Since I wish to stay on topic, I will stick to talking about how they are objectionable as they pertain to the subject of blocking access to buildings that contain aborting clinics. If you just want to talk about the tactics themselves in a general sense, I’m sure a new thread on the subject be very informative. The main difference is that the actions of a union can be laid at the feet of a union, whereas many times abortion protesters come from many different groups and even by themselves.
I find three examples on the first page:
In that quote, Sitnam evokes the comparison to similar protests levied against church congregations. (And Czarcsam does not intervene with an admonition that this is an off-topic comparison, shockingly).
In the above post, stpauler points out that the Supreme Court itself, and presidents, have more extended zones of protections.
This post offers up a general principle: he says, “…screaming at people about to do what they have every right to do…” as opposed to “…screaming at women about to get abortions…”
Rebutting this claim is appropriate by pointing out that shoppers crossing a picket line, and scabs crossing a picket line, are also doing “what they have every right to do,” but that he likely does not judge the union members doing the screaming to be USDA Prime Certified Assholes.
And once again, if you or someone else starts a thread about crossing union picket lines we can see what posters will or will not say about it without you having to make assumptions about that separate subject.
Gee whillikers, Czarcasm, I guess you musta missed page one of this thread, 'cause you sure didn’t have this fidelity to keeping to the narrow subject after the speculation about protesting church congregations.
It’s sure funny how this fidelity asserts itself after the union example, but not the church example.
Why is that?
Gee willikers, Bricker, I could have sworn I tried to point out to hector that his continually bringing up protesters in Russia was off-topic because we were talking about civil rights in the United States.
Bricker, how would you describe the demeanor of the majority of those that protest abortion providers, to the best of your ability?
I’ve gone to about a dozen abortion-clinic protests over the years (mostly when I was in college writing for the school paper and covering Operation Rescue in their heyday), and I never saw them be hostile or aggressive. I think I saw one guy yelling things like “please don’t kill your baby” – rude and obnoxious, but not remotely threatening. Even when they were doing the chain-themselves-to-the-door schtick, they were very careful to follow all the standard rules for civil disobedience, including being unfailingly civil.
I’ve also been to about a dozen pro-life rallies of various kinds over the years (I myself am a centrist on the issue), and I’ve never heard anyone express anything but sympathy and concern for the women choosing to abort. Speakers frequently emphasize the need for activists to be courteous, gentle and wise.
There is an abortion clinic a mile from my house that I have driven by probably a thosand times, and I’ve sat at the stoplight and watched a couple dozen interactions between protesters and patients/staff … it mainly consists of old ladies in lawn chairs praying and passing out leaflets.
You keep making suggestions about what you think is “the rule,” but you have offered no evidence for it.
Heck, maybe it’s cyclical. Protesters get all meek and humble, laws restricting them get struck down, protesters get emboldened, extremists grow in their midst, doctors get shot, new laws restricting protests are passes, protesters return to meekness and humbleness…
One of those “circles of pro-life” things…
Anti-abortionists sound like really nice people! :rolleyes:
But then there’s this:
I think the point to be made here is that most people are relatively decent, or at least non-violent. But the cohort of anti-abortionists, let’s face it, does not have a very good statistical track record, not surprising since this is a group notoriously incapable of minding their own damn business.
What’s the offense involved when the protesters stand in the driveway and prevent cars from turning in from the street? Traffic-citation for obstructing traffic?
I saw this happen. There were police standing by and observing it, but they didn’t act. I’m guessing that, since it wasn’t violent, they preferred not to appear to take sides.
To be fair, from my observation, the solid majority – 80% or more – were orderly and proper. They didn’t block traffic; they didn’t commit assault; they chanted slogans and engaged in open prayer, but they didn’t snarl, scream, issue offensive epithets, call rude names, or behave overly loutishly.
A few more were aggressive. They blocked traffic, shouted, called names. One was caught trying to rip off a volunteer sign-up sheet, hoping to obtain by theft the names and home phone numbers of the pro-choice escorts. Charges were filed.
A tiny handful were violent. I was shoved and spat upon. A fistfight between two men broke out. (I did not see the beginning of it, so I don’t know who threw the first punch. The police acted quickly to break it up.)
I also watched the police drag one protester from under a car, where he had crawled to resist arrest. He put on an unconvincing “victim of police brutality” act, crying and screaming and feigning injury, but even those on his own side were not convinced.
Some of the more reasonable people on the pro-life side even went so far as to apologize to us for the misbehavior of their more extremist members.
A National Park Ranger once said to me, in a different context, “Five per cent of the people cause all of the problems.”
So, according to your statistics, a movement that includes tens of millions of people is responsible, over the last 37 years, for one murder every 4 1/2 years, and an attempted murder about once every two years.
Given the murder rate for the country as whole, could you flesh out what your basis of comparison is for judging their “statistical track record?”
True that.
While this is a very good and telling rebuttal, I wonder if it is wholly valid, statistically.
How many other murders have been committed by pro-life activists? Sure, they’ve only murdered a tiny handful of abortion providers, but, like, how many banks have the robbed, or convenience stores, or how many ex-wives have they shot, etc.?
By restricting the case to abortion-issue related murders, it could make them seem positively angelic. But as an overall population, how many murders have they committed?
I can’t imagine any way of obtaining these data, but it would certainly be interesting to see. Is the pro-life side really less murderous than the population overall?
Meanwhile, when restricted solely to abortion-issue related murders…how many have the pro-choice side committed? How many “rescuers” or clinic protesters, or blockaders, have been murdered? I don’t know the real number – I’m assuming it’s zero – so, in that regard, the pro-life side does not do well in a straight-up comparison.
Obviously, I’m pleased that the issue has been less murderously violent than, say, labor union issues (on both sides.) The abortion issue has (thank God!) never had a “Ludlow Massacre” or even a “Triangle Shirtwaist” disaster.
It’s certainly possible, but given the demographics of the pro-life movement, I’d sure want to see data from anyone making that claim.
It may not be zero, but AFAIK it’s very, very low. The relevant distinction, though, is that pro-choice advocates are enforcing the status quo. The pro-lifers see themselves as fighting against an entrenched social evil, and you don’t need to agree with them to understand the psychology involved.
Thinking of America’s two other great religiously-fueled social crusades, ISTM the pro-lifers are much more violent than the 1960s civil-rights movement, much less so than the Abolitionists. That seems like fair benchmarking.
They’re also less violent than segregationists, who were also in what they viewed as a religiously-fueled social crusade.
I have only attended K of C protests, in which the form of the protest is to amass and pray the rosary.
So: the demeanor I am familiar with is where protesters gather and pray the rosary, and direct no commentary at all to the clinic’s clientele.
Yes. You zealously defend against expanding the topic when the expansion is unhelpful to your argument.
When the expansion is consistent with your argument, you remain silent.
And that accomplishes *what *exactly? Besides helping you feel good, that is. Does it save any “lives”?
There may be “tens of millions” who identify as “pro-life”, but I question whether there are tens of millions sufficiently worked up about it to organize into screaming mobs. That’s a much smaller cohort. Also by focusing on murders and attempted murders (admittedly a wonderfully ironic activity for someone identifying as “pro-life”) you’re overlooking some of the other stats… 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism. That partial list alone totals 4,354 illegal incidents.
Or maybe just less numerous, and thus less emboldened by sheer numbers. [De]segregation was perceived as a major issue in everyday life.
OTOH almost 3,000 of the incidents you mention are trespassing, and vandalism. I don’t think Supergluing locks or moving closer than ten feet to the entrance is much evidence of a tendency to violence.
Regards,
Shodan