INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

For topics that are more about faith, religion and religious organisations than anything else.
Message
Author
Sandra Price
Posts: 46
Joined: October 16th, 2011, 5:01 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#61 Post by Sandra Price » October 28th, 2011, 5:00 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

In America, the government successfully banned alcohol throughout the borders. Making the sale and consumption of alcohol a federal prohibition simply opened up a level of criminal activities that lasted for years. Crime went up considerably and the federal government tripled in size just to control the new prohibition. Federal agents exploded on the scene and trying to control the booze-selling mobs ended up with people being murdered all over America. If many people believe that abortions are murder then having one would be out of the question. I do not understand why any human would demand a law from any level of government to set the standards for any-one's life. Are adult humans unable to determine the subject of abortion? Do you want an old gray-haired grandmother to tell you what not to do? Send me an email and I will tell you what not to do so let's keep it out of the government.
Not for Prophet

Skyfrog
Posts: 143
Joined: August 11th, 2011, 1:36 am

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#62 Post by Skyfrog » October 28th, 2011, 5:12 pm

Thanks for offering your perspective, Emma. It is always helpful to get an alternative view. :)

I share your concerns. The difference between us is that, for me, privacy concerns justify ending protests outside abortion clinics, whereas you attach a greater moral weight to the right to peaceful protest. My argument is that being able to protest outside a clinic is not the be-all-and-end-all of peacefully campaigning against abortion. They can campaign in many, many other ways.

The Abortion Cams site you linked horrifies me. One of the reasons I am so concerned about the anti-abortion movement in the UK is that it bases itself on the American anti-abortion movement, and many of the people and organisations involved come from America. The situation in America with regards to anti-abortion campaigning is very, very ugly. I really do not want that kind of thing coming to Britain.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#63 Post by animist » October 28th, 2011, 7:51 pm

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Actually, I can't see how they could be prohibited.
but surely protesters could be kept a reasonable distance from the entrances? Demonstrations aren't allowed in the immediate vicinity of places like Parliament, so there is nothing unique in at least providing some clear space between protesters and the objects of their protests
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:I don't believe it would possible to legislate against such protests in a way that would effectively protect women using the clinics but that would not also prohibit other expressions of free speech. Yes, women using the clinics might be upset by the protesters, and might be influenced by them, but the risk of upsetting or influencing supposedly vulnerable people is not a justification for limiting free speech, and I don't see why there should be a case for giving special protection to women using abortion clinics.
I think there is a case for just this because this is such a personal matter, and the Race Relations Act does limit free speech when this constitutes harassment - this sounds comparable to intimidation of women who are to undergo a very private and often distressing operation, and is quite different from forceful expression of views in general arenas
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:In fact, I can't help feeling that talking about such women as though they are uniquely vulnerable and in a uniquely difficult moral situation is somehow to play into the hands of the pro-lifers. For many women, the decision to have an abortion is a relatively easy one. And most women, I would imagine, even very young ones, are pretty robust and capable of ignoring the protesters and just getting on with things.
lots of assumptions, and how can you know how robust a particular woman is? It anyway is the less robust ones who should be the object or our concerns
Emma Woolgatherer wrote: In any case, if pro-life activists wanted to torment women using abortion clinics, but were forbidden from protesting outside the clinics, they could easily find other, legal means. They could, for example, take photographs of women entering the clinics and post them on websites like http://www.abortioncams.com/.
yes they can do things like this, but that is not quite the same as tormenting people at the scene, is it? Only people who want to see this stuff will see it
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Skyfrog wrote:I strongly believe in freedom of expression and freedom of assembly...but I also believe in a right to privacy and dignity.
I'm not sure that I do. How could such a right be enforceable, in this Internet age?
that is an odd jump, from saying what you think should or should not be the case to the difficulty or otherwise of enforcing it as though the latter justified the former. And the existence of the Internet, long range camera lenses, phone hacking etc makes the protection of privacy the more important - that is what the Murdoch case is all about, surely

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#64 Post by animist » October 29th, 2011, 8:41 am

Skyfrog wrote: The difference between us is that, for me, privacy concerns justify ending protests outside abortion clinics, whereas you attach a greater moral weight to the right to peaceful protest.
we have not tried to define what "peaceful" protest means. Holding placards, however horrific, is certainly peaceful protest. Shouting at women, and being close enough to them to be able to shove leaflets at them, is IMO not peaceful protest. To put this into context, I think what counts as peaceful does depend on what is being protested, at whom, and how. I campaign for Amnesty International, and I do not shout slogans like "Protect the Human" - but even if I did, I don't think this could be regarded as offensive or intimidating; I don't shove leaflets into bypassers' hands either, but even if I did, this would be only annoying rather than than offensive. If anti-abortion protesters outside clinics do such things, however, and given that the targets of their protests are the very individuals whose behaviour they are protesting against, I think this has ceased to be genuinely peaceful protest.

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#65 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 29th, 2011, 10:54 am

Skyfrog wrote:The difference between us is that, for me, privacy concerns justify ending protests outside abortion clinics, whereas you attach a greater moral weight to the right to peaceful protest.
I don’t think it's a matter of attaching moral weight. It’s more about what I think, on balance, is likely to produce a better outcome for a democratic society like ours. I think there may already be a legislative trend in this country that will end up giving greater weight to privacy than to freedom of expression, and I think that could be very damaging to democracy. (As I think our libel laws already are damaging.)
Skyfrog wrote:My argument is that being able to protest outside a clinic is not the be-all-and-end-all of peacefully campaigning against abortion. They can campaign in many, many other ways.
Yes, that's true. The same could be said of other protests and other forms of expression [---][/---] anti-vivisection protestors don't have to protest outside animal testing laboratories and upset the people who are going to work there; protestors against the sexual exploitation of women don't have to protest outside lap-dancing clubs and bother the punters; protestors against capital punishment in the US (or in the UK if it were ever reintroduced) don't have to protest outside courthouses and distress the families of murder victims. It’s an argument that could be applied in all sorts of situations, and if it were applied widely as the basis for legislative change it would, in my view, have a chilling effect on democratic expression.
Skyfrog wrote:The Abortion Cams site you linked horrifies me. One of the reasons I am so concerned about the anti-abortion movement in the UK is that it bases itself on the American anti-abortion movement, and many of the people and organisations involved come from America. The situation in America with regards to anti-abortion campaigning is very, very ugly. I really do not want that kind of thing coming to Britain.
Me neither. But I'm not persuaded that prohibiting peaceful protest is the way to stop it. There have been protests outside abortion clinics in the UK for many years. And as I understand it, they have been, for the most part, peaceful. This from a Guardian article about one of the recent protests:
Inside Maidstone's Marie Stopes centre, the manager, Julie Wilson, said: "The clinic has been here for 11 years and we have had protesters outside the building on a regular basis. Usually they are peaceful although, on occasions, they can be more intrusive and clients can be upset and decide not to go ahead with their appointment on the day. Generally though, we find these clients come back. It's actually the people who accompany the clients who are often more upset.”
And we do already have laws against threatening behaviour at protests. For example, the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (which, admittedly, I was generally rather unhappy about at the time) inserted the following section into the 1986 Public Order Act:
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
I assume that it is this legislation that has already been used to stop some pro-life protesters from displaying particularly unpleasant banners (see Daily Mail article).

I think we also need a stronger campaign to counter the misinformation propagated by these groups. But perhaps we also need to take some of their points on board. If it's true that some doctors tell their patients that a foetus is "just a blob of tissue, a bean-shaped mass" (mentioned in the Daily Mail article), then perhaps they should stop doing that. The pro-life campaigners make a big issue of the fact that foetuses have fingers, as though the possession of fingers were itself an indication of personhood or consciousness or sentience or the ability to suffer. But a two-week old mouse foetus has "fingers". What's important, in my view, is that there is overwhelming evidence that a human foetus under 24 weeks does not feel pain ("Human foetus feels no pain before 24 weeks, study says", Guardian, 25 June 2010; and see also, "Fetal Pain: A Red Herring in the Abortion Debate", by Joyce Arthur). It is that kind of information that informs my own views about the morality of abortion more than anything else, and I'm surprised that it doesn't get mentioned more often.

Emma

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#66 Post by animist » October 29th, 2011, 11:23 am

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:What's important, in my view, is that there is overwhelming evidence that a human foetus under 24 weeks does not feel pain ("Human foetus feels no pain before 24 weeks, study says", Guardian, 25 June 2010; and see also, "Fetal Pain: A Red Herring in the Abortion Debate", by Joyce Arthur). It is that kind of information that informs my own views about the morality of abortion more than anything else, and I'm surprised that it doesn't get mentioned more often.

Emma
that is a very important and reassuring point, and one which I had meant to refer to, though there was another study (admittedly reported in the Mail, though I don't think they would fabricate it) which went the other way. I do find this surprising, though, given that the nervous system is apparently formed much earlier than this

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#67 Post by animist » October 29th, 2011, 12:13 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... on=Gallery

the above article illlustrates another facet of the problem of unwanted children, which must be faced by anyone who (like me) has qualms about abortion. If only contraception and adoption services could together take the help women to become pregnant only when they really wanted to do so, there would be much less abortion - if only :laughter:

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#68 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 29th, 2011, 1:34 pm

animist wrote:but surely protesters could be kept a reasonable distance from the entrances?
Yes. Actually, I suspect that if US-style pro-life activism does come to England and Wales on a large scale, then laws to enforce that may well be introduced here. They have introduced them in Canada, and in several US states (although not without legal difficulties and much controversy). They're called access zone or buffer zone or bubble zone laws. My feeling is that such laws should be a last resort.
animist wrote:Demonstrations aren't allowed in the immediate vicinity of places like Parliament, so there is nothing unique in at least providing some clear space between protesters and the objects of their protests
The law banning demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament (Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005) has, I'm glad to say, been repealed. That is, according to the Parliament Protest blog, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 Part 3 is now on the Statute Book, having received Royal Assent on Act on 15 September, but it has not yet been Commenced by Order, and won't come into force until, I think, May next year. (Needless to say, the Police Reform Act is not entirely a good thing. See Sophie Khan's article in the Guardian.)
animist wrote:I think there is a case for just this because this is such a personal matter, and the Race Relations Act does limit free speech when this constitutes harassment - this sounds comparable to intimidation of women who are to undergo a very private and often distressing operation, and is quite different from forceful expression of views in general arenas ...
As I said to Skyfrog, there are already laws against behaviour that amounts to intimidation or intentionally causing alarm or distress.
animist wrote:lots of assumptions, and how can you know how robust a particular woman is? It anyway is the less robust ones who should be the object or our concerns
Our concerns, yes. Our laws limiting free speech, no, I don't think so. I think the idea that certain freedoms should be curtailed because they might upset vulnerable people, even people dealing with a personal, private and possibly distressing matter, could be applied much more widely, and that worries me. Surely it is better to prepare women for strong expressions of objection to abortion than try to protect them from them. It is true that having an abortion is generally a personal and private matter, but a significant reason for that is the very widespread disapproval of it. It is so personal and private that it comes as a great shock to many people when they learn that a third of all women in the UK have had an abortion by the age of 45 (according to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists). I think that it would be a good thing if those of us who are pro-choice, whether we've had an abortion or not, were better able to deal with and react to people's vocal disapproval of abortion. I think it would be a good thing, generally, if abortion were more openly discussed at the level of individual personal experience. As it is, it is the pro-life activists who make the most use of the testimony of women who have had an abortion. And of course the women they choose are those with regrets. In fact, the pro-lifers claim that an overwhelming majority of women who have an abortion regret it (82% in the UK, according to one pro-life survey). And they would argue, of course, that they are concerned with those "less robust women", because they may well be the ones who are more likely to suffer severe depression after having an abortion. So, if a woman is "less robust", how can she be protected and what should she be protected from? Distress and influence or the consequences of her decision? She can't make an uninfluenced decision. The best she can do is make an informed one. And if she decides to have an abortion, then the better informed she is the more easily she will be able to cope, not only with the placards and chants and leaflets and comments of a few protesters but also with the much subtler messages about abortion that she will encounter in her everyday life. Messages that are more often than not saying that abortion is a bad thing, and that a woman who resorts to it has failed in some important way, and has good reason to feel ashamed and regretful.
animist wrote:that is an odd jump, from saying what you think should or should not be the case to the difficulty or otherwise of enforcing it as though the latter justified the former.
My wording was poor, but I wasn't jumping from saying what I think should or should not be the case. I said that I wasn't sure that I do believe in a right to privacy and dignity. That is, I lack a belief that such a right or rights ought to be enshrined in (English and Welsh) law, and I also lack a belief that such a right or rights can be legislated for in a way that won't seriously diminish other existing rights. And those two things are related. But it's a complicated issue, and I may change my mind about it. Or I might feel even more strongly about it as the effects of changes to privacy law become apparent. I don't know.
animist wrote:And the existence of the Internet, long range camera lenses, phone hacking etc makes the protection of privacy the more important - that is what the Murdoch case is all about, surely
Is it? Well, maybe it is, as far as individuals are concerned. We might want to protect our privacy, by changing the pass codes on our mobile phones, or being cautious about who we accept as Facebook friends, or not sunbathing naked within view of the street or the neighbours. But do we really want laws to be changed to protect our privacy further? I don't think I do. Phone hacking is already illegal, and the News of the World did it anyway. It was also unethical, in my view, because it was not in the greater public interest. But some invasions of privacy are in the public interest, and I think they can be justified. That's why I'm glad that Max Mosley lost his bid in the European Court of Human Rights in May to force newspapers to warn people before publishing stories exposing their private lives. Even though such a law would have protected some vulnerable people from unpleasantness and distress. As Ian Hislop said, "Bad law is always advanced by cases like Mosley's that seem on the surface to have some merit. But it would then be extended to people who don't have any merit, and want to cover up what they're doing."

Emma

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#69 Post by Dave B » October 29th, 2011, 1:57 pm

Yes. Actually, I suspect that if US-style pro-life activism does come to England and Wales on a large scale, then laws to enforce that may well be introduced here. They have introduced them in Canada, and in several US states (although not without legal difficulties and much controversy). They're called access zone or buffer zone or bubble zone laws. My feeling is that such laws should be a last resort.
IIRC, Emma, there is such a law here regarding union pickets. It was introduced to stop the strikers smashing the windows of the blacklegs' cars and coaches, or even attacking them in person.

I would suspect that this would count as a precedent that could be stretched. But let's hope that this is one American import we can resist.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#70 Post by animist » October 30th, 2011, 8:38 am

animist wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... on=Gallery

the above article illlustrates another facet of the problem of unwanted children, which must be faced by anyone who (like me) has qualms about abortion. If only contraception and adoption services could together take the help women to become pregnant only when they really wanted to do so, there would be much less abortion - if only :laughter:
I realised later that this post was badly expressed re adoption. What I meant to get over is that if there were more prospect of unwanted babies being adopted by loving would-be parents, the resistance of pregnant women with developed foetusus to going thru the process of childbirth (in preference to what would probably be a relatively difficult process of abortion) might be less than it is

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#71 Post by Dave B » October 30th, 2011, 11:13 am

During a programme on radio discussing the St Paul's situation (very much in two minds over that) it was said that in America those that were actually doing the protesting were obliged to keep moving - standing still and shouting or banner waving was illegal.

Sandra, is that a federal law and, if so, does it get enforced and does it make much difference to "personal" contact between the two "sides"?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Sandra Price
Posts: 46
Joined: October 16th, 2011, 5:01 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#72 Post by Sandra Price » October 30th, 2011, 12:52 pm

The Republican Party wants to add a prohibition of abortions to a Constitutional Amendment which would ban abortions for all Americans and would be enforced through the Homeland Security authority. It is the only way to allow the states to enact independently. One of our legislators (Alan Keyes) suggested a "Sin Amendment" that would group gay marriages and death with dignity (assisted suicide) in the mix. The Republican legislators do not trust the American people to act according to the New Testament and began to put pressure on the Congress after World War Two. The Congress set this Evangelical movement aside to focus on our economy. The whole purpose of electing Governor George Bush from Texas into the White House was to bring this federal force against sin back into the government.

The obsession is due to the "end of days" threats that the world is coming to an end and the Evangelicals want to force a major action against these so-called sins. The Tea Party believes that 2012 will be the end of life as we know it. Their religious leaders are going pray us all into hell if we don't obey them. The fear of the occult is terrible and when I moved to my current home, I had a welcome wagon lady tell me she would not enter my home because I had rescued two black cats and she feared they were sent from Satan.

I knew the state of Arizona was crazy Christians but not California. This fear of superstition has started to grow in California.
Not for Prophet

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#73 Post by Dave B » October 30th, 2011, 1:34 pm

Sandra, it sounds as though America is progressing straight back into the medieval era! Wonder when they will decide that using electronic (like pacemakers and ICDs) and mechanical devices (like stents and heart valves) to go counter to their God's will and prolong life is also sinful?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Sandra Price
Posts: 46
Joined: October 16th, 2011, 5:01 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#74 Post by Sandra Price » October 30th, 2011, 3:03 pm

The endgame is to have all Americans declare Jesus Christ to be their saviors and our nation will be saved. This all came from Pat Robertson who just recently declared that the Republican Evangelicals might have gone too far. The terrorism within the Christian Churches has gone too far. It may take a couple of generations to get this madness out of America. I don't have that much time left and my desire to get religion out of the Republican Party does not seem to be recognized by many.

Politics has become very confusing to most Americans The agenda of the Republicans has changed from individual freedoms to control by the government. The Religious Right fears individual freedoms and they want their America to be for White, Christian Straight Men only.

There is a strong movement based on White Supremacy leadership trying to rule America. Many think it was triggered by our electing a black President. This is causing a lot of trouble with our southern border with Mexico. Many Americans are moving south of the border.

I believe that our allowing our citizens to be dumbed down dramatically is the reason the whole government is falling apart. To keep a government controlled by the people, takes a lot of intelligent voters and we no longer have this in America.
Not for Prophet

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#75 Post by Dave B » October 30th, 2011, 5:33 pm

Sandra, assuming it is yourself (seems safe): do you get any feedback from your Helium articles?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Sandra Price
Posts: 46
Joined: October 16th, 2011, 5:01 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#76 Post by Sandra Price » October 30th, 2011, 10:36 pm

Helium? Are you being snide? My entire agenda regarding all political points of view reflect my desire/demand for individual freedoms. If this site considers this as pure gas, then I will refrain from voicing my opinions where they are not taken as serious itshay.

Sorry I misunderstood the point of the thread.
Not for Prophet

lewist
Posts: 4402
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:53 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#77 Post by lewist » October 31st, 2011, 8:33 am

Sandra Price wrote:Helium? Are you being snide? My entire agenda regarding all political points of view reflect my desire/demand for individual freedoms. If this site considers this as pure gas, then I will refrain from voicing my opinions where they are not taken as serious itshay.

Sorry I misunderstood the point of the thread.
I'm not sure you're off topic, Sandra. I'm not sure what Dave's comment meant but perhaps he'll explain.

Last week I was in the studio audience for a debate between the four candidates for leadership of the Scottish Conservative Party. I was selected (I think) as a non Conservative voter (I was brought up in a very political household to believe them the children of Satan) and as part of the selection procedure I had to submit a question that might be asked. I chose to focus on one of their main planks, which is maintaining the union of Scotland with England. I wanted to ask what they would offer people who agreed with them in other ways but believed Scotland should regain her independence. We're discussing Scottish Independence here.

My question wasn't asked but it strikes me you are in a similar position, agreeing with the Republicans in many ways except for the religion part. In fact, your position is much worse because you describe a situation where your non belief is regarded as thought crime and you have been ostracised because of it.

I'm off to visit my brother in Chapel Hill, NC at the end of the week, which lovely town Governor Jesse Helms wanted to wall off to prevent the liberal views there from contaminating the rest of the state. Open minded or what?

We have a right to personal views, provided they do not impinge on or exclude the views or rights of, or harm, others.
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#78 Post by Dave B » October 31st, 2011, 9:22 am

Sandra Price wrote:Helium? Are you being snide? My entire agenda regarding all political points of view reflect my desire/demand for individual freedoms. If this site considers this as pure gas, then I will refrain from voicing my opinions where they are not taken as serious itshay.

Sorry I misunderstood the point of the thread.
Sandra, Helium is an organisation where people self-publish articles. There are articles on Helium about the Republican party etc. by one Sandra Price.

http://www.helium.com/users/148348/show_articles
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Sandra Price
Posts: 46
Joined: October 16th, 2011, 5:01 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#79 Post by Sandra Price » October 31st, 2011, 1:14 pm

Very interesting. Yes, I wrote that comment but I have never joined Helium. I tried to access my membership with them and they do not recognize my email address. I have kept my domained email address since the beginning. I stand by my comments which could have been picked up on my web site that is no longer available.

I have been a firm believer in Free Enterprise Capitalism but cannot continue to support the Republican Party as it has turned away from individual freedoms into a group of Christians. I am a devout Atheist which has made me a very unpopular political opinion writer. I have been published on Etherzone and Capitol Hill Blue. I also wrote for Phoenix.com but my words brought little response. I do not write to see my name in print; but to offer an opinion. Had I been a member of Helium, they would have responded to my email address this morning. They never heard of this information. I, like Atlas, shrug...
Not for Prophet

Sandra Price
Posts: 46
Joined: October 16th, 2011, 5:01 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#80 Post by Sandra Price » October 31st, 2011, 2:51 pm

From what I understand, there is no law broken when someone uses the words of others found on the internet. I may have submitted a comment but in many cases I have no memory of doing so. I get a lot of requests for my opinions on and off the 'net. I'm the first to admit that my individual freedoms agenda is not shared by many, even in America.

I am a deep believer in evolution and at this time of our development, we all should know and respect right from wrong. In America we have the legal right to make complete asses of our selves.

To me, freedom is to live within our choices. There is no need for the federal government to tell us what to inhale, ingest, inject or how to raise our family. Giving all of us our right of choices is the ultimate freedom. The growing authority of our federal government only starts an underground of illegal activities. We have a Constitution where the 10th Amendment gives the states the right to control our choices. Many states are governed by the religious right and it is our choice whether to live or not, in a state where social laws are legislated against the citizens. I have never broken a social law and I do not need big daddy to direct my choices. I live by my moral agenda to treat others as equals; it is based on knowing right from wrong. I will never impose this agenda on anyone else. I simply move away from those who require guidance throughout their lives.
Not for Prophet

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Should protests outside abortion clinics be allowed?

#81 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 31st, 2011, 3:07 pm

animist wrote:I realised later that this post was badly expressed re adoption. What I meant to get over is that if there were more prospect of unwanted babies being adopted by loving would-be parents, the resistance of pregnant women with developed foetusus to going thru the process of childbirth (in preference to what would probably be a relatively difficult process of abortion) might be less than it is
I doubt that there are many women who choose not to remain pregnant and give birth and have their babies adopted because of concerns about the speed and success of the adoption process. In fact, I'd be surprised if there were any. As I understand it, healthy newborn babies are generally placed with adoptive families pretty quickly, because the demand for them is so high. It is older children, children with health problems and those with a history of abuse or neglect, and siblings who need to stay together, that are harder to place. And however difficult a late-term abortion is, whether medical or surgical, I'm not convinced that it's more difficult than going through a full pregnancy and then giving birth to a baby and then giving that baby away.

Like you, I dream of a completely safe, easy-to-use, 100% effective contraceptive device leading to far fewer unwanted pregnancies. But meanwhile, there will continue to be unwanted pregnancies, and abortion will continue to be a solution to them. It would be good if more abortions were carried out earlier, but the trend is already in the right direction. In 2010, 77% of abortions [edited to add:] in England and Wales were carried out at under 10 weeks' gestation, compared to 75% in 2009 and 58% in 2000. Also in 2010, 91% were carried out at under 13 weeks, and nearly 99% were carried out at under 20 weeks. I suspect that the statistics would improve further if abortion law were changed so that a woman could obtain an abortion at under, say, 13 weeks with the consent of just one doctor, rather than having to consult two, and possibly have to face a GP who conscientiously objects to abortion, some of whom can apparently be quite obstructive. And I don't think that, at least for abortions under 13 weeks, a woman should have to justify her choice, or doctors be forced to state that the abortion is to be carried out on the grounds that, "the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman". I don't see how doctors can be expected to assess that anyway.

Emma

Post Reply