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

[Kerethos]

Why the hell is "abortion clinics" even a thing? It's a medical procedure, just do it in a regular hospital (and the state should ensure that you can do it in any regular hospital). That way, the "shaming" tactic won't ever work - on the outside, you don't know which procedure someone entering the hospital will have performed, not even if they're not there just for visiting someone. On the inside, the hospital can just throw out the protesters out of their premises, in doubt by calling in the police and having them hauled away or arrested.

This right here is how it works in my country. There's no such thing as "abortion clinics" here.

Edit: And certainly no religious-ideology based hospitals.

Abortion is just treated as a medical procedure, thus part of what the doctors and nurses working with prenatal care do. You don't want the baby, for whatever reason, they provide the care you need to safely terminate the pregnancy. Provided that is still an option, I mean at some point the baby has matured enough that it can't be safely aborted and you're just gonna have to go with giving it up for adoption instead.

 

[Dizchu]

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.

 

[rcs619]

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.

If they cared so much about the sanctity of life, they would support universal healthcare, improvements to social programs for low-income families, and the sorts of sweeping reforms and enhanced funding that the foster-care and other such systems desperately need. But by and large, pro-life people are the same people that vehemently oppose all three of those as well and/or elect people that do. You know who would have probably been all for the idea of universal healthcare for the poor and for the children? Jesus. That was kind of his thing.

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. At the end of the day, yelling and screaming and holding signs about killing babies... that's easy. Anyone can do that in an afternoon to make themselves feel better about themselves. But actually *helping* real people, actually trying to deal with the core social and economic issues that drive poverty and unwanted pregnancies, now that's hard. That's nuanced. And by and large, the kind of people that yell and scream outside of abortion clinics don't want nuance. They want nice, simple, black and white, good vs evil.

 

[Gorrath]

Why the hell is "abortion clinics" even a thing? It's a medical procedure, just do it in a regular hospital (and the state should ensure that you can do it in any regular hospital). That way, the "shaming" tactic won't ever work - on the outside, you don't know which procedure someone entering the hospital will have performed, not even if they're not there just for visiting someone. On the inside, the hospital can just throw out the protesters out of their premises, in doubt by calling in the police and having them hauled away or arrested.

It's a thing because a lot of hospitals, and a lot of doctors for that matter, simply refuse to be involved with it in any way. A lot of these places are religiously-based to begin with, and there's a large chunk of doctors that just will not touch this with a 10ft pole. Cost is another issue as well. A lot of the time people looking at abortion as an option tend to be middle to lower-middle class, to objectively poor. If you had to be admitted into a regular hospital, even on an outpatient basis, the price of the whole thing would skyrocket. I'm not sure if most heatlh insurance plans actually cover it or not either, which would be another factor (a lot of hospitals won't even touch you if you don't have insurance, or insurance doesn't cover something).

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.

One of the things that confuses me about anti-abortion activists is they always seem to assume that women are happy with what they're about to do. I'll never know that struggle, but I can only imagine that no women decide to have an abortion on a whim; that's a heavy and life-altering decision, not one made lightly. Fuck anyone who goes out of their way to make it harder on those poor women.

One of the things that confuses me about anti-abortion people is the religious angle to all of it. Like, in the bible (which a lot of these people claim to believe is the literal word of god) there's even a passage that *encourages* you to give your wife a potion if you think she's cheating. If she then miscarries the baby, then it turns out she was cheating on you after all. That's a freaking abortion right there. Sanctioned and encouraged by god, in the bible.

If you want to purely talk about the ethical and moral quandary abortion presents, and when human life actually begins scientifically, that is a legitimate discussion to be had. But don't drape it in religion and 'God's will'. That kind of shit leads to ugly, emotional and intractable differences of option and it encourages extremists to take more and more extreme actions because they feel like they're on a just, holy crusade against evil.

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.

 

[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!