[quote=“classyladyhp, post:853, topic:580935”]
Accepted. I see you changed the post. Had I been a little slower I wouldn’t have even seen it.
Right. I think it’s just after the classified ads.
Lets see:
Yeah. What I said before. It’s her body and if she needs that fetus out with the minimum amount of wear and tear on her body, it’s her choice.
I don’t like it either, but what do you want to do about it? You want to bar them from accosting people on public streets? From taking pictures in public places?
I don’t have too much doubt that religious propaganda is a big part of it. There’s a lot of false information that is passed around. The video that was linked to for example. The lady says to the client being escorted, “At conception it was decided whether you’d have a daughter or a son.” That religious nonsense.
You’re right , we disagree on the best strategy for addressing the issue.
I wasn’t trying to imply that. My point is that it’s important to understand the strong emotional element of how people form belief systems and opinions, and take it into consideration. It’s possible to point out top people the difference between feelings and facts, and to do so in a non combative way. I’d describe my strategy as one that recognizes the emotional facet of people’s belief systems and uses patience and persistence with facts to gradually shift things.
If course a chain of logic won’t work with everyone. You’re agreeing with me, and the intelligence factor as well. Then what good does it do to ask them whether thier beliefs are based in religion? None that I can tell. We’ve had a long reasonable discussion in this thread without any discussion of religion. I think when and if it’s relevant, a person’s religious beliefs will come up or reveal itself in their language.
I’m aware that facts won’t be effective on religious zealots. IMO, neither will “religion is bad or foolish” I think we’ve already made progress in pressing science and reason when religious folks strive to frame arguments in non religious terms.
A widespread program for science and reason is presenting the facts. One precept at a time , little by little through passing generations, facts become common knowledge and there is a shift in belief systems. I get the impression that you want to do something broader to minimize the effect of religion on society. I agree religious beliefs need to be challenged. I just think it happens naturally as verifiable facts are stressed and presented consistently.
Counter demonstrations? When they gather start passing out pamphlets to them about science and biology and tell them “We just want to save you from superstition”
Find out what church they’re from and do it there on during Sunday services as well. Lobby to have guidelines about how close they can be to the entrance to the clinic, and stop them from continuous verbal harassment.
Why is it that the kinds of people who inspired the OP (remember it? from way back?) have all the free time in the world to pull their brand of crap, but those of us who actually value logic, science, rational thought, etc. have, y’know, jobs and shit to do?
Heck, if it gets to that point, she may as well deliver the baby and immediately murder it (or abandon it to die of exposure). I’m confident the hypothetical you’re describing would be so rare that I need not allow it to sway me emotionally. Heck, what you’re describing is technically perfectly legal in Canada, but I’m not aware of any outbreak of elective T-1 abortions, so unless you want to argue that Canadians aren’t humanly variable…
Jon Stewart captured that at the Rally to restore Sanity. I think reasonable people need to find some time to at least make themselves heard.
Ha! I thought of the same thing. Can you imagine a bunch of scientists crowding outside of a church holding up fossils and DNA sequences? 
Oh yeah. I suppose I could try to get my retired parents to stand outside churches. Sadly, they’d think that was crazy and intrusive. It is fun to imagine though.
It was worth keeping up with eighteen pages of shit, just for that mental image. 
I’ve had a little experience with teaching by example and found it helpful and satisfying if done intelligently and with minimum spite.
I’d do it to those who participate in inappropriate protests outside a clinic. They might see how mean spirited and intrusive it feels.
I’m all for counter-demonstrations. Have at it.
There are guidelines, laws in fact, on how close they can be to the clinic, and what tactics are permissible. Those of you who never saw a clinic demo before 1994 might not realize how things used to be worse.
Notice that FACE protects religious facilities as well as clinics. Make sure your retaliatory exercise itself doesn’t cross the line.
“Verbal harassment” on public streets–provided it does not include threats or comprise a pattern of personal stalking–is also known as free speech.
I figured. My point would be that staking out clinic and verbally harassing all their clients is a pattern which should result in a disturbing the peace charge and an overnight stay in the klink.
Sure it is. Diminished capacity.
Notice the subtle change between what you said in the line I quoted, and what I said that you replied to:
(bolding added)
See the difference?
Sure, because in that case, what’s at issue is a set of facts.
In this case, it’s simply the definition of “human being.”
In the JW case I described, though, not only could the JW file suit, but he would be very likely to recover damages, because the law imposes a duty of care on the homeowner towards a visitor, even one that’s not wanted. In fact, the homeowner even has a duty of care - slight, but present - towards a trespasser!
So why did you you say, “That doesn’t mean that anything would come of it?” Were you unaware of the law as regards the duty of care towards a visitor?
that’s an unrealistic stretch. It remains a logical inconsistency IMO.
A sign that says what you claim to believe you don’t really support completely.
Sure I do. My point remains. There is a set of facts that supports one position , and a notable lack of supporting facts on the other.