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

[Gorrath]

Alright, I'm home from work, so I can respond! Though I warn you, I am moderately tired while writing this, so it may veer around a little. Apologies in advance if it doesn't really address anything?

Thanks again for taking the time. I'm really pleased to see that we can talk about this subject with respect for one another. I'm a bit of an activist when I'm not posting on gaming forums so I can tell you just how hard it is to have any kind of reasonable discussion on this issue with most people.

It's kinda fascinating really, since we've got you here as a Pro-Life Scientist, Akjosch is kicking around the pro-choice religious aspect and my view of abortion is from a pro-choice social aspect - namely that abortion and childcare is a very complicated thing that impacts peoples lives and isn't something that is very easily decided.

It does seem an oddity, especially since nearly everyone I've ever seen who's pro-life is pro-life for primarily religious reasons. For me it comes down to a question of rights, science and philosophy all three of which, to me, point toward the pro-life stance as being preferable. This is why my pro-life stance isn't an ultimatum without nuance because it is driven by evidence and philosophy instead of dogmatic belief.

Weirdly, I don't actually have many dogs in the Pro-Life fight - it's a discussion worth having and there's lots of evidence flying around from either side for definitions of when life 'starts' (at base level I'm of the 'current abortion system is fine' in that regard), but I've always focused more on the motivations people have for getting abortions and why having abortions as an option is important.

There are a lot of people fighting over the "when does life start" question and I find it rather silly to be honest. BY every scientific definition of life we have, life starts at conception. Now people can argue over whether that life should have rights but to claim it "isn't alive" is basically making up a definition of life out of nowhere. This seems to be the only debate I've ever been involved in where the scientific definition of life suddenly does not apply, and only because people don't want it to. Not accusing you of that of course since you didn't weigh in on that except to mention that there's a debate and you're fine with the current laws. People seem to want to come up with a special definition of life that only applies in this one arena simply because the scientific definition of life doesn't support their arguments. I find it asinine. In what other subject of discourse do people get to ignore science, make up their own definitions of things to support their arguments and are taken seriously? None, that I know of.

Because, let's face it, people get abortions for a number of reasons. Situations where the childbirth will seriously hurt/kill the mother, The child has minimal chances of survival anyway or would suffer from serious medical problems that would result in a short lifespan, needing to have an abortion due to other medical issues occurring at the time... all good medical reasons.

I support the right of the mother's health over the right of the child to live in most circumstances, especially since most complications from child birth make both mother and child quite susceptible to poor health/death. I also agree that if there's good reason to think the child will be born vegetative or with a minuscule lifespan or with a genetic disease so bad it will render the child incapable of independence and autonomy then abortion should be an option. I believe that we will have medical technological fixes to many of these problems in the future but for now I totally agree.

But then there's good social reasons as well - Childcare and Parenthood are not easy, simple things, mind you, they're pretty big deals that change and shape your life. If someone gets pregnant due to failed birth control (even condoms break!) and is neither prepared to raise the child personally or financially, then they should have the ability to terminate the pregnancy if they so choose. When it comes to starting a family, I'm of the mind that a child that is planned for is better than an accident from sheer circumstances. This 'not ready for pregnancy' angle is doubly so for Teen pregnancies, since those often cause a whole mess of problems and teenagers are very rarely in a positive position of becoming a parent themselves.

These are all questions of the financial/economic well being of the parents, none of which, I think, should trump a child's right to life. In no other subject of discourse of which I am aware do we represent that one person's financial well being should be held higher than someone else's right to live. Why should we de-vaule the right of a person to live in this one instance when on any other subject we'd find such statements appalling?

Socio-economic reasons may drive a significant number of people to seek abortions but many of these reasons could be mitigated through other means, such as adequate daycare, proper collection and distribution of child support, social programs aimed at helping single parents, ect. I should think that terminating the life of a person to be the least appropriate way to deal with the social and economic issues faced by parents. We don't accept socio-economic reasons to strip anyone else of their civil rights in any other case. In fact, we've spent huge amounts of time and effort trying to ensure that no one has their rights stricken so someone else can gain an economic advantage. Why should I, or you, or anyone accept such reasoning here and literally under no other circumstance?

Then there's the stickier parts of abortion - like, say, Rape Babies. Now this is a sticky subject since discussions around rape are incredibly difficult to have to begin with (like, in America there's several states where a Rapist can sue for legal custody of a child produced by rape - the more I learn about American law the more fucked up it gets), and get more difficult when you start throwing in possible children. The basics of it is, victims of rape *should* have the choice to have an abortion - I covered the physical above, but this is more of a mental health concern, since having a child that is the product of such a traumatic experience often reminds the victims of that trauma, puts negativity on the relationship between mother/child, can result in the child feeling extreme guilt/depression due to their origins... like, again, it's something pregnant people should entirely have the choice to terminate.

This issue and the incest issue are both very tough for the pro-life side. We cannot point toward a certain physical health issue but mental health shouldn't be ignored either. I've gone back and forth on this, between favoring the right of the child to live because it shouldn't be executed due to the crimes of its father and wanting to not put a rape victim through a pregnancy she didn't want because a crime was committed against her. I suppose this is an area I would compromise on, accepting abortion in these cases even if I'm not convinced it's fair or just to the child.

To be honest, the crux of my stance is the 'choice' aspect - people should have the choice, regardless of the debate surrounding it. Just like how people have the choice to put the kid up for adoption, or get a surrogate parent, they should also have the choice to say 'No, I'm not ready for pregnancy at this stage of my life' for whatever reason*, and their choice should be respected. This isn't to say that the discussion surrounding Pro-Life and abortion isn't an important one to have, it's just that unless you happen to be a Pro-lifer/anti-choicer, it should come secondary to your own beliefs when it comes down to deciding whether to have an abortion or not.

I'm not willing to accept that because of what's at stake. If someone argued to me that keeping and owning slaves should be a choice I wouldn't agree, because it would violate the slaves life and liberty. If someone were to argue that states should have a choice whether or not to allow gay marriage, I would disagree because that would violate the civil rights of the gay population. In no debate about civil rights and liberties would I accept that one person's choice should override someone else's rights, especially their right to live and especially because the child has done literally nothing on its own to be in the situation it finds itself. I've yet to find an argument for blanket pro-choice that I, or almost anyone else, would accept under any other circumstances and so, I don't see why such arguments should be compelling here. I think the only way to get around this problem is to argue that the child should have no rights whatsoever until it is born, which I still find totally arbitrary and without justification, but it is a least internally consistent.

Now, that's probably a little 'appealy-to-emotion', but as said, I'm approaching this from a social aspect rather than a scientific or legal aspect, and I'm admittedly fairly tied into the debate on an emotional level due to several of my friends undergoing abortions for assorted reasons (ranging from medical to financial to just sheer not ready for childbirth). Objectivity isn't really my strong suit for abortion, but I *think* my first few posts may have been a subtle hint at that. >.>

I've had friends who've had abortions and I've been right there with them. I will always support them emotionally and be there for them in that time of need. While I disagree with the blanket pro-choice laws because I think they unfairly and improperly infringe on the rights of the unborn I will not be blinded to the emotional difficulties involved and the complexities of the situation. I see no reason to be cruel to people just because they are exercising their legal rights, even if I don't agree with the laws as written.

(though, as an answer to your legal queries, those are situations of 'assumed birth' - so rather than treating the fetus as a fetus, it's considered 'Well lets look at it under the assumption the baby is born healthy'; so for inheritance it's assumed the child will be born to inherent things, while for the case of murder it's assumed the mother wasn't planning on terminating the baby. 'Assumed birth' is probably the wrong term for it though, just as a heads up if you plan on looking into it yourself.)

I find that to be splitting hairs a bit because in most cases of abortion we can assume the child would be born fine and healthy too. We legally extend rights to the unborn fetus not to a presumed, after-the-birth person which does not currently exist. If someone wants to argue that an unborn child should have no right to life then I find it absurd that the same person could argue that such a child could be murdered. You can't murder something that doesn't have a right to live in the first place.

I find the distinction between born and unborn, in most cases, to be weak legal and philosophical justification for denying rights but especially so when we extend all kinds of rights except this one, the right to life, and then only when a mother's choice is involved. It really does boil down to whether a mother's blanket right to choose should trump a child's right to life. And when faced with that, I say no, because I can see no justification for it and all justifications I've ever seen offered look pretty weak. Every justification seems to be predicated on accepting arguments that I would never accept under any other circumstance and the only distinction offered between this situation on those is that unborn humans shouldn't have rights, except for all the ones they do, and actually it's just this one right and actually it's just this one right in this one situation. Even if you don't agree, can you see why I don't find that compelling?

[sub]*I know people have already trotted out the stereotype of 'oh I'll just abort as my birth control', which is a pretty malicious stereotype that very few people actually exhibit since, well, abortions are still pretty strenuous. Now I certainly disagree with anyone who is just getting abortions for the sake of it/replacement of birth control, since it's an abuse of the actual choice, but they tend to be the extreme minority and as such I'm not really too fussed with such an all-encompassing statement like 'whatever reason'.[/sub]

I won't stoop to that because I don't find it necessary to defend my position. Why someone chooses to exercise their legal rights doesn't matter much to me. Even if practically everyone who got an abortion did it because their birth control failed I wouldn't matter to me. Either the child has a right to life or it doesn't. If we do not extend this right to the unborn then speculation on the mother's reasoning is a pointless endeavor. If we do extend this right to the unborn, then the reasoning becomes very important because then we have a conflict that needs resolution; the life, rights, well-being of the mother vs. that of the unborn child.

Anyway, I hope you find my reply worthwhile. It's a complex situation and I'm a bit of a wind-bag so I appreciate your time and attention. Thanks for taking the time to understand my point of view as I understand yours, even if we never agree. With sincerity.

 

[Ishigami]

My thoughts?

First of my stance on abortion:
I think it is the decision of the pregnant women.
I am alright with a compromise of course. I would consider it reasonable to let the to-be-mother decide up until the point where the unborn child becomes capable of surviving outside of the mother's womb.
After that I deem it reasonable to consider abortion illegal, the to-be-mother would then have to give birth and release the child to adoption if it is still unwanted.
No rules without exception of course e.g. medical complications etc.

As for the demonstrations: I think it is wrong.
The way I see it they shame women into obedience. This is a harassment campaign similar to a running of the gauntlet.
Should they be able to voice their opinion publically? Yes, of course. But I see no reason why this has to be done right at the entrance of such a clinic.
If they want their opinion to be heard it can be done elsewhere.

I have no idea how this works in the UK. Here you need some sort of permit for a demonstration.
The city can basically demand certain changes to the organization in order to ensure safety.
So basically I doubt a law change would be required in my country to prevent something like this from happening, just some common sense by the civil servants working the files.
Then again I don't think we got something like specific abortion clinics (but I might be wrong). That service is provided afaik by hospitals and gynecologists in general. As I see it there are simply no specific boiling points unless you want to actually protest hospitals... in which case the general public probably not going to favor your position...
Anyway while we are having this debate too (from time to time) I don't see this kind of demonstration happening. So yea a buffer zone seems like a possible solution.

 

[Patrick Buck]

I'm against it. You can protest, at Parliament where laws can be changed, but protesting at clinics is attacking people, rather than a thing you disagree with. And that's wrong whatever you believe.

For the record, I'm personally pro choice.

 

[Callate]

They have a right to protest. But taking photos or videos of people without their permission is harassment. And given the recurrent violence and threats those going into or working for clinics that provide abortion have faced, firmly set, legally enforced buffer zones are entirely reasonable and appropriate.

I have a lot more sympathy for such restrictions than I do for so-called "free speech zones" as used by political figures.

 

[ecoho]

Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Expression. Freedom of Choice. Freedom of its not any of your damn business what people do in their person lives.

Thanks America. Now the UK has a growing rise of pro choice protest. Let's hope it doesn't get to the point of bombs. Pro choice, pro life. The battle will never go away.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/21/abortion-clinic-forced-to-close-after-protests-in-uk-first-5306145/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30126873/calls-for-law-to-stop-anti-abortion-protests-outside-clinics

Protest, whether you agree with them or not, can cause a lot of awareness and change to a matter. But did this protest go to far? Even stories about those who go into an abortion clinic being filmed and shamed online is a massively fucked up tactic that is heartless and disgusting. I personally believe that people have the choice to do as they which and women who seek termination has different reasons for it. It's not the protesters business. By adding buffer zone does that infringe on the protesters freedom of Speech? Does verbal protest and often abuse infringe on those who go into an abortion clinic for whatever reason have their rights infringed upon.

Thoughts, chat. What do you think?

So many freedoms are clashing.

as a catholic im against abortion, but I do believe everyone has the right to make their own choices. Now do I think they will regret it for the rest of their life? yes. Do I think that its wrong to do? yes if its not for the safety of the life of the mother. Does anyone have the right to MAKE them not have them? NO. Honestly this is a debate that could go on forever but its not our place to judge someone for their choices, that's gods job.

 

[Parasondox]

as a catholic im against abortion, but I do believe everyone has the right to make their own choices. Now do I think they will regret it for the rest of their life? yes. Do I think that its wrong to do? yes if its not for the safety of the life of the mother. Does anyone have the right to MAKE them not have them? NO. Honestly this is a debate that could go on forever but its not our place to judge someone for their choices, that's gods job.

Then someone better tell the protesters that because they seem to be holding bibles, praying and judging people they do not know. I understand people take things a bit too far and harassment and abuse shouldn't be one of them.

 

[ecoho]

as a catholic im against abortion, but I do believe everyone has the right to make their own choices. Now do I think they will regret it for the rest of their life? yes. Do I think that its wrong to do? yes if its not for the safety of the life of the mother. Does anyone have the right to MAKE them not have them? NO. Honestly this is a debate that could go on forever but its not our place to judge someone for their choices, that's gods job.

Then someone better tell the protesters that because they seem to be holding bibles, praying and judging people they do not know. I understand people take things a bit too far and harassment and abuse shouldn't be one of them.

well to be fair most of those people are protestants not Catholics. the big difference is we tend to just say its wrong and go our own way afterwards, while those guys freak out on something until;

1. they get what they want.

2. get told by a judge to stop.


Now that's not to say we don't use our political base to try and ban things we are against we do but at least we don't harass people to do it, we harass politicians

 

[J Tyran]

Abortion clinics are medical facilities, people have the right to attend them with as much privacy and dignity as possible. Excluding protesters from or near them doesn't impinge on free speech, the public have plenty of public places or government buildings, including Westminster to protest outside/around.

 

[Parasondox]

as a catholic im against abortion, but I do believe everyone has the right to make their own choices. Now do I think they will regret it for the rest of their life? yes. Do I think that its wrong to do? yes if its not for the safety of the life of the mother. Does anyone have the right to MAKE them not have them? NO. Honestly this is a debate that could go on forever but its not our place to judge someone for their choices, that's gods job.

Then someone better tell the protesters that because they seem to be holding bibles, praying and judging people they do not know. I understand people take things a bit too far and harassment and abuse shouldn't be one of them.

well to be fair most of those people are protestants not Catholics. the big difference is we tend to just say its wrong and go our own way afterwards, while those guys freak out on something until;

1. they get what they want.

2. get told by a judge to stop.


Now that's not to say we don't use our political base to try and ban things we are against we do but at least we don't harass people to do it, we harass politicians

Good point but really, truly and in all honesty, what do they hope to achieve? A total nationwide ban on abortion? Convince half the population that their fellow gender members are bad bad people for having abortions even if they were raped or just ban sex all together for single folks? Okay, I am overreacting a bit but how far is their version of the "good fight" meant to go.

That weren't just a question at you but anyone in general who can answer that.

 

[J Tyran]

Abortion clinics are medical facilities, people have the right to attend them with as much privacy and dignity as possible. Excluding protesters from or near them doesn't impinge on free speech, the public have plenty of public places or government buildings, including Westminster to protest outside/around.

I don't see how it can be justified, taping and harassing people in a medical context.

Couldn't agree more, there is absolutely no justification for it no matter how people feel. Free speech isn't about having the right to create any disturbance you wish or harass anyone someone chooses too its about expressing your feelings, Westminster make the laws and set the policy here in the UK and any problems with either should be taken to them.

 

[FoolKiller]

Abortions are like gay marriages. If you don't like it, don't get one.

A lot of pro-life arguments revolve around this:

You know the old saying, "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" Apparently it doesn't matter because eggs are chickens. If they cared so much for the "sanctity of life" why don't they protest outside of battery farms? Or churches that preach hate or spread ignorance in Africa about contraception, resulting in the spreading of AIDS?

I think protesting abortion clinics goes "too far" as soon as it starts because it's the result of a fundamental misconception that an embryo is a citizen. It also reflects a sort of "let's sort the problem out later" attitude. A solution to perceived inevitable misery or discomfort on the child's part is condemned because "it's icky". The same goes for gay adoption, something pro-lifers often oppose.

They have the right to protest and I have the right to call them out on their nonsense.

I've always thought that if it's truly alive, it should be able to survive, given proper care, outside of the host body. If not, it's still a parasite.

Also, regarding violent protesters, they say they are pro-life but don't seem to care for the lives of those they attack.

 

[Gorrath]

Abortion clinics are medical facilities, people have the right to attend them with as much privacy and dignity as possible. Excluding protesters from or near them doesn't impinge on free speech, the public have plenty of public places or government buildings, including Westminster to protest outside/around.

It doesn't impinge on free speech but it may impinge on freedom of assembly, in the United States anyhow. I find the whole thing deplorable but people are allowed to be assholes even in protest. So long as the protesters aren't breaking any laws their right to assembly shouldn't be excluded and I would extend that to any group of people protesting anything they want to. I've been a part of demonstrations outside of a Church which raised money to help try and get gay marriage banned and people said the same things about us; that we should go somewhere else even though we were on public property, that we were "harassing" them just by being there with protest signs. I do not condone any illegal protest actions and you certainly see some of that at abortion protests. The offenders should be removed and charged if necessary but the protesters who aren't doing anything illegal should be allowed their rights.

 

[J Tyran]

Abortion clinics are medical facilities, people have the right to attend them with as much privacy and dignity as possible. Excluding protesters from or near them doesn't impinge on free speech, the public have plenty of public places or government buildings, including Westminster to protest outside/around.

It doesn't impinge on free speech but it may impinge on freedom of assembly, in the United States anyhow. I find the whole thing deplorable but people are allowed to be assholes even in protest. So long as the protesters aren't breaking any laws their right to assembly shouldn't be excluded and I would extend that to any group of people protesting anything they want to. I've been a part of demonstrations outside of a Church which raised money to help try and get gay marriage banned and people said the same things about us; that we should go somewhere else even though we were on public property, that we were "harassing" them just by being there with protest signs. I do not condone any illegal protest actions and you certainly see some of that at abortion protests. The offenders should be removed and charged if necessary but the protesters who aren't doing anything illegal should be allowed their rights.

By all the reports these people are not just assembling, they are shoving cameras in faces, jeering and shouting at individual patients and things like that. That crosses the bounds into harassment, even signs can be considered that was well.

Are they intended to bring shame or embarrassment or intended to insult or cast aspirations to any individuals they are being waggled at? If so that's harassment. I guess it comes to a very different view of free speech in our nations, no-one has a right to be an arsehole when it effects other people here.

 

[Gorrath]

Abortion clinics are medical facilities, people have the right to attend them with as much privacy and dignity as possible. Excluding protesters from or near them doesn't impinge on free speech, the public have plenty of public places or government buildings, including Westminster to protest outside/around.

It doesn't impinge on free speech but it may impinge on freedom of assembly, in the United States anyhow. I find the whole thing deplorable but people are allowed to be assholes even in protest. So long as the protesters aren't breaking any laws their right to assembly shouldn't be excluded and I would extend that to any group of people protesting anything they want to. I've been a part of demonstrations outside of a Church which raised money to help try and get gay marriage banned and people said the same things about us; that we should go somewhere else even though we were on public property, that we were "harassing" them just by being there with protest signs. I do not condone any illegal protest actions and you certainly see some of that at abortion protests. The offenders should be removed and charged if necessary but the protesters who aren't doing anything illegal should be allowed their rights.

I think it is important in a liberal democracy, to err on the side of the right to free expression. The filming though, that's intimidation, pure and simple.

It depends on the local laws really. In some places here filming people without their consent is illegal. In many more you can film just about anything; that's how the paparazzi aren't all in prison. When we were holding our demonstration, we filmed the responses of the people who attended the church and our own activities that way no one could accuse us of doing anything illegal. That's why I'm careful to say that, so long as they are in full accordance with the local laws, they should be able to hold their protest. There are members of that church that would have called our filing "harassment" and claimed that our slogans offended them. I want to make certain that, in our gut reaction to seeing something that seems wrong to us, we don't over react and punish everyone.

If one were to say, "Hey, protesting is fine but you can't film the people you're protesting." Then there goes my group's ability to film ourselves for legal protection. I think what those abortion protesters are doing is unconscionable, even though I am pro-life myself, but denying them their rights because we don't like what they are saying is a keen, double-edged sword that could cut off all sorts of protests at the knees.

 

[Gorrath]

Abortion clinics are medical facilities, people have the right to attend them with as much privacy and dignity as possible. Excluding protesters from or near them doesn't impinge on free speech, the public have plenty of public places or government buildings, including Westminster to protest outside/around.

It doesn't impinge on free speech but it may impinge on freedom of assembly, in the United States anyhow. I find the whole thing deplorable but people are allowed to be assholes even in protest. So long as the protesters aren't breaking any laws their right to assembly shouldn't be excluded and I would extend that to any group of people protesting anything they want to. I've been a part of demonstrations outside of a Church which raised money to help try and get gay marriage banned and people said the same things about us; that we should go somewhere else even though we were on public property, that we were "harassing" them just by being there with protest signs. I do not condone any illegal protest actions and you certainly see some of that at abortion protests. The offenders should be removed and charged if necessary but the protesters who aren't doing anything illegal should be allowed their rights.

By all the reports these people are not just assembling, they are shoving cameras in faces, jeering and shouting at individual patients and things like that. That crosses the bounds into harassment, even signs can be considered that was well.

Are they intended to bring shame or embarrassment or intended to insult or cast aspirations to any individuals they are being waggled at? If so that's harassment. I guess it comes to a very different view of free speech in our nations, no-one has a right to be an arsehole when it effects other people here.

Shaming people does not necessarily constitute harassment. In fact, I've seen lots of quite liberally minded people on here and elsewhere talk about how shaming people is a good, powerful tool for change. We shame politicians for the things they do we don't like. We shame church-goers for giving funds to try and ban gay marriage. If even just a sign with a message you find offensive is now harassment, there are plenty of civil rights activists that are going to have to change a lot of what they do. We don't get to pick and choose the rules of protest based on what we think of the ideas of the protesters. That's why I advocate for removing protesters who actually do break the law. But don't be so eager to ground out the power of protests lest the social changes you'd like to see come to pass suffer the same fate. To a certain extent, everyone does have the right to be an asshole because one-man's asshole is another man's civil activist. If all it takes to shut down a protest is to call the protesting group a bunch of assholes, or call them "harassers" you may as well chuck protesting out of a window.

 

[Gorrath]

Abortion clinics are medical facilities, people have the right to attend them with as much privacy and dignity as possible. Excluding protesters from or near them doesn't impinge on free speech, the public have plenty of public places or government buildings, including Westminster to protest outside/around.

It doesn't impinge on free speech but it may impinge on freedom of assembly, in the United States anyhow. I find the whole thing deplorable but people are allowed to be assholes even in protest. So long as the protesters aren't breaking any laws their right to assembly shouldn't be excluded and I would extend that to any group of people protesting anything they want to. I've been a part of demonstrations outside of a Church which raised money to help try and get gay marriage banned and people said the same things about us; that we should go somewhere else even though we were on public property, that we were "harassing" them just by being there with protest signs. I do not condone any illegal protest actions and you certainly see some of that at abortion protests. The offenders should be removed and charged if necessary but the protesters who aren't doing anything illegal should be allowed their rights.

I think it is important in a liberal democracy, to err on the side of the right to free expression. The filming though, that's intimidation, pure and simple.

It depends on the local laws really. In some places here filming people without their consent is illegal. In many more you can film just about anything; that's how the paparazzi aren't all in prison. When we were holding our demonstration, we filmed the responses of the people who attended the church and our own activities that way no one could accuse us of doing anything illegal. That's why I'm careful to say that, so long as they are in full accordance with the local laws, they should be able to hold their protest. There are members of that church that would have called our filing "harassment" and claimed that our slogans offended them. I want to make certain that, in our gut reaction to seeing something that seems wrong to us, we don't over react and punish everyone.

If one were to say, "Hey, protesting is fine but you can't film the people you're protesting." Then there goes my group's ability to film ourselves for legal protection. I think what those abortion protesters are doing is unconscionable, even though I am pro-life myself, but denying them their rights because we don't like what they are saying is a keen, double-edged sword that could cut off all sorts of protests at the knees.

I think the right to privacy for a medical procedure or consultation should outweigh your right to film the people you're protesting.

And people would say their right to private worship should outweigh my right to film on a public street outside of a church. And other people would say their right to privately associate with whomever they want should outweight my right to film them going into a KKK meeting. You may not agree with the examples but they can contextualize their privacy in the same way. So long as the protesters aren't breaking any laws by filming what they are filming, this sort of contextualization either ends up being special pleading or would have to be uniformly enforced to be just and fair.

 

[Gorrath]

Abortion clinics are medical facilities, people have the right to attend them with as much privacy and dignity as possible. Excluding protesters from or near them doesn't impinge on free speech, the public have plenty of public places or government buildings, including Westminster to protest outside/around.

It doesn't impinge on free speech but it may impinge on freedom of assembly, in the United States anyhow. I find the whole thing deplorable but people are allowed to be assholes even in protest. So long as the protesters aren't breaking any laws their right to assembly shouldn't be excluded and I would extend that to any group of people protesting anything they want to. I've been a part of demonstrations outside of a Church which raised money to help try and get gay marriage banned and people said the same things about us; that we should go somewhere else even though we were on public property, that we were "harassing" them just by being there with protest signs. I do not condone any illegal protest actions and you certainly see some of that at abortion protests. The offenders should be removed and charged if necessary but the protesters who aren't doing anything illegal should be allowed their rights.

I think it is important in a liberal democracy, to err on the side of the right to free expression. The filming though, that's intimidation, pure and simple.

It depends on the local laws really. In some places here filming people without their consent is illegal. In many more you can film just about anything; that's how the paparazzi aren't all in prison. When we were holding our demonstration, we filmed the responses of the people who attended the church and our own activities that way no one could accuse us of doing anything illegal. That's why I'm careful to say that, so long as they are in full accordance with the local laws, they should be able to hold their protest. There are members of that church that would have called our filing "harassment" and claimed that our slogans offended them. I want to make certain that, in our gut reaction to seeing something that seems wrong to us, we don't over react and punish everyone.

If one were to say, "Hey, protesting is fine but you can't film the people you're protesting." Then there goes my group's ability to film ourselves for legal protection. I think what those abortion protesters are doing is unconscionable, even though I am pro-life myself, but denying them their rights because we don't like what they are saying is a keen, double-edged sword that could cut off all sorts of protests at the knees.

I think the right to privacy for a medical procedure or consultation should outweigh your right to film the people you're protesting.

And people would say their right to private worship should outweigh my right to film on a public street outside of a church. And other people would say their right to privately associate with whomever they want should outweight my right to film them going into a KKK meeting. You may not agree with the examples but they can contextualize their privacy in the same way. So long as the protesters aren't breaking any laws by filming what they are filming, this sort of contextualization either ends up being special pleading or would have to be uniformly enforced to be just and fair.

I think it's fair to uniformly enforce a ban on filming people in the context of their medical treatment. I don't see a problem with that, and it doesn't conflict with your examples either.

I don't think it's fair because it seems like special pleading. There are lots of things that people would prefer to remain private, including their medical choices, that they wouldn't want filmed. Why should we put a ban on filming that one private thing and not any other private thing, within the context of protests? Why should that one private matter obey a rule or rules that no otehr private matter obeys?

 

[Deathmageddon]

Thanks America. Now the UK has a growing rise of pro choice protest. Let's hope it doesn't get to the point of bombs.

God forbid anyone outside of the US (or in the US, for that matter) should recognize the natural rights of a distinct, living human being. Bombs? Seriously? You think there's serious danger that someone protesting murder would murder people? No, these protests don't go too far and informing someone that they're about to commit infanticide does not constitute harassment. Humans have a right to life, not comfort.

 

[Parasondox]

Thanks America. Now the UK has a growing rise of pro choice protest. Let's hope it doesn't get to the point of bombs.

God forbid anyone outside of the US (or in the US, for that matter) should recognize the natural rights of a distinct, living human being. Bombs? Seriously? You think there's serious danger that someone protesting murder would murder people? No, these protests don't go too far and informing someone that they're about to commit infanticide does not constitute harassment. Humans have a right to life, not comfort.

"Informing" in the way of taking photos, posting them online, name and shame and screaming "baby killer"? Humans also have the right to comfort too.

 

[Gorrath]

Abortion clinics are medical facilities, people have the right to attend them with as much privacy and dignity as possible. Excluding protesters from or near them doesn't impinge on free speech, the public have plenty of public places or government buildings, including Westminster to protest outside/around.

It doesn't impinge on free speech but it may impinge on freedom of assembly, in the United States anyhow. I find the whole thing deplorable but people are allowed to be assholes even in protest. So long as the protesters aren't breaking any laws their right to assembly shouldn't be excluded and I would extend that to any group of people protesting anything they want to. I've been a part of demonstrations outside of a Church which raised money to help try and get gay marriage banned and people said the same things about us; that we should go somewhere else even though we were on public property, that we were "harassing" them just by being there with protest signs. I do not condone any illegal protest actions and you certainly see some of that at abortion protests. The offenders should be removed and charged if necessary but the protesters who aren't doing anything illegal should be allowed their rights.

I think it is important in a liberal democracy, to err on the side of the right to free expression. The filming though, that's intimidation, pure and simple.

It depends on the local laws really. In some places here filming people without their consent is illegal. In many more you can film just about anything; that's how the paparazzi aren't all in prison. When we were holding our demonstration, we filmed the responses of the people who attended the church and our own activities that way no one could accuse us of doing anything illegal. That's why I'm careful to say that, so long as they are in full accordance with the local laws, they should be able to hold their protest. There are members of that church that would have called our filing "harassment" and claimed that our slogans offended them. I want to make certain that, in our gut reaction to seeing something that seems wrong to us, we don't over react and punish everyone.

If one were to say, "Hey, protesting is fine but you can't film the people you're protesting." Then there goes my group's ability to film ourselves for legal protection. I think what those abortion protesters are doing is unconscionable, even though I am pro-life myself, but denying them their rights because we don't like what they are saying is a keen, double-edged sword that could cut off all sorts of protests at the knees.

I think the right to privacy for a medical procedure or consultation should outweigh your right to film the people you're protesting.

And people would say their right to private worship should outweigh my right to film on a public street outside of a church. And other people would say their right to privately associate with whomever they want should outweight my right to film them going into a KKK meeting. You may not agree with the examples but they can contextualize their privacy in the same way. So long as the protesters aren't breaking any laws by filming what they are filming, this sort of contextualization either ends up being special pleading or would have to be uniformly enforced to be just and fair.

I think it's fair to uniformly enforce a ban on filming people in the context of their medical treatment. I don't see a problem with that, and it doesn't conflict with your examples either.

I don't think it's fair because it seems like special pleading. There are lots of things that people would prefer to remain private, including their medical choices, that they wouldn't want filmed. Why should we put a ban on filming that one private thing and not any other private thing, within the context of protests? Why should that one private matter obey a rule or rules that no otehr private matter obeys?

It's not special pleading, it's established law in many cases. In the USA for instance, there are broad protections for patients and their privacy at all level of the medical process. There is a recognition from psychology to surgery that confidentiality and privacy is critical to the functioning of the medical profession. That has been understood since at least the writing of Hippocrates.

This is not new, it's not special, it's how medicine has always worked. Folding a new technology into millennia of jurisprudence isn't special.

Those laws apply to confidential nature of doctors and patients with regard to very specific circumstances which do not include anything about protests. Indeed people's medical information can and is made public by news organizations when its relevant to a story. I am instantly reminded of a woman in the U.K. who made a whole slew of false claims about fighting cancer with holistic medicine and it turned out no medical records could be found to back up anything she said. While medical privacy does have some special privilege that privilege is not all-encompassing, nor should it be. This in mind, you'd need to demonstrate a compelling reason why medical facilities and/or patients of those facilities should not be the subject of protest with regard to filming. Simply stating that it's a private matter doesn't hold up because lots of things are private matters and do not have that privilege. Simply stating that doctor-patient privilege exists is also not compelling because that privilege is limited and specific.

From the AMA journal of ethics:

A substantial amount of legal and ethical attention focuses on physicians? duty to maintain the confidentiality of personal medical information. The necessary role of trust in fiduciary relationships, the personal and social consequences of medical practice, and the intrinsic value of medical privacy all justify upholding a patient?s interests in confidentiality. Society, on the other hand, has a legitimate interest in permitting, and sometimes legally requiring, breaches of confidentiality.

The AMA goes on to detail some of these legitimate interests but the point is that societal interest can and does in many cases trump medical privacy. I would say this is especially true when it comes to a conflict between people's privacy and the basic rights granted by our constitution, such as the right of protest, free speech, ect.