Protest outside of abortion clinics. Does it go to far?

[Gorrath]

Freedom of speech/freedom of expression does not mean you are entitled to a forum to express those views in. Also, it definitely doesn't protect your speech from criticism by other people. So while those dickbags have a right to protest, everyone else has the right to call them out on their assholery.

While I do agree that one's freedom of speech does not guarantee them a protection from criticism, in the United States you are actually guaranteed a forum to express your views in. That's what freedom of assembly is all about. That's why the Westboro people or the New Black Panther Party can't just be sent packing because they espouse really vile beliefs.

 

[Gorrath]

Given that abortion clinic protests have a history of becoming violent, adding a reasonably-sized buffer between the clinic and protestors is a good move. Reasonably sized. That doesn't mean that they have to be three hundred feet away at minimum. They have their right to protest. They can protest using all the nasty language and imagery that they want. Their right to protest ends at a patron's body, and given the long history of physical harassment and assault of patrons, its a reasonable precaution to move them some distance away that doesn't severely hamper their ability to do their protest.

The camera stuff is really complicated. It draws some moral lines, sure, but people have a right to say nasty things about people and provide evidence for their claims. When some homophobic politician or activist is seen going into a hotel room with a hooker of the same sex, their faces aren't blurred out either. I was suppose that the right to photograph or film a person without their consent ends on private property.

I'd just say that the right to film proceedings probably outweighs privacy considerations. By the same token, you can cover your face pretty easily when you head to the clinic, and probably should.

The buffer zone you describe is the real issue, and I find attempts to attack even a minimum safe buffer zone very sinister.

But there is still no need to film people walking into clinics in the first place. Even if you cover your face, there will always be one person that will recognise them. Using fear and harassment to make a point is a dishonest tactic and puts more women and those who work or just visit the clinic at risk.

I agree, but practically speaking there is no way to stop it anymore. We're well into a time when everyone has a phone, and every phone has cameras. We also have the ability to film from a great distance, or use pinhole cameras. Between cheap thermal imaging, cheap drones, cheap CCD's for cameras and cheap storage for movies... privacy is done.

I think we have a cultural issue that isn't keeping up with the tech. There really was a time in the United States when certain things weren't filmed not because they couldn't be filmed but because people felt it would be disrespectful to do so. That respect has eroded and failed because we are now so distant from one another as people. We should, all of us, strive to have more empathy for our fellow person. Without that, the ability to invade another's life becomes a passtime that too many engage in with glee, whether its doxing folks on the internet or filming everyone who goes into an abortion clinic. I really wish we, as a culture, just plain had more respect for one another.

 

[Akjosch]

I'm a pro-life atheist myself so the scientific side of things is precisely the angle I argue from. Unfortunately, the arguments men like Hitchens or I might put forth in defense of the pro-life side get drowned out by a sea of religious nonsense. Abortion as a topic is such an emotionally charged one that you practically can't even have a discussion. I'm one to wade into most any topic no matter how controversial and defend my beliefs with the best arguments that can be made but even I clam up when it comes to abortion talks. The people who tend to agree with my point of view don't actually agree with my point of view and the people who disagree with my point of view are often arguing just as emotionally/illogically charged with vitriol and hate as the pro-lifers they despise. A glance around the comments so far in this thread makes me want to duck and cover rather than engage. I picked your comment out because you at least acknowledge that there is a debate to be had that is sensible and based in reality.

See: I'm the polar opposite in this matter. I'm a pro-choice Christian. I will support a family member's or friend's abortion without pressuring them into any choice, and once that's done I will go to church and light a candle for the little life which didn't get a chance.

And yet: The discussion needs to happen, and it needs to be grounded both in solid science (When does viable life begin? When does consciousness?) and in a viable moral foundation for the society (When does an organism become a person? Which rights have parents over their children?) - not in emotion. No matter what I feel about it.

 

[Gorrath]

Given that abortion clinic protests have a history of becoming violent, adding a reasonably-sized buffer between the clinic and protestors is a good move. Reasonably sized. That doesn't mean that they have to be three hundred feet away at minimum. They have their right to protest. They can protest using all the nasty language and imagery that they want. Their right to protest ends at a patron's body, and given the long history of physical harassment and assault of patrons, its a reasonable precaution to move them some distance away that doesn't severely hamper their ability to do their protest.

The camera stuff is really complicated. It draws some moral lines, sure, but people have a right to say nasty things about people and provide evidence for their claims. When some homophobic politician or activist is seen going into a hotel room with a hooker of the same sex, their faces aren't blurred out either. I was suppose that the right to photograph or film a person without their consent ends on private property.

I'd just say that the right to film proceedings probably outweighs privacy considerations. By the same token, you can cover your face pretty easily when you head to the clinic, and probably should.

The buffer zone you describe is the real issue, and I find attempts to attack even a minimum safe buffer zone very sinister.

But there is still no need to film people walking into clinics in the first place. Even if you cover your face, there will always be one person that will recognise them. Using fear and harassment to make a point is a dishonest tactic and puts more women and those who work or just visit the clinic at risk.

I agree, but practically speaking there is no way to stop it anymore. We're well into a time when everyone has a phone, and every phone has cameras. We also have the ability to film from a great distance, or use pinhole cameras. Between cheap thermal imaging, cheap drones, cheap CCD's for cameras and cheap storage for movies... privacy is done.

I think we have a cultural issue that isn't keeping up with the tech. There really was a time in the United States when certain things weren't filmed not because they couldn't be filmed but because people felt it would be disrespectful to do so. That respect has eroded and failed because we are now so distant from one another as people. We should, all of us, strive to have more empathy for our fellow person. Without that, the ability to invade another's life becomes a passtime that too many engage in with glee, whether its doxing folks on the internet or filming everyone who goes into an abortion clinic. I really wish we, as a culture, just plain had more respect for one another.

I think that idea of a respectful past is mythical, and while I wish that human nature wasn't what it was, it is. Technology empowers people, and their natures, for good or ill.

I think there's good reason to think it's not mythical. Even the press was respectful enough of the president to not flm FDR getting in or out of his car because of his battle with polio. These days a politically charged press would make a huge deal out of it, film it and hound him about it. I'm not saying the past was some golden age where no one had a bad word to say about anyone but there were certain lines that we enforced culturally that have vanished.

 

[Gorrath]

I'm a pro-life atheist myself so the scientific side of things is precisely the angle I argue from. Unfortunately, the arguments men like Hitchens or I might put forth in defense of the pro-life side get drowned out by a sea of religious nonsense. Abortion as a topic is such an emotionally charged one that you practically can't even have a discussion. I'm one to wade into most any topic no matter how controversial and defend my beliefs with the best arguments that can be made but even I clam up when it comes to abortion talks. The people who tend to agree with my point of view don't actually agree with my point of view and the people who disagree with my point of view are often arguing just as emotionally/illogically charged with vitriol and hate as the pro-lifers they despise. A glance around the comments so far in this thread makes me want to duck and cover rather than engage. I picked your comment out because you at least acknowledge that there is a debate to be had that is sensible and based in reality.

See: I'm the polar opposite in this matter. I'm a pro-choice Christian. I will support a family member's or friend's abortion without pressuring them into any choice, and once that's done I will go to church and light a candle for the little life which didn't get a chance.

And yet: The discussion needs to happen, and it needs to be grounded both in solid science (When does viable life begin? When does consciousness?) and in a viable moral foundation for the society (When does an organism become a person? Which rights have parents over their children?) - not in emotion. No matter what I feel about it.

That's precisely how I feel about it. There are some really hard topics at hand and a lot of stake within the abortion debate, which you articulate perfectly. But often, even trying to have these talks, no matter which side of it you're on, is met with a degree of unnecessary hostility and hurt feelings that the very topic becomes a bit of a taboo. If you don't mind me asking, how do you square your faith with being pro-choice? Is it a matter of distancing your religious belief from the practical concerns of government and other people's lives? I'd be interested to know more about your point of view.

 

[Gorrath]

Given that abortion clinic protests have a history of becoming violent, adding a reasonably-sized buffer between the clinic and protestors is a good move. Reasonably sized. That doesn't mean that they have to be three hundred feet away at minimum. They have their right to protest. They can protest using all the nasty language and imagery that they want. Their right to protest ends at a patron's body, and given the long history of physical harassment and assault of patrons, its a reasonable precaution to move them some distance away that doesn't severely hamper their ability to do their protest.

The camera stuff is really complicated. It draws some moral lines, sure, but people have a right to say nasty things about people and provide evidence for their claims. When some homophobic politician or activist is seen going into a hotel room with a hooker of the same sex, their faces aren't blurred out either. I was suppose that the right to photograph or film a person without their consent ends on private property.

I'd just say that the right to film proceedings probably outweighs privacy considerations. By the same token, you can cover your face pretty easily when you head to the clinic, and probably should.

The buffer zone you describe is the real issue, and I find attempts to attack even a minimum safe buffer zone very sinister.

But there is still no need to film people walking into clinics in the first place. Even if you cover your face, there will always be one person that will recognise them. Using fear and harassment to make a point is a dishonest tactic and puts more women and those who work or just visit the clinic at risk.

I agree, but practically speaking there is no way to stop it anymore. We're well into a time when everyone has a phone, and every phone has cameras. We also have the ability to film from a great distance, or use pinhole cameras. Between cheap thermal imaging, cheap drones, cheap CCD's for cameras and cheap storage for movies... privacy is done.

I think we have a cultural issue that isn't keeping up with the tech. There really was a time in the United States when certain things weren't filmed not because they couldn't be filmed but because people felt it would be disrespectful to do so. That respect has eroded and failed because we are now so distant from one another as people. We should, all of us, strive to have more empathy for our fellow person. Without that, the ability to invade another's life becomes a passtime that too many engage in with glee, whether its doxing folks on the internet or filming everyone who goes into an abortion clinic. I really wish we, as a culture, just plain had more respect for one another.

I think that idea of a respectful past is mythical, and while I wish that human nature wasn't what it was, it is. Technology empowers people, and their natures, for good or ill.

I think there's good reason to think it's not mythical. Even the press was respectful enough of the president to not flm FDR getting in or out of his car because of his battle with polio. These days a politically charged press would make a huge deal out of it, film it and hound him about it. I'm not saying the past was some golden age where no one had a bad word to say about anyone but there were certain lines that we enforced culturally that have vanished.

I don't think it's that unusual for the head of state to get special treatment from the media, then or now. How that presents itself changes along with changing cultural norms, but "His kids are off limits" is still clearly there. If you're not the president though... lol

Not these days, coverage of President Obama's kids and his wife has been pretty astoundingly disrespectful at times. I'm not convinced anyone or anything is off limits for the media anymore. FDR's challenges were dealt with in a pretty respectful manner. Do you think that such consideration would be afforded to him now? Because I can't imagine his disability being anything but a topic for rampant hyperbole in the media, for and against him.

 

[Akjosch]

If you don't mind me asking, how do you square your faith with being pro-choice? Is it a matter of distancing your religious belief from the practical concerns of government and other people's lives? I'd be interested to know more about your point of view.

The same way I justify euthanasia and self-defence: Sometimes all the roads before you are harmful, and not taking any leads to an even worse outcome. In this case, it's best to chose the least harmful one, to the best of your knowledge and abilities, and honestly and ruefully atone for your sins later.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Unless you are actually harming someone else, in my book there is no such thing as "too far" when defending human life.

Reagan put it very well: "all those who support slavery are free, and all those who support abortion are born". This is how oppression works.

 

[Gorrath]

I'm a pro-life atheist myself so the scientific side of things is precisely the angle I argue from. Unfortunately, the arguments men like Hitchens or I might put forth in defense of the pro-life side get drowned out by a sea of religious nonsense. Abortion as a topic is such an emotionally charged one that you practically can't even have a discussion. I'm one to wade into most any topic no matter how controversial and defend my beliefs with the best arguments that can be made but even I clam up when it comes to abortion talks. The people who tend to agree with my point of view don't actually agree with my point of view and the people who disagree with my point of view are often arguing just as emotionally/illogically charged with vitriol and hate as the pro-lifers they despise. A glance around the comments so far in this thread makes me want to duck and cover rather than engage. I picked your comment out because you at least acknowledge that there is a debate to be had that is sensible and based in reality.

Ahhhh... seeing as I'm probably the most hostile person in the thread, I'll apologize a little to you - I get a *little* spicy when the abortion topic comes up, since I've been in the thick of the protests escorting friends and being assaulted for doing so. Being met with hostility 99% of the time I deal with opposition towards abortion doesn't make for very rosy glasses, I gotta say.

That said, I kiiiinda make a distinction between 'Pro-life' and 'Anti-choice'? Granted as it's a (fairly) political charged discussion the stances on it vary wildly and rapidly, but from what I've seen in my experiences the two kinda fall into different philosophies of the same field - 'Pro-life' argues about the sanctity of life (usually from a scientific side) wheras Anti-choice decries... well, the choice of having an abortion, usually from religious grounds. It is, however, entirely possible to be 'Pro-life' and 'Pro-choice' by going 'I disagree based on these grounds but it's their body so it's their choice', focusing on the science of it but not trying to wrangle bodily autonomy from people (like, there's medical conditions that can result in the deaths of both mother and baby without an abortion, which are situations anti-choice kinda go 'well she had a good run').

The entire messy debate would be a hell of a lot easier to have and lines would be much clearer cut if religion wasn't being used as (weak) justification for moral outrages and outright assault, but that could probably be said about a lot of things. I will apologize again if you caught some flak from my... 'heated' responses throughout here.

I will admit I was put off by your other responses so in the spirit of the good will you expressed here let me respond by saying that I appreciate, deeply and sincerely, your willingness to engage me as you did above. Thank you!

The nuance you show above is also appreciated since I fall into some of the category that you describe here. The abortion topic is one that is a junction of science, in understanding when a human is human, philosophy, in how we deal with humans that are incapable of making any decisions for themselves, and rights, in what we are willing to afford to those humans that are in the process of developing their own minds and bodies.

I am one who believes that a person does have a right to bodily autonomy, so much so that I support certain rights for euthanasia. It is the very fact that I support bodily autonomy that I am pro-life (and not anti-choice, as you say. I agree there may be some worthwhile distinction there.) While an unborn human is dependent on its mother for survival, I do not find that a compelling reason to think that the unborn should have no right to its own life and body. It is alive, in every scientific sense and it does have a distinct body, even if it is dependent on the mother's body for survival during development.

Under U.S. law, we DO accord all sorts of rights to unborn humans, such as the right of inheritance. If we accept that an unborn human has a right to inherit property, it seems extraordinary that we would find a way to not grant that human a right to its own life and bodily autonomy.

I think the, "her body, her choice" argument fails to account for the child's body being a distinct being. Again, from a legal perspective, if a man stabs a pregnant woman and kills her unborn child, he can be charged with murder for that slaying. So how do we recognize the child as a murder victim if we accord it no right to life to begin with? An unborn human has the legal right to life in every respect except for this one condition, where the mother's choice is involved.

My position is not blind to circumstances and context though. Should it be found that continuing a pregnancy has a reasonable chance of harming the mother, she should by all means have the right to protect herself from that threat to her life. I think that holds true too if the child would be born with sufficient defect to render the child lacking of any autonomy, such as being born to a permanent vegatative state or having little to no chance of survival once born. I am also open to considering other thoughtful exceptions where the need for an abortion should reasonably over ride the child's right to life.

So that's the basic framework under which I find myself pro-life. I could elaborate more and in greater detail but I think that should give everyone a decent idea of where I stand and why and without any appeal to emotion, religion or grasping at the unreasonable. Thanks again for reaching out. I hope you find my reply worth your time and consideration. Cheers!

 

[Gorrath]

If you don't mind me asking, how do you square your faith with being pro-choice? Is it a matter of distancing your religious belief from the practical concerns of government and other people's lives? I'd be interested to know more about your point of view.

The same way I justify euthanasia and self-defence: Sometimes all the roads before you are harmful, and not taking any leads to an even worse outcome. In this case, it's best to chose the least harmful one, to the best of your knowledge and abilities, and honestly and ruefully atone for your sins later.

So you think there is a theological case to be made in support of pro-choice? I don't want to derail the topic, well, anymore than I have, so I won't ask you to bring on the bible quotations and explain the reasoning. I'm just curious to see if you think tehre is a scriptural reason to be pro-choice. I'd be satisfied by a simple yea or nay through PMs if you'd offer me such an indulgence. (I consider myself theologically adept with regard to Christianity and I like talking theology, so this is just a quirk of my personal curiosity and not a challenge I'm trying to throw at your feet.) With respect!

 

[Akjosch]

If you don't mind me asking, how do you square your faith with being pro-choice? Is it a matter of distancing your religious belief from the practical concerns of government and other people's lives? I'd be interested to know more about your point of view.

The same way I justify euthanasia and self-defence: Sometimes all the roads before you are harmful, and not taking any leads to an even worse outcome. In this case, it's best to chose the least harmful one, to the best of your knowledge and abilities, and honestly and ruefully atone for your sins later.

So you think there is a theological case to be made in support of pro-choice? I don't want to derail the topic, well, anymore than I have, so I won't ask you to bring on the bible quotations and explain the reasoning. I'm just curious to see if you think tehre is a scriptural reason to be pro-choice. I'd be satisfied by a simple yea or nay through PMs if you'd offer me such an indulgence. (I consider myself theologically adept with regard to Christianity and I like talking theology, so this is just a quirk of my personal curiosity and not a challenge I'm trying to throw at your feet.) With respect!

I'm not well enough versed in theology to make a case with quotations and the like. I believe you could do this, though. It's just that my (Catholic) upbringing empathised minimising of harm where possible as well as forgiveness when people make mistakes.

There's also a lot of things which arise from the abortion debate which I view as critical due to the "minimising harm while allowing people their choice" personal rule. Being supportive whatever choice they make means, to me, making abortions as easy as possible and freely available, but also making adoptions of newborn babies something that's not riddled with unnecessary hurdles, especially for pairs which can't have their own children (like gay or lesbian couples, for example), and supporting the would-be mothers through their pregnancies psychologically, medically and financially.

And: People need to be able to protest this, but only in a way which doesn't harm anyone. Voicing your opinions is fine and I encourage it. Shaming people, interfering with the operations of a clinic or hospital, people who do any of this step out of the bounds of civil society.

 

[Gorrath]

If you don't mind me asking, how do you square your faith with being pro-choice? Is it a matter of distancing your religious belief from the practical concerns of government and other people's lives? I'd be interested to know more about your point of view.

The same way I justify euthanasia and self-defence: Sometimes all the roads before you are harmful, and not taking any leads to an even worse outcome. In this case, it's best to chose the least harmful one, to the best of your knowledge and abilities, and honestly and ruefully atone for your sins later.

So you think there is a theological case to be made in support of pro-choice? I don't want to derail the topic, well, anymore than I have, so I won't ask you to bring on the bible quotations and explain the reasoning. I'm just curious to see if you think tehre is a scriptural reason to be pro-choice. I'd be satisfied by a simple yea or nay through PMs if you'd offer me such an indulgence. (I consider myself theologically adept with regard to Christianity and I like talking theology, so this is just a quirk of my personal curiosity and not a challenge I'm trying to throw at your feet.) With respect!

I'm not well enough versed in theology to make a case with quotations and the like. I believe you could do this, though. It's just that my (Catholic) upbringing empathised minimising of harm where possible as well as forgiveness when people make mistakes.

There's also a lot of things which arise from the abortion debate which I view as critical due to the "minimising harm while allowing people their choice" personal rule. Being supportive whatever choice they make means, to me, making abortions as easy as possible and freely available, but also making adoptions of newborn babies something that's not riddled with unnecessary hurdles, especially for pairs which can't have their own children (like gay or lesbian couples, for example), and supporting the would-be mothers through their pregnancies psychologically, medically and financially.

And: People need to be able to protest this, but only in a way which doesn't harm anyone. Voicing your opinions is fine and I encourage it. Shaming people, interfering with the operations of a clinic or hospital, people who do any of this step out of the bounds of civil society.

I certainly respect your point of view here and I find your reasoning to be strong. Being strong on the theology, I'd find you very much an outlier with regards to your view though. It is worth noting that Catholic theology and classical christian theology are often at odds and in some very strange places. I won't get into all of that though. Suffice it to say that I support all of the ideas you offer here with the one glaring exception of course. As you say, minimizing the need for abortion is good for all, no matter which part of this debate someone is on.

 

[Gorrath]

Given that abortion clinic protests have a history of becoming violent, adding a reasonably-sized buffer between the clinic and protestors is a good move. Reasonably sized. That doesn't mean that they have to be three hundred feet away at minimum. They have their right to protest. They can protest using all the nasty language and imagery that they want. Their right to protest ends at a patron's body, and given the long history of physical harassment and assault of patrons, its a reasonable precaution to move them some distance away that doesn't severely hamper their ability to do their protest.

The camera stuff is really complicated. It draws some moral lines, sure, but people have a right to say nasty things about people and provide evidence for their claims. When some homophobic politician or activist is seen going into a hotel room with a hooker of the same sex, their faces aren't blurred out either. I was suppose that the right to photograph or film a person without their consent ends on private property.

I'd just say that the right to film proceedings probably outweighs privacy considerations. By the same token, you can cover your face pretty easily when you head to the clinic, and probably should.

The buffer zone you describe is the real issue, and I find attempts to attack even a minimum safe buffer zone very sinister.

But there is still no need to film people walking into clinics in the first place. Even if you cover your face, there will always be one person that will recognise them. Using fear and harassment to make a point is a dishonest tactic and puts more women and those who work or just visit the clinic at risk.

I agree, but practically speaking there is no way to stop it anymore. We're well into a time when everyone has a phone, and every phone has cameras. We also have the ability to film from a great distance, or use pinhole cameras. Between cheap thermal imaging, cheap drones, cheap CCD's for cameras and cheap storage for movies... privacy is done.

I think we have a cultural issue that isn't keeping up with the tech. There really was a time in the United States when certain things weren't filmed not because they couldn't be filmed but because people felt it would be disrespectful to do so. That respect has eroded and failed because we are now so distant from one another as people. We should, all of us, strive to have more empathy for our fellow person. Without that, the ability to invade another's life becomes a passtime that too many engage in with glee, whether its doxing folks on the internet or filming everyone who goes into an abortion clinic. I really wish we, as a culture, just plain had more respect for one another.

I think that idea of a respectful past is mythical, and while I wish that human nature wasn't what it was, it is. Technology empowers people, and their natures, for good or ill.

I think there's good reason to think it's not mythical. Even the press was respectful enough of the president to not flm FDR getting in or out of his car because of his battle with polio. These days a politically charged press would make a huge deal out of it, film it and hound him about it. I'm not saying the past was some golden age where no one had a bad word to say about anyone but there were certain lines that we enforced culturally that have vanished.

I don't think it's that unusual for the head of state to get special treatment from the media, then or now. How that presents itself changes along with changing cultural norms, but "His kids are off limits" is still clearly there. If you're not the president though... lol

Not these days, coverage of President Obama's kids and his wife has been pretty astoundingly disrespectful at times. I'm not convinced anyone or anything is off limits for the media anymore. FDR's challenges were dealt with in a pretty respectful manner. Do you think that such consideration would be afforded to him now? Because I can't imagine his disability being anything but a topic for rampant hyperbole in the media, for and against him.

I don't think you're wrong at all, but I think that's less to do with there being a less respectful culture, and there being a less hypocritical culture. We also don't respect our presidents that way, and never will again after Nixon. FDR was a giant, and he was treated like one, in a time when people really believed in giants. Now, we live in a time when we cynically create giants every day to tear down by dinner on Twitter.

I can certainly agree with that. Nixon's scandal changed Americas perception of its presidents, even if what he did was actually fairly mundane. Still, I don't know that it's a mere lack of being hypocritical that has turned us from a people nodding and smiling at the First lady's common-sense initiatives to a people willing to make Michelle Obama's childhood obesity cause out to be an attack on people's right to eat cookies. As for making giants out of people and then ripping them apart when we find out they are human, and all in the cycle of a day or a week, I think you are spot on. We make sideshows out of celebrities.

 

[Dizchu]

The fact is, they care more for the non-sapient bundle of cells within a poor, single mother than they ever will for the human being who comes out of her that has to grow up in poverty, or in the foster system.

I wouldn't even say they care about bundles of cells, what they care about is imposing their values on everyone else. When they picket abortion clinics they're not doing it for the potential children, they're doing it to satisfy their own egos. The fact that they often complain about welfare, gay adoption and even single parents shows that they don't give a damn about the kids. What they care about is feeling better than those who choose to have abortions.

When they shove pictures of stillborn babies in the faces of women who have gone through or will go through the potentially traumatic experience of having an abortion, itself often the result of a traumatic occurrence like rape... they're not doing it for the mother or the potential child. They're doing it because they find pleasure in it. It's the same with the Westboro Baptist Church. They openly admit that what they're doing is futile but they just get a sick joy from the misery of others.

 

[BarkBarker]

Reckless destruction of life cos you had an oopsie one night or didn't bother with protection for the 3rd time, no. Genuine accident that will financially destroy you? Sure. Strong to guaranteeable notion of having a child with a disability you sincerely do not wish to raise? Sure. Being a parent should always be a choice not an event of circumstance, you should not be one cos you think killing is bad and you most certainly shouldn't be one to a child you don't want to raise, if you are going to be one at all. I see abortion as taking responsibility for the life I have created, before it does damage to me and I it. I don't want to raise an autistic child, it isn't what I desire when I think about having kids. I don't want a child when I'm not emotionally or financially ready, I want to give them the best start I can and spend my time loving them, not worried I can't do enough to keep them for crying out loud.

Like all freedoms it is abused, some people should get a fucking club card for some clinics. That doesn't mean that sometimes it in'ts a necessary action and above all the correct choice.

 

[spartan231490]

Buffer zones do not infringe on freedom of speech until and unless they become so common or large that it's more like you can only protest inside certain zones. Think is, freedom of speech/freedom of assembly doesn't make you immune to all negative consequences. If you freely assemble inside someone else house, should freedom of assembly protect you? Of course not, because you're not being arrested for assembling, you're being arrested for trespassing. Similarly, freedom of assembly should not and does not protect you if you break the law by uploading video of someone without their consent, or if you harass people. And it shouldn't. I shouldn't be able to get away with stalking just because I carry a picket signs. That's not exercising your own freedom, that's abusing a legal loophole.

 

[rcs619]

I'm a pro-life atheist myself so the scientific side of things is precisely the angle I argue from. Unfortunately, the arguments men like Hitchens or I might put forth in defense of the pro-life side get drowned out by a sea of religious nonsense. Abortion as a topic is such an emotionally charged one that you practically can't even have a discussion. I'm one to wade into most any topic no matter how controversial and defend my beliefs with the best arguments that can be made but even I clam up when it comes to abortion talks. The people who tend to agree with my point of view don't actually agree with my point of view and the people who disagree with my point of view are often arguing just as emotionally/illogically charged with vitriol and hate as the pro-lifers they despise. A glance around the comments so far in this thread makes me want to duck and cover rather than engage. I picked your comment out because you at least acknowledge that there is a debate to be had that is sensible and based in reality.

See: I'm the polar opposite in this matter. I'm a pro-choice Christian. I will support a family member's or friend's abortion without pressuring them into any choice, and once that's done I will go to church and light a candle for the little life which didn't get a chance.

And yet: The discussion needs to happen, and it needs to be grounded both in solid science (When does viable life begin? When does consciousness?) and in a viable moral foundation for the society (When does an organism become a person? Which rights have parents over their children?) - not in emotion. No matter what I feel about it.

See, that just goes to show how interesting and nuanced human beings can get.

So, personally, I'm not a fan of abortions. I will defend a woman's right under the law to have enough power over her own future to obtain one, but I tend to think of them as well... wasted potential. It's a very sad thing, necessary and the lesser evil in a lot of cases, but still sad.

I think a lot of the necessity is more a sign of our times than anything though. Like, further in the future, when something like an artificial womb is invented and when our foster and adoption system is better all around, I just think the need for abortions will begin to decline. Instead of only having the binary choices of abort the pregnancy *or* carry it to term, there will be a third option. You can simply have the embryo placed in an artificial womb to be brought to term outside of the mother's body, and then placed into the adoption system. A mother who doesn't want/can't afford a baby will never have to deal with the choice of having to end a life-that-could-be, or having to make herself give up a baby she has already birthed. With that technology available, she could simply part herself from the embryo and go on with her life, and the embryo could develop into a human and still have one of its own. Ideally in such a future, contraceptive technology and sexual-education will also be improved, which will also help cut down on the number of abortions on their own too.

Would abortions still happen? Of course. But I am firmly of the belief that if you give most people a better option, they will seize it. That is how you advance the species. You make the best options available to as many people as possible and let them advance themselves

 

[Raggedstar]

My stance on this is similar to protesting at funerals. People are vulnerable and their right for space should be respected in (what is likely) a difficult time. I don't really care about the implications of "freedom of speech" as much as you should, you know, not be a dick. No sane person would ever view an abortion as a decision to be made lightly or as a valid form of birth control in the way of a condom, oral contraceptive, etc. It's a medical procedure with ethical greys, and should be treated as such.

And another thing that hits me is that not all abortions are for convenience's sake. If you're blindly protesting or obstructing someone, you'll be obstructing people who need it for valid reasons (reasons that many pro-lifers may respect). If I remember correctly. there was a case in Ireland where a woman was denied a medically necessary abortion because "Ireland is a Catholic country". People trying to "preserve life" were directly responsible for a doomed child and a woman that didn't need to die. Two dead and a grieving husband and family. I do wonder what a protester would say if they walked up to someone saying they (or a family member) would die if they didn't go through with it.

I'm pro-choice, but also I agree responsibility should happen before (in such cases). Though that would also mean erasing abstinence-only education (because they don't bloody work), which many pro-life people of certain religious standings won't support.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's kinda against the law to film or photograph someone without their consent, especially if it's something involving sensitive information like medical treatments.

In the states, most states allow filming in public of people in public under "reasonable expectation of privacy." Hell, in some states, you can film someone through their windows legally.

Not that I support this, but I'm just pointing out where MA may be coming from.

I think the bigger issue is the bit where, as MA also mentions, these protests often get physical and/or violent. And they're often given a lot of lattitude because it's framed as a "freedom of religion" thing. Again, not "ought to be," but "is."

 

[Gorrath]

Given that abortion clinic protests have a history of becoming violent, adding a reasonably-sized buffer between the clinic and protestors is a good move. Reasonably sized. That doesn't mean that they have to be three hundred feet away at minimum. They have their right to protest. They can protest using all the nasty language and imagery that they want. Their right to protest ends at a patron's body, and given the long history of physical harassment and assault of patrons, its a reasonable precaution to move them some distance away that doesn't severely hamper their ability to do their protest.

The camera stuff is really complicated. It draws some moral lines, sure, but people have a right to say nasty things about people and provide evidence for their claims. When some homophobic politician or activist is seen going into a hotel room with a hooker of the same sex, their faces aren't blurred out either. I was suppose that the right to photograph or film a person without their consent ends on private property.

I'd just say that the right to film proceedings probably outweighs privacy considerations. By the same token, you can cover your face pretty easily when you head to the clinic, and probably should.

The buffer zone you describe is the real issue, and I find attempts to attack even a minimum safe buffer zone very sinister.

But there is still no need to film people walking into clinics in the first place. Even if you cover your face, there will always be one person that will recognise them. Using fear and harassment to make a point is a dishonest tactic and puts more women and those who work or just visit the clinic at risk.

I agree, but practically speaking there is no way to stop it anymore. We're well into a time when everyone has a phone, and every phone has cameras. We also have the ability to film from a great distance, or use pinhole cameras. Between cheap thermal imaging, cheap drones, cheap CCD's for cameras and cheap storage for movies... privacy is done.

I think we have a cultural issue that isn't keeping up with the tech. There really was a time in the United States when certain things weren't filmed not because they couldn't be filmed but because people felt it would be disrespectful to do so. That respect has eroded and failed because we are now so distant from one another as people. We should, all of us, strive to have more empathy for our fellow person. Without that, the ability to invade another's life becomes a passtime that too many engage in with glee, whether its doxing folks on the internet or filming everyone who goes into an abortion clinic. I really wish we, as a culture, just plain had more respect for one another.

I think that idea of a respectful past is mythical, and while I wish that human nature wasn't what it was, it is. Technology empowers people, and their natures, for good or ill.

I think there's good reason to think it's not mythical. Even the press was respectful enough of the president to not flm FDR getting in or out of his car because of his battle with polio. These days a politically charged press would make a huge deal out of it, film it and hound him about it. I'm not saying the past was some golden age where no one had a bad word to say about anyone but there were certain lines that we enforced culturally that have vanished.

I don't think it's that unusual for the head of state to get special treatment from the media, then or now. How that presents itself changes along with changing cultural norms, but "His kids are off limits" is still clearly there. If you're not the president though... lol

Not these days, coverage of President Obama's kids and his wife has been pretty astoundingly disrespectful at times. I'm not convinced anyone or anything is off limits for the media anymore. FDR's challenges were dealt with in a pretty respectful manner. Do you think that such consideration would be afforded to him now? Because I can't imagine his disability being anything but a topic for rampant hyperbole in the media, for and against him.

I don't think you're wrong at all, but I think that's less to do with there being a less respectful culture, and there being a less hypocritical culture. We also don't respect our presidents that way, and never will again after Nixon. FDR was a giant, and he was treated like one, in a time when people really believed in giants. Now, we live in a time when we cynically create giants every day to tear down by dinner on Twitter.

I can certainly agree with that. Nixon's scandal changed Americas perception of its presidents, even if what he did was actually fairly mundane. Still, I don't know that it's a mere lack of being hypocritical that has turned us from a people nodding and smiling at the First lady's common-sense initiatives to a people willing to make Michelle Obama's childhood obesity cause out to be an attack on people's right to eat cookies. As for making giants out of people and then ripping them apart when we find out they are human, and all in the cycle of a day or a week, I think you are spot on. We make sideshows out of celebrities.

I think one lets us accept the other. I don't hold Michelle or Barack Obama in special esteem, although I certainly don't hate them. I'm not personally offended when people attack them, I'm just tired. The idea that such a modest attempt to vaguely correct obesity in this country could be seen as anything, but positive is tiring. A combination of a loss of personal investment in politicians, and apathy gives an advantage to the rageaholics who dominate political life now.

What I'm really scared to see, is that Trump is crossing the streams between "Politician" and "Reality TV Celebrity" in a truly aggressive way. I wonder if people are going to start to get used to this level of rhetoric and stimulation on some level, and that would be devastating to what remains of political discourse.

I don't hold them in any special regard either. I didn't vote for him in the election either. I've found his presidency to be mostly mediocre, neither offensive in its supposed ineptitude nor a great step forward for hope and change. What I find appalling is the way no president, Barack or George or Bill could simply go about the business of being president and instead, it's only gotten worse. I'm not offended when people attack policy or failure or anything of legitimate concern. I'm offended not by any specific attack on any specific president.

I am offended, sometimes even enraged, by the distinct sort of attack meant to derail any hope of effective government. And I very much do include the way certain media people went after Michelle's initiative the way they did in that category. If the very suggestion that not stuffing the faces of our children with junk every day is probably a good idea can be turned into outrage and an attack on freedom, what hope do we have of an informed public considering real positions on actual topics of debate? I think such unhinged backlashes are disrespectful, and are disrespectful in a way that we didn't used to see. You could call the President a moron in your polemic article, fine, but you didn't try and create a sideshow out of his wife or his kids or the way he ate a piece of freakin' pizza.

Trump is the perfect caricature of this. He knows full well that everything he says will be construed to be ridiculous, so why not go balls-to-the-wall ridiculous in what you're saying? At least then you'll get brownie points for "being an honest politician not afraid to tell it like it is," and so my eyes roll so hard they fall from their sockets and scatter across the floor like marbles. I am cynical about these things but I cannot be apathetic; I do not have it in me. I do not hold any ill will for the apathy of others though, politicians seem to think that "getting the people involved in the debate" means lying and misrepresenting every factoid to groom them for unjustified rage votes. Apathy at least makes one immune to that bullshit! Fun talk by the way, cheers!