Abortion-clinic picketers.

[elbows]

But at it’s core the issue isn’t the morality, where life begins, if it’s a sin. It’s not about who’s right.

There are many people who happen to feel it’s morally wrong to kill and eat animals. They are passionate and believe, to the core if their beings, it’s equivalent to murder. They certainly have the right to protest outside slaughterhouses and burger joints, circulate fliers, talk it up at every opportunity.

What they don’t have is the right to impose their moral code on others, simply because it so deeply offends their sensibilities, that other are ‘murdering’ cows.

Were the country as polarized on the morality of ‘cow murdering’, near equally divided, the solution would remain as obvious.

Choice. Seriously a child could understand it. If you don’t want to eat murdered cows, don’t. But you don’t get to tell people, who believe otherwise, that they can’t kill and eat cows.

It’s about imposing moral codes on others, ultimately.

Choice allows both sides to live according to their own beliefs. No conflict is really required, if both sides could just let go of the desire to be right, and making others believe as they do.

What the anti abortionist are saying, effectively, is that everyone should live as they believe. It’s wrongheaded and selfish, but they did have things their way for a really long time, so I can appreciate that it’s hard to surrender that, but it’s time.

How any thinking person, can defend, imposing their belief on half a country, which happens to feel otherwise, rather than accept, ‘choice’, leaves me shaking my head.

(Maybe Bricker could respond to the question I posed up thread, I’m still curious to know. If I’m protesting at Pepsico or Exxon, they can get the cops to remove me to across the street or wherever else suits them, it seems to me. But no one does anything about these in your face anti abortionists. Why is that?)

Also what would happen if a clinic patron used a stun gun or mace on them, after finding them intimidating and unwilling to back off? Could they simply claim they felt threatened?

[Zeriel]

@tumbleddown

That was a good time, especially since that protester was known to all of us for his habit of waving his cohorts away whenever he saw an especially petite or young client approaching. He got off on jamming his huge body in the space and huge hands in the faces of tiny women. He smiled when he saw small women turning the corner from the parking lot.

These guys do unfortunately exist. And they do unfortunately tar one’s impressions of the pro-life movement.

Fortunately for me, I sing in a choir and sit next to the police chief. I’ve only been hassled by a cop for getting in a protester’s face once. The apology from that badge the next time I saw him after the next choir practice was absolutely delicious. =P

[elbows]

I’ve only been hassled by a cop for getting in a protester’s face once. The apology from that badge the next time I saw him after the next choir practice was absolutely delicious. =P

I just threw up a little in my mouth. Suddenly I understand why what would seem obvious to a schoolchild isn’t making an impact on these people.

I am too disgusted by the above display to continue, I’m out. (Clearly it’s true what they say, ‘Never wrestle with a pig, you’ll both get muddy, the pig will enjoy it.’ Shiver.

[Morgyn]

@elbows

I just threw up a little in my mouth. Suddenly I understand why what would seem obvious to a schoolchild isn’t making an impact on these people.

I am too disgusted by the above display to continue, I’m out. (Clearly it’s true what they say, ‘Never wrestle with a pig, you’ll both get muddy, the pig will enjoy it.’ Shiver.

Which bit is bothering you? The cop getting into the face of Zeriel, who was trying to protect a woman being escorted into the clinic, or that **Zeriel **got an apology from said cop because he knew the cop’s boss? Not asking to be snarky, just curious.

[Guinastasia]

@margin

That’s not exactly uncommon for the anti-choicers. Did you hear of the case of Angela Carder? When the TV assholes got ahold of it, they gave it a happy ending, but in real life both she and the fetus died, thanks entirely to the machinations of anti-choicers.

Holy shit – how in the world could something like happen? That’s literally holding the woman hostage.

[villa]

@lavenderviolet

Good news: There is an organization for people who do hold consistent views against abortion, the death penalty, and war. They have a website at http://www.consistent-life.org/

This always strikes me as an incredibly false argument. There is nothing inherently inconsistent about being anti-abortion rights and pro-death penalty. The entire argument the anti-abortion rights/pro-death penalty people make is that a “baby” is innocent of anything and shouldn’t be killed, while a person to be executed has made a choice to commit a crime and faces the punishment.

The anti-abortion rights, pro-war inconsistency is much stronger. But really, there are so many much stronger arguments against both the anti-abortion rights brigade, and the pro-death penalty people, that we make ourselves look pretty foolish by claiming an inconsistency where none need exist.

(Of course, there is an inconsistency for some - those who base their opposition to abortion rights on an idea that ALL human life is ALWAYS sacred and to be protected at all costs. But those are an incredibly small proportion of the anti-abortion rights movement.)

[Malacandra]

@elbows

But at it’s core the issue isn’t the morality, where life begins, if it’s a sin. It’s not about who’s right.

There are many people who happen to feel it’s morally wrong to kill and eat animals. They are passionate and believe, to the core if their beings, it’s equivalent to murder. They certainly have the right to protest outside slaughterhouses and burger joints, circulate fliers, talk it up at every opportunity.

What they don’t have is the right to impose their moral code on others, simply because it so deeply offends their sensibilities, that other are ‘murdering’ cows.

Were the country as polarized on the morality of ‘cow murdering’, near equally divided, the solution would remain as obvious.

Choice. Seriously a child could understand it. If you don’t want to eat murdered cows, don’t. But you don’t get to tell people, who believe otherwise, that they can’t kill and eat cows.

It’s about imposing moral codes on others, ultimately.

Choice allows both sides to live according to their own beliefs. No conflict is really required, if both sides could just let go of the desire to be right, and making others believe as they do.

But that’s what lawmaking is about! Unless everyone’s united on the issue, some people get to tell others that they can’t do as they like. You don’t say:

• If you don’t want to beat your wife, don’t. But you don’t get to tell people who believe otherwise that they can’t beat their wives.

• If you don’t want to euthanise your granny, don’t. But you don’t get to tell people who believe otherwise that they can’t euthanise their grannies.

• If you don’t want to steal, don’t. But you don’t get to tell people who believe otherwise that they can’t steal.

…etc. Seriously, a child could understand it.

Next up: “But abortion isn’t like…” I know. The point is, you’re going to have to base your argument elsewhere, not just say “If you don’t like it, don’t do it.”

[kambuckta]

:: kam peeks into thread that has taken on a life of its own ::

Nothing to add, seems like all the usual (and some unusual) suspects are here fighting the unwinnable fight.

Carry on.

[SSgtBaloo]

@Malacandra

Next up: “But abortion isn’t like…” I know. The point is, you’re going to have to base your argument elsewhere, not just say “If you don’t like it, don’t do it.”

My argument is based upon the fact that each of the examples you give above are flawed.

@Malacandra

• If you don’t want to beat your wife, don’t. But you don’t get to tell people who believe otherwise that they can’t beat their wives.

Absurd. Beating one’s wife (or anyone else, under ordinary circumstances) is illega. It doesn’t matter that I don’t believe it’s wrong or even that I am ignorant of the law. I hit somebody and I’m breaking the law.

• If you don’t want to euthanise your granny, don’t. But you don’t get to tell people who believe otherwise that they can’t euthanise their grannies.

While I wouldn’t euthanize granny against her wishes it is, in some jurisdictions, legal for the terminally ill to request euthanization at a certain point. So where it’s legal, and the criterion are met, the law is not broken.

• If you don’t want to steal, don’t. But you don’t get to tell people who believe otherwise that they can’t steal.

Patently absurd. As in case 1, above, the act is against the law. Abortion, on the other hand is legal, and as much as you’d like it to be otherwise you can’t just bully the laws you want into place. You have to get other people to vote with you, enough to get the law passed. Courtesy of our bill of rights, some laws are not allowed. This, BTW means I can’t get laws passed forcing you to obey a religious commandment I hold sacred that is repugnant to you.

People know when they are being treated as a person with feelings by someone who feels genuine concern and when others are trying to manipulate them into doing something against their will and are fully unconcerned about the person as long as the person in question does what they want. I believe G-d doesn’t coerce people, he gives them a choice. His adversaries, on the other hand…

[Princhester]

SSgtBaloo, I’ve seen someone miss the point before, but you are attempting to set a whole new record. You might have intended to take aim at **Malacandra’s **post but your response landed somewhere in a distant galaxy, far, far away.

elbows appears to have been attempting to argue (utterly unconvincingly, frankly) that abortion shouldn’t be illegal because that involves imposing one’s moral code on others who don’t believe in it. **Malacandra **pointed out the mind bogglingly obvious namely that the law imposes moral codes on people who don’t believe in them all the freakin’ time, and rightly so. Consequently, whatever arguments there may be in favour of keeping abortion legal (and there are plenty in my view) **elbows’ **argument isn’t one of them. Indeed, the argument that “you shouldn’t make it illegal because that would be imposing a moral code on everyone that not everyone believes in” is in fact totally and utterly facile.

I think you need to go back and re-read.

[Princhester]

@kambuckta

:: kam peeks into thread that has taken on a life of its own ::

Kam, you know how it is. Once you bring these things into the world, you don’t have much control. Shoulda terminated your embryonic intention to create start the thread before it reached full term…

[SSgtBaloo]

@Princhester

I think you need to go back and re-read.

Nah, I think I got so “impressed with my own elegance” that I just forgot for a moment what I was talking about. :smack: It’s late and I’m tired so that might be a contributing factor.

Carry on.

[kambuckta]

@Princhester

Kam, you know how it is. Once you bring these things into the world, you don’t have much control. Shoulda terminated your embryonic intention to create start the thread before it reached full term…

Ahhh, but my intention was to complain about the freakazoids in Albury filming the folks attending the clinic, not to open up the traditional pro-life vs pro-choice can of worms. I was pretty sure that subject had been done to friggin’ death here already, and didn’t think another thread would inflame the masses so much. However, upon hindsight, I was a complete fucking idiot to assume anything…mea culpa etc.

Now, whilst on topic, can we introduce legislation to allow retroactive abortions too? I’ve got a couple of kids who need terminating, and even though they’re now in their twenties, I reckon I’ve got sufficient reason.

[Bricker]

@kambuckta

Ahhh, but my intention was to complain about the freakazoids in Albury filming the folks attending the clinic…

What solution would you suggest?

The freakazoids come to you and say, “Help us solve our problem. We are exercising our legal and constitutionally protected right to protest, and because we have chosen this issue, many people bear us ill will. Why, in this very thread, Jackmannii accuses both People magazine and the New York Times of lying, with no contrary citation to bolster his claim. It’s clear that similar motivations would cause clinic escorts to lie about our actions with a clear conscience, in support of the ‘higher cause’ of pro-choice. So we need some way to be able to prove, if accused, that we did nothing illegal. What do you suggest?”

[Peremensoe]

@kambuckta

Ahhh, but my intention was to complain about the freakazoids in Albury filming the folks attending the clinic, not to open up the traditional pro-life vs pro-choice can of worms.

Do you suggest that people not be allowed to film public happenings?

Or do you just mean that these particular ones are doing it in a rude and threatening way (but must be tolerated nonetheless)?

[cosmosdan]

@classyladyhp

Gee I don’t know do tumors have xx or xy chromsomes? i think it’s pretty damn easy to tell the difference. Tumors don’t have heartbeats either.

If you’re claiming “baby /person from the moment of conception” then heartbeat doesn’t come into it. Zygotes and embryos don’t have heartbeats either and are clumps of cells. That’s why facts matter when making claims that affect other people’s lives.

[cosmosdan]

@kambuckta

:: kam peeks into thread that has taken on a life of its own ::

Nothing to add, seems like all the usual (and some unusual) suspects are here fighting the unwinnable fight.

Carry on.

Come back, we’re going to start rehearsals for Don Quixote. We already found someone to play Sancho’s ass.

[classyladyhp]

@elbows

But at it’s core the issue isn’t the morality, where life begins, if it’s a sin. It’s not about who’s right.

There are many people who happen to feel it’s morally wrong to kill and eat animals. They are passionate and believe, to the core if their beings, it’s equivalent to murder. They certainly have the right to protest outside slaughterhouses and burger joints, circulate fliers, talk it up at every opportunity.

What they don’t have is the right to impose their moral code on others, simply because it so deeply offends their sensibilities, that other are ‘murdering’ cows.

Were the country as polarized on the morality of ‘cow murdering’, near equally divided, the solution would remain as obvious.

Choice. Seriously a child could understand it. If you don’t want to eat murdered cows, don’t. But you don’t get to tell people, who believe otherwise, that they can’t kill and eat cows.

It’s about imposing moral codes on others, ultimately.

Choice allows both sides to live according to their own beliefs. No conflict is really required, if both sides could just let go of the desire to be right, and making others believe as they do.

What the anti abortionist are saying, effectively, is that everyone should live as they believe. It’s wrongheaded and selfish, but they did have things their way for a really long time, so I can appreciate that it’s hard to surrender that, but it’s time.

How any thinking person, can defend, imposing their belief on half a country, which happens to feel otherwise, rather than accept, ‘choice’, leaves me shaking my head.

(Maybe Bricker could respond to the question I posed up thread, I’m still curious to know. If I’m protesting at Pepsico or Exxon, they can get the cops to remove me to across the street or wherever else suits them, it seems to me. But no one does anything about these in your face anti abortionists. Why is that?)

Also what would happen if a clinic patron used a stun gun or mace on them, after finding them intimidating and unwilling to back off? Could they simply claim they felt threatened?

Ok then. So we should just get rid of prisons since by telling people that it is wrong to murder others we would be imposing our morality on them. How about drug dealers. it should be legal to sell drugs. How about prostitution that should be legal as well:rolleyes:

[Ludovic]

@spark240

Do you suggest that people not be allowed to film public happenings?

Do you suggest that Kambuckta was suggesting that they not be allowed to film public happenings? Because the only two options are complete illegality or not complaining at all, apparently.

[heatmiserfl]

@classyladyhp

Hey dummy. Can you read? I’m talking about the difference between a tumor and a fetus.

How about a tumor and an embryo?