean, if the father put up a bulletin board near his ex's house that said "Abortion is evil" that would almost certainly be political speech. Saying X is evil because she had an abortion probably crosses the line of pure political speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The text of the billboard says "if the mother had decided to not kill our baby," not her name. Unless someone is familiar with the guy or the girl, most people would have no idea who it was talking about, and would have probably attributed it to a pro-life group. I'm not trying to say it was the right thing to do, but I wouldn't count it as libel only because he didn't use her name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 If it were up to me I think I would change abortion laws to some thing like this. First no abortion could happen with just the woman wanting it and the father having no say in this. Let me get this out of the way. Sorry but I don't buy the "incubation means that a man has no rights" arguement at all. There isn't a logical explanation to this arguement. Could a woman get pregnant without the help of the man? Can her egg suddenly produce the sperm required to cause this? Not without artifical insemination. So really how could someone suggest that two people equally make something therefore only one side gets to make the decision to keep it? So no abortion could happen without both parties being involved in the decision. Second I would seperate the rights of abortion from married and unmarried. When a woman wants goes to a Dr to get the baby aborted she should be asked who the father is. If the womans married and she says she doesn't know the father should be contacted about this to keep women from lying about that. If the woman is single and she claims not to know who the Father was of the baby then she can get the abortion with no questions asked. A married woman and a single woman would be treated differently and this would ensure that some "easy abortions" could still happen, provided the woman isn't married. Any single guy out there who wants a kid would need to marry the woman to have a say in keeping it or not. The married Father should be included in the abort or not abort discussion at the very least. If the married man doesn't want the abortion and the married woman wants it anyway then the married man should be able to sign some legal document that lets him off the hook for any money to be paid to her if she decides to keep the baby. In essance if the man loses the right to keep his child, the woman loses her right to change her mind at a later date and stick the guy with responsibility for paying for the child. If on the other hand the married man wants the woman to abort the child but the married woman wants to keep the baby then the married woman should have to sign some legal document stating she knowingly is going to get no help from the man for child support. The issue gets clouded when it comes down to the 18+ years of responsibility after the childs born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 No reasonable person would be able to find that she had an abortion solely to cause him emotional distress. We all suffer emotional distress in our lives, and don't get to sue people for it. We only get to sue when someone does something rotten JUST to cause distress to us. We could only come to a conclusion knowing all the facts. She could have had the (alleged) abortion out of spite, or he could claim she did, even if she didn't. My point is that another poster felt she win for emotional distress. My point is that it would never get in front of a judge. I am basing this mostly on the fact that they are married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 This goes to the "when is the fertilized egg a person" argument. Not really. It goes to "Who has control over your medical decisions?" This is a lousy analogy, but **** it. Should a husband be able to stop a wife from having a breast reduction? Should a husband be able to stop a wife from having a hysterectomy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 This goes to the "when is the fertilized egg a person" argument. I'm beginning to come to the point where I truly no longer no where I stand on the abortion issue. It seems to me that, at some point, you're talking technicalities and lawyer speak when you start putting a timeline on when it's a fertilized egg vs when it's a person. What if we're wrong? The more I think about it the harder time I have justifying abortion for convenience's sake being a legal option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Yep.I'm glad he did this. If anything, it brings to the forefront how powerless fathers are, yet they are expected to pony up. Two way street. pregnancy isn't a two way street and woman didn't decide that rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The text of the billboard says "if the mother had decided to not kill our baby," not her name. Unless someone is familiar with the guy or the girl, most people would have no idea who it was talking about, and would have probably attributed it to a pro-life group.I'm not trying to say it was the right thing to do, but I wouldn't count it as libel only because he didn't use her name. No one has said that this is libel. And it couldn't be libel for the simple fact that it is presumably true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Not really. It goes to "Who has control over your medical decisions?"This is a lousy analogy' date=' but **** it. Should a husband be able to stop a wife from having a breast reduction? Should a husband be able to stop a wife from having a hysterectomy?[/quote'] If her breast was a person, she shouldn't be allowed to abort it. :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 If it were up to me I think I would change abortion laws to some thing like this. First no abortion could happen with just the woman wanting it and the father having no say in this. Let me get this out of the way. That seems like a positively medeival rule. I can't imagine a situation where someone else has the power to veto my medical decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I think its much more disturbing that a person would choose to abort their own child. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z9f9Eybv4I#t=01m19s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 And there you have it, folks. Men have to pay to support kids that are theirs, and women don't have to pay to support kids that aren't theirs, therefore women get all the breaks and men get shafted. Women have an out when they get knocked up and don't want the kid. Men are strapped by the balls for a minimum of 18 years in the same predicament. Therefore, absolutely yes, men get shafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 If her breast was a person, she shouldn't be allowed to abort it. :paranoid: Look. Let's not turn this into a general "Should abortion be legal" debate. If you think abortion should be illegal, you think abortion should be illegal. That's your right to believe that. But if it remains legal, you can't give someone else veto power over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 That seems like a positively medeival rule. I can't imagine a situation where someone else has the power to veto my medical decisions. Yeah but how often is abortion really a medical decision vs a convenience or "can't afford the hassle" decision? Do we really trust lawyers to decide when an egg becomes a person and again, what if we're wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Not really. It goes to "Who has control over your medical decisions?"This is a lousy analogy' date=' but **** it. Should a husband be able to stop a wife from having a breast reduction? Should a husband be able to stop a wife from having a hysterectomy?[/quote'] You're right, a lousy analogy. The answer is of course not. That's why I think my argument concerning when the egg is a person is valid. Once the semen enters the egg, it becomes their child. Part of him is now in her, willingly I might add. So what gives the female sole right to execute the pregnancy? Look, 9 times out of 10 the father will side with the woman regarding abortion. We are programmed that way. Maybe we can try again another day when we plan it or are ready, that is of course if the abortion doesn't prevent future pregnancies. But the woman allowed the man to impregnate her. I think that gives the man some right over what happens with the pregnancy. She didn't even tell him she was going to do it. ---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 02:05 PM ---------- pregnancy isn't a two way street and woman didn't decide that rule. Yeah if you're a rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z9f9Eybv4I#t=01m19s Uh-huh. But you're comfortable calling this guy is a jerk because...you know what its like to be him? :slap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 No one has said that this is libel.And it couldn't be libel for the simple fact that it is presumably true. Fair enough. I read the first few posts and caught whiff of someone claiming libel. However, by not mentioning her name, only people familiar with the situation would know that it was her he was talking about. By bringing the law into this like she has, she's made it worse on herself by letting the world know it was her, specifically. He could have handled it better, but she could have also. Most people, I would guess, just attribute the billboard to a pro-life group. Not one person specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Women have an out when they get knocked up and don't want the kid. Men are strapped by the balls for a minimum of 18 years in the same predicament. Therefore, absolutely yes, men get shafted. This is something some of you pro choicers don't seem to grasp and I fully understand where the hog is coming from. One missed pill, ripped condom, untimely pull out and the man's life is in the woman's hands re: this decision. The woman can end it. The man is completely powerless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.