[güttsfükk]

Originally Posted by Amy. ↗

I read up on it so I would think any info into the situation would be relevant to my opinion of the situation. I did provide the link which led to other articles. :)

if that's the case then i can see why she'd say it impedes on her privacy, but by going to the media she's made the problem world wide. so in that sense she's her own worse enemy.

sort of like when celebrities try to get courts to make it illegal to talk about their affairs, yet doing so brings media attention to the whole issue and rather than protect their privacy blows it out into the open

[Amy]

Originally Posted by güttsfükk ↗

if that's the case then i can see why she'd say it impedes on her privacy, but by going to the media she's made the problem world wide. so in that sense she's her own worse enemy.

sort of like when celebrities try to get courts to make it illegal to talk about their affairs, yet doing so brings media attention to the whole issue and rather than protect their privacy blows it out into the open

Totally agree. I never understood that sort of a thing. I am emotionally damaged because you said that in public and Im going to tell my story of distress to CNN. I have a feeling they are both morons.

[güttsfükk]

it's also a shitty bit of journalism considering they fail to leave out important details, making it sound like the woman's a lot more of a drama queen than she is. doesnt have a neutral feeling

[~WicKeD~]

I don't see how this photo'd be demeaning to the woman who got the abortion since there's no irrefutable evidence that the plaintiff of this lawsuit is actually mentioned in the photo other than the word "Girlfriend" & her relevancy to the "unidentified" man on the billboard. She can eat a sack of fetuses.

[Amy]

Originally Posted by güttsfükk ↗

it's also a shitty bit of journalism considering they fail to leave out important details, making it sound like the woman's a lot more of a drama queen than she is. doesnt have a neutral feeling

The only thing I can think of is that this was a preliminary article and that as the information rolled in they subsequent details were released. Not sure but this article doesn't even mention that the REAL pro-life organization yanked their endorsement.

[TheHag]

I didn't see her name anywhere, so it really doesn't infringe on her privacy rights IMO ....

[BugDude]

It's not his call anyways. She's the one that had to carry to term. Maybe something happened between them and she didn't want to bare the child. Whatever happened it was her choice


He sounds like a psycho and obviously is an ex for a reason

[TheHag]

But it was his choice to voice his opinion on it. It is her decision, but as we all know, big decisions like that, usually affect more than one person...

[snacky]

it ceases to be "free speech" when it is sponsored by three anti-choice organizations...also it is defamatory to the woman (even though her name is not on it) because it features a real photo of the man in question, AND also uses a time reference that no doubt places them together as a couple. so...unless he was a womanizer there would be only one woman that the billboard could be referring to.

despicable, imo.

[güttsfükk]

Originally Posted by Amy. ↗

The only thing I can think of is that this was a preliminary article and that as the information rolled in they subsequent details were released. Not sure but this article doesn't even mention that the REAL pro-life organization yanked their endorsement.

you should update your post, i try to update posts with updated articles, thebbc likes to update their articles they post so i do liketo go in there and update them sometimes., that's another reason i add dates n such in here