Abortion clinic "Buffer zones" in Massachusetts not legal, says unanimous SCOTUS

[Czarcasm]

@Hector_St_Clare

Many American cultural liberals think it should be. See the case in Russia with that feminist punk rock band.

Unless all liberals protest everything equally all the time, they are hypocrites?

1. What country do you live in?
2. What is the topic of this thread?

[Mosier]

@Hector_St_Clare

Hypothetical.

I’m not invested in the clinic protests one way or the other, since I don’t participate in them. I am however entirely uninterested in abortion-seekers having special freedom from protests that other groups (except polticians, I guess) don’t have. If it’s legal to throw disruptive protests inside a church, it should be legal to have disruptive protests outside an abortion clinic. Abortion is already far too easy and guilt-free a procedure.

Can you cite any legal disruptive protest made inside a church?

[bashere]

nevermind.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

A court can order, is a pretty big caveat.

Pursuant to the law, a court can order. That refutes the claim that men’s bodies are “sovereign” and that men have complete domain over their own bodies.

[wonky]

@Hector_St_Clare

Many American cultural liberals think it should be. See the case in Russia with that feminist punk rock band.

You’re not very good at this.

[Hector_St_Clare]

Re: So you’re in favor of inequality between men and women?

You didn’t ask me, but I’d say, when there’s a good reason for it, sure. Men and women are different- physiologically, behaviourally, cognitively, and emotionally, in their reproductive functions, talents, interests and abilities- and within reason, I don’t have a problem with the law treating them somewhat differently. The important thing is to treat men and women fairly and justly, not to treat them the same.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@Shakes

LOL. if men could get pregnant, do you really think the subject of abortion would even be a debate?

Of course, why wouldn’t it?

Women are about as likely as men to support banning abortion today, after all.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Pursuant to the law, a court can order. That refutes the claim that men’s bodies are “sovereign” and that men have complete domain over their own bodies.

Is “mostly sovereign” better for you?

[Czarcasm]

@Lobohan

Is “mostly sovereign” better for you?

I think “more sovereign” is better.

[Bricker]

@Shakes

Yes, and both men and women are subjugated to that law. So they’re equal. Give me an example wherein a man is subjugated to a law but a woman is not.

I’ll give you two:

Federal law, 50 USC § 453(a) provides in pertinent part:

…it shall be the duty of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.

This is commonly known as “Selective Service Registration.”

Idaho state law I.C. § 18-6101(7) provides in pertinent part:

18-6101. RAPE DEFINED. Rape is defined as the penetration, however slight, of the oral, anal or vaginal opening with the perpetrator’s penis…

[LavenderBlue]

@Hector_St_Clare

The important thing is to treat men and women fairly and justly, not to treat them the same.

There’s nothing fair or just about punishing women for getting abortions in the name of your morality. Men do not get pregnant. They also don’t get gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia or dead from childbearing. They should not get to tell women to take such health risk they are not forced to take.

You can go on ignoring my comments, Hector. You cannot silence my voice or my vote.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

Is “mostly sovereign” better for you?

No. Sovereign is not a word that remotely describes any single person within the United States (unless, I suppose, Queen Elizabeth II is visiting). The people are in aggregate sovereign; individual bodies, no matter their genitalia, are not.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@LavenderBlue

Who defines legitimate medical emergency? You? A Catholic priest? A conservative male senator? Just how pre-eclamptic does a woman have to be before she can deliver? How high does her blood pressure have to be?

:dubious:

The moral issue is whether you should be allowed to impose your morals on other people. Because I don’t view abortion as immoral. Less than ideal perhaps but hardly the sort of cold blooded murder you seem to believe it is.

The real issue isn’t how you feel or what you think. The real issue is how you intend to punish women who have abortions. Because you will NEVER stop women from getting them. It did not stop my mom in 1963. It would not stop me fifty years later. I doubt it would stop my girls at any point in the future.

1. It’s amusing how you refer to ‘male’ senators. Politicians are of course more likely to be male and probably always will be, but you realize that there isn’t really much of a gender gap on whether abortion should be legal, right?

2. No one thinks that banning abortion would get rid of them entirely, just that it would reduce the incidence.

[Lobohan]

@Hector_St_Clare

Of course, why wouldn’t it?

Women are about as likely as men to support banning abortion today, after all.

Yes, but human men wrote the religion that’s fueling a lot of anti-abortion sentiment. While they were making it up, they probably would have mentioned how abortion is cool.

[The_Second_Stone]

So we can protest within 8 feet of the USSC, despite Congress passing a law saying we cannot? Sounds about right to me.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Hector_St_Clare

If it’s legal to throw disruptive protests inside a church, it should be legal to have disruptive protests outside an abortion clinic.

So, if it isn’t legal to throw disruptive protests inside a church, then it shouldn’t be legal to have disruptive protests outside an abortion clinic?

[Czarcasm]

@Fiveyearlurker

So, if it isn’t legal to throw disruptive protests inside a church, then it shouldn’t be legal to have disruptive protests outside an abortion clinic?

Hector_St_Clare, are you advocating that disruptive protests inside churches should be allowed, or are you advocating that disruptive protests against those that want to enter a building that, among other things, provides abortions not be allowed?

[Bricker]

@The_Second_Stone

So we can protest within 8 feet of the USSC, despite Congress passing a law saying we cannot? Sounds about right to me.

This is wrong so much, I hardly know where to begin rebutting it.

Did Congress pass a law saying people can’t protest in front of the Supreme Court? Yes, 40 USC 13k, but it was struck down in US v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983).

Can you protest within 8 feet of the Supreme Court?

No, but the reason is “Regulation Seven,” issued by the Marshal of the Supreme Court. This is a regulation issued pursuant to both a grant of congressional authority permitting the Marshal of the Supreme Court to prescribe regulations, approved by the Chief Justice, that are necessary for the adequate protection of the Supreme Court Building and the maintenance of order and decorum, and the Court’s inherent judicial authority to regulate activities necessary to the smooth functioning of their judicial function.

[Grrr]

@Bricker

I’ll give you two:

Federal law, 50 USC § 453(a) provides in pertinent part:

This is commonly known as “Selective Service Registration.”

And when was the last draft? And do you honestly think that this law isn’t in its death throes now that women can fight on the battle field?

Idaho state law I.C. § 18-6101(7) provides in pertinent part:

In order to be subjugated to that law, you first have to commit a crime.

Getting pregnant isn’t a crime.

[LavenderBlue]

@Hector_St_Clare

1. It’s amusing how you refer to ‘male’ senators. Politicians are of course more likely to be male and probably always will be, but you realize that there isn’t really much of a gender gap on whether abortion should be legal, right?

2. No one thinks that banning abortion would get rid of them entirely, just that it would reduce the incidence.

Very few Americans support your extremist views on this subject. In between the sanctimonious posturing on the ebil womens who don’t feel guilty enough for you, that knowledge must have filtered into your head, right?

You just sit there plotting how you’re going to punish women for doing something you dislike. The genie is never going back in that bottle. Why don’t you stop wasting your time getting so worked up about women who have a legal medical procedure and actually do something useful for babies and women?