Confronting Hate: A Man's Story of Dealing with Anti-Choice Protesters

[zomgwtf]

I give mad props to this man.

“You’re killing your unborn baby!”

That’s what they yelled at me and my wife on the worst day of our lives. As we entered the women’s health center on an otherwise perfect summer morning in Brookline, two women we had never met decided to pile onto the nightmare we had been living for three weeks. These “Christians” verbally accosted us—judged us—as we steeled ourselves for the horror of making the unimaginable, but necessary, decision to end our pregnancy at 16 weeks.

Read the full story and watch the video:
http://goodmenproject.com/2010/10/23/confronting-life/
I applaud this man for taking a stand for his family and others that face similar and difficult situations.

 

[Evo]

I will allow this for now, but to prevent the inevitable, here are the rules.

No criticism of a person's beliefs.

No criticism of a person's moral values

No religious discussion.

You can post your opinion as long as it does not criticize those of a differing opinion.

Rules may be added or modified as needed.

 

[JaredJames]

Personally think it's a womans choice whether or not to have an abortion, but that's all I'm saying on that issue.

These people to me are no different to the WBC and the soldiers funeral. Despicable.

They don't consider anything outside of their own views and are so determined I don't think they are truly thinking about what they are saying and definitely don't care about what they are doing to the people they are shouting at.

Good on this guy.

 

[waht]

This quote comes to mind by Ashby:

It will be assumed that a machine or an animal behaved in a certain way at a certain moment because its physical and chemical nature at that moment allowed no other action

If you consider the protesters for instance, they are the product of nature and nurture. Their genetic make up, and accumulation of all influences in life ranging from learning to walk, family, friends, meeting different people, the environment, the social norms, the economy, the exposure to ideas and advertisements, the religion; all of these things which you have no control over shaped them the way they are; it led them to protest at that time of the day.

It the same with the father and mother whose child had to be aborted.

 

[mugaliens]

I will allow this for now, but to prevent the inevitable, here are the rules.

No criticism of a person's beliefs.

So I can't say either aye nor nay of this individual's decion with respect this person's beliefs.

No criticism of a person's moral values

So I can't say either aye nor nay of this individual's decion with respect to this person's moral beliefs.

No religious discussion.

So I can't say either aye nor nay of this individual's decion with respect to this person's religious convictions.

You can post your opinion as long as it does not criticize those of a differing opinion.

So I'm prohibited from offering any differing oppinion whatsoever!

Rules may be added or modified as needed.

Evo, in your post, logically speaking, you've disallowed any and all comments on this subject whatsoever.

Was that your intent? If so, just close the thread.

If not, please carify your post.

 

[Evo]

So I'm prohibited from offering any differing oppinion whatsoever!



Evo, in your post, logically speaking, you've disallowed any and all comments on this subject whatsoever.

Was that your intent? If so, just close the thread.

If not, please carify your post.

It's the only way to prevent flamewars. For instance I can say that terminating a pregnancy is ultimately up to the mother. People need to keep their opinions to themselves and butt out of other people's lives. There is no criticism.

 

[zomgwtf]

It's the only way to prevent flamewars. For instance I can say that terminating a pregnancy is ultimately up to the mother. People need to keep their opinions to themselves and butt out of other people's lives. There is no criticism.

You've just criticized the people protesting...

I didn't get your rules either that's why I didn't continue to post in the thread lol. Hopefully people still read the story.

 

[Evo]

You've just criticized the people protesting...

I consider it more like friendly, helpful advice.

I didn't get your rules either that's why I didn't continue to post in the thread lol. Hopefully people still read the story.

Without the rules, within a few posts, emotions and tempers would flare, insults would fly, people would get infractions and/or banned and the thread would be locked. This is how all of the threads on this subject have ended up.

 

[NeoDevin]

Alright, I'll stick my neck out here and post my thoughts. (Be gentle, Evo)

I think what the protesters do to people is terrible. Abortions are a legal, and sometimes medically necessary procedure, which no one should be subject to shouting and ridicule for having. In the case in the OP, the choice was: 1. Have an abortion or 2. Give birth to a stillborn. There was zero chance for the child to live more than a couple of hours of suffering outside the womb. On what was already a terrible day for this couple, they are subject to people calling them murderers, and basically trying to make a bad day even worse for them. These protesters don't take into account any individual situations, whether it be rape, medical problems, or a woman is just not ready emotionally or financially to provide for a child.

Their goal may be to produce change, but what they are succeeding at is to produce shame and suffering. They comment in the video about how many women commit suicide after having an abortion. Do they really think they are helping that problem by calling these women murderers, child killers and worse? Their time would be much better spent, and probably prevent more abortions long term, providing education and cheap/free contraception to poorer young women so they don't get pregnant in the first place.

Further, many (not all) pro-life protesters don't actually seem to care for the unborn child at all. They view it as little more than punishment for the girl who couldn't keep her knees together. This is evidenced by the fact that many of them also oppose social support as well. They make no effort to provide support for poor single mothers which might enable them to provide a decent life for the unborn child instead of getting an abortion. If there was additional support for teen mothers, so that they could reasonably hope to raise a child alone, and finish their education, they might not feel like their life is ruined and they have no choice but to get an abortion.

 

[Topher925]

Personally think it's a womans choice whether or not to have an abortion, but that's all I'm saying on that issue.

These people to me are no different to the WBC and the soldiers funeral. Despicable.

They don't consider anything outside of their own views and are so determined I don't think they are truly thinking about what they are saying and definitely don't care about what they are doing to the people they are shouting at.

Good on this guy.

+1


This sentence is here to fool the bulletin bot into thinking this post has enough characters to meet the minimum character post requirement.

 

[Hepth]

Their goal may be to produce change, but what they are succeeding at is to produce shame and suffering. They comment in the video about how many women commit suicide after having an abortion. Do they really think they are helping that problem by calling these women murderers, child killers and worse? Their time would be much better spent, and probably prevent more abortions long term, providing education and cheap/free contraception to poorer young women so they don't get pregnant in the first place.

Further, many (not all) pro-life protesters don't actually seem to care for the unborn child at all. They view it as little more than punishment for the girl who couldn't keep her knees together. This is evidenced by the fact that many of them also oppose social support as well. They make no effort to provide support for poor single mothers which might enable them to provide a decent life for the unborn child instead of getting an abortion. If there was additional support for teen mothers, so that they could reasonably hope to raise a child alone, and finish their education, they might not feel like their life is ruined and they have no choice but to get an abortion.

This is what bothers me the most about the whole issue too. If you see someone doing something you don't approve of, or you think is immoral or dangerous or something, why would your first "method of prevention" be to harass and castigate said party? I feel like those who protest this way were brought up wrong or something.

If even on a personal level with someone entering a clinic, wouldn't it be more effective to start with:
1. Asking them about the situation with the goal of getting them to question(in a socratic sense) their decision.
2. Explaining the LOGICAL reasons behind your disapproval of said action.
3. Provide them with alternatives.
4. Ask them not to.
5. Beg them not to.
6. Begin to yell at them, digging at their insecurities first.
7. Threaten them with consequences.
8. Threaten them with violence.
9. Violently restrain them.
10. Post bail.
11. Goto 1.

Seems like a lot of people start with 6, 7 or 8 first, while they don't really have much more of a success rate than 1 through 5.

This goes for MANY of current protesters. Its almost as if their goal isn't the prevention of whatever act, but rather to make themselves feel better about themselves by a "you do bad, thus i do good" mentality.

 

[Proton Soup]

This is what bothers me the most about the whole issue too. If you see someone doing something you don't approve of, or you think is immoral or dangerous or something, why would your first "method of prevention" be to harass and castigate said party? I feel like those who protest this way were brought up wrong or something.

If even on a personal level with someone entering a clinic, wouldn't it be more effective to start with:
1. Asking them about the situation with the goal of getting them to question(in a socratic sense) their decision.
2. Explaining the LOGICAL reasons behind your disapproval of said action.
3. Provide them with alternatives.
4. Ask them not to.
5. Beg them not to.
6. Begin to yell at them, digging at their insecurities first.
7. Threaten them with consequences.
8. Threaten them with violence.
9. Violently restrain them.
10. Post bail.
11. Goto 1.

Seems like a lot of people start with 6, 7 or 8 first, while they don't really have much more of a success rate than 1 through 5.

This goes for MANY of current protesters. Its almost as if their goal isn't the prevention of whatever act, but rather to make themselves feel better about themselves by a "you do bad, thus i do good" mentality.

how do you expect to initiate this process with a stranger on a street corner?

 

[NeoDevin]

how do you expect to initiate this process with a stranger on a street corner?

By approaching them calmly, and asking the details of their situation, rather than shouting at them, telling them what horrible people they are.

Perhaps, though, "with a stranger on a street corner" is not the best place to initiate this process? Providing education and avoidance strategies is presenting them with alternatives before they are forced into a tough situation.

 

[mugaliens]

I have nothing against people protesting against things which they believe are wrong. I do have a problem with people protesting in the wrong venue. For example, those who protest against the war by crashing funerals is little different than those who protest against abortion by picketing in front of the clinics. It's the wrong venue.

The grieving families and friends of deceased vets don't make policy or conduct the war, just as those who choose to have an abortion or those who perform them don't make the laws which allow for abortion in our country. In both cases, the proper venue is to petition the government for a redress of their grievances as provided for by law. If the government agrees, they'll change their policies or laws. If not, then it's time to get on with life.

 

[zomgwtf]

By approaching them calmly, and asking the details of their situation, rather than shouting at them, telling them what horrible people they are.

Perhaps, though, "with a stranger on a street corner" is not the best place to initiate this process? Providing education and avoidance strategies is presenting them with alternatives before they are forced into a tough situation.

I think that abortion is too sensitive a topic to go up to a random person and ask them
"why you do that?"

A much better method would be for them to just present their 'facts' or statistics to the general public, like a protest is supposed to do. Not attack persons chosing to have the abortions. This in my opinion is not even worthy of being called a protest. It's just two haters trying to make people feel garbagety about themselves in order to sleep at night.

 

[Hurkyl]

I do have a problem with people protesting in the wrong venue.

Wrong venue? You're opposed to picketing on pure principle?

 

[Hepth]

I think that abortion is too sensitive a topic to go up to a random person and ask them
"why you do that?"

but insensitive enough to condemn them to hell for it to their face? ;)

I was merely suggesting effective strategies. I think it would work; if you confronted someone with an opposing viewpoint with care and concern in a polite manner and engage in a discussion about it you have a better chance of changing their mind, compared to berating them for their choice/belief/position/etc. Even if it's uncomfortable to bring up/start. This applies to nearly every stance for everyone on everything. Aggressive assault never works, yet it seems to be weapon-of-choice against opposition.

I just don't get it, both in topics like this and in politics in general.

 

[Hurkyl]

if you confronted someone with an opposing viewpoint

A protest is not about confronting one person with an opposing viewpoint, it's about confronting a large group of people with an opposing or apathetic viewpoint.

I won't make any claims about the effectiveness or lack thereof of any particular choice of tactic, other than many opinions on the matter seem to be more idealistic than realistic.

Aggressive assault never works, yet it seems to be weapon-of-choice against opposition.

Quick check -- you aren't trying to generalize from a single cherry-picked event (or a handful of them), are you?

 

[mugaliens]

Wrong venue? You're opposed to picketing on pure principle?

Absolutely not. Please re-read https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2958250&postcount=14".

Star Trek - The Next Generation had a wonderful episode entitled Inheritance (TNGS7D3) which touched on the issues discussed herein in a very special and meaninful way. It did not take sides. Similar to our OP, Data's mother was horribly pained to have had to dismantled LOR, and was mortified that she might have had to do the same with Data, elated to have been reunited with her "son" Data (she and Noonien Sung had been married), ecstatic to have learned she had a granddaughter (Data's Lal), then disheartened to discover Data's attempt to recreate his positronic matrix in Lal was unsuccessful.

She never did learn she was Noonian's last creation, a memory transfer of his deceased wife's sentience into a much more advanced version of Data indistinguishable from humans by both other humans and herself.

Life, love, life lost, and love lost are among the most difficult things we humans must face. The answers are never really as simple as most sides make them out to be.

The second love of my life made a decision back in 1981 which she thought was right at the time, given the pressures of relationship, college, employment, and lack of funding, yet today she maintains she'd have made a different decision. Much later, successful in life, with a very good husband, three kids, two of whom are out of the house, she maintains a vigil on the birthday of what would have been her firstborn, lighting a candle with close friends and family, and shedding some tears for what could have been.

Meanwhile, the OP's position indicated uncertain death for the baby if the pregnancy had been allowed to continue. Given the low, but present risks of pregnancy these days, I respect the rights of mothers and fathers to terminate pregnancy in these situations. I do know, however, and personally, a handful of (three) young adults whose doctors said they'd be either basket cases their entire lives or just plain dead upon birth. Two are vibrant teenagers, one college-bound, the third graduating from college in 2012.

I fully understand the OP's dilemma. But I understand the other side, as well as the risks associated with continuing the pregnancy.

If I'd been a woman, would I have continued the pregnancy?

I can't answer that, at least not to any satisfaction with the female viewers, here. I can say, with all certainty, that I, as a father, have risked my life on two occasions to save my son from certain death, namely when he darted into traffic. On both occasions, the drivers never saw his 24" frame, but they certainly saw me darting after him, hands raised.

Back to Hurkyl: If people want to make a change, they're going to have to find the appropriate venue (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venue" ) at which their efforts will have the maximum effect. Protesting abortion clinics and vets funerals are clearly NOT very effective, and simply induce additional and quite unnecessary emotional heartache.

I find both actions quite gross and disgusting.

 

[Galteeth]

You've just criticized the people protesting...

I didn't get your rules either that's why I didn't continue to post in the thread lol. Hopefully people still read the story.

I understand.

It is ok for evo to say, I think it's a mother's right to terminate the pregnancy and people should get out of her life.

It is not ok for her to say, I think Galteeth believes in violating a mother's rights and he want to oppress women.

It is the personal versus the impersonal.

 

[Galteeth]

On that subject, I have a differing opinion, and do believe that a developing child has a right to life. This does not come from a religious conviction, but rather a logical extension of my own morality. I believe that conscious humans have a right to life (right in the negative sense that I don't have the right to end their life), and this is not determined by degree of consciousness but a certain similarity of consciousness I believe humans have. A young child or a retarded person might be less conscious then me, but I respect their right to life. I think that when the neural net of a developig child begins to form, consciousness and thus "life" starts, and has begun a progression towards something recognizable, and it seems morally wrong to me to terminate this process.

Now of course there is the complication that the child is dependent on his mother's body as a host. We accept the principle that young children who cannot care for themselves should be cared for by their parents, but this responsibility does not give the parents the right to terminate this life.

None of this is relevant in a case where the child is certain to die no matter what.

I think, from the protesters' point of view, if they get one person to reconsider their decision, they have saved a life, and thus their goal will have been accomplished.

 

[Galteeth]

A protest is not about confronting one person with an opposing viewpoint, it's about confronting a large group of people with an opposing or apathetic viewpoint.

I

Not necessarily.

 

[Galteeth]

but insensitive enough to condemn them to hell for it to their face? ;)

I was merely suggesting effective strategies. I think it would work; if you confronted someone with an opposing viewpoint with care and concern in a polite manner and engage in a discussion about it you have a better chance of changing their mind, compared to berating them for their choice/belief/position/etc. Even if it's uncomfortable to bring up/start. This applies to nearly every stance for everyone on everything. Aggressive assault never works, yet it seems to be weapon-of-choice against opposition.

I just don't get it, both in topics like this and in politics in general.

I think the point in this case is to horrify the people, or to "shock" them into realizing they are committing what the protesters see as an act of murder. When confronted with such an accusation at an emotionally vulnerable moment, I'm sure for some people the sentiment does penetrate.

Of course this case seems particularly atrocious because the baby was going to die no matter what, and thus the protesters' criticisms didn't apply.

When you assume...

 

[JaredJames]

On that subject, I have a differing opinion, and do believe that a developing child has a right to life. This does not come from a religious conviction, but rather a logical extension of my own morality. I believe that conscious humans have a right to life (right in the negative sense that I don't have the right to end their life), and this is not determined by degree of consciousness but a certain similarity of consciousness I believe humans have. A young child or a retarded person might be less conscious then me, but I respect their right to life. I think that when the neural net of a developig child begins to form, consciousness and thus "life" starts, and has begun a progression towards something recognizable, and it seems morally wrong to me to terminate this process.

Do you have something to show when this occurs?

There are limits which state a maximum pregnancy duration at which an abortion can take place. To assume that the moment a child is conceived they are conscious doesn't work. You have to judge when a child is considered to be 'alive' and conscious before you can start stipulating what is and isn't murder. A pregnancy after all is no different to a parasitic life form (well it is one) and you need to judge what the stages are where you would consider it murder. Going from the start of a pregnancy wouldn't be correct.

Now of course there is the complication that the child is dependent on his mother's body as a host. We accept the principle that young children who cannot care for themselves should be cared for by their parents, but this responsibility does not give the parents the right to terminate this life.

If you cannot care for a child (born) you can put it up for adoption (sorry to be blunt). You don't have to end its life. There are many reasons to use abortion and where it can be helpful. An unborn child endangering the life of the mother if they continue the pregnancy for example. Regarding the adoption issue, if a parent doesn't feel they could care for their child if it is born, do they put the strain (financially) on the government to bring up the child or do you terminate?
I find there is a distinct difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing a (born) child. I can't equate them on any level.

None of this is relevant in a case where the child is certain to die no matter what.

What about the mother?

I think, from the protesters' point of view, if they get one person to reconsider their decision, they have saved a life, and thus their goal will have been accomplished.

But they don't take any other considerations into account. Very few people take abortion lightly.
What if there's a very strong chance the mother will die if she doesn't abort, but she really doesn't want to abort and wants to take her chances. She finally agrees to an abortion, gets there and then protestors put enough pressure to change her mind and make her keep the child and take the risk. Have they saved a life or potentially condemned the mother to death?

I'm not saying abortion is the be all and end all, but it does provide a solution in some circumstances and it is the disrespect of these protestors that makes me annoyed and concerned. Some people fight all their lives for a child and then something like this occurs and they think it's right to shout at these already emotionally stressed people. As others have said, there is a time and a place. This isn't the time and certainly not the place. If they have a problem with abortion, petition the government and relevant authorities.

 

[Hurkyl]

Back to Hurkyl: If people want to make a change, they're going to have to find the appropriate venue (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venue" )

One of the most standard ways to protest something is to demonstrate at the site where it occurs, or at a site that benefits from it.

A business underpaying their employees? Go on strike and picket the location! A chicken farm factory being cruel to chickens, but in a legal way? Call for more humane conditions by demonstrating at the factory, or maybe at Chick-fil-A restaurants that get their chicken from that factory! A toy manufacturer exploiting sweat shops in third-world countries? March in front of stores where those toys are sold, calling for a boycott! An office where healthy children are routinely and legally slaughtered? Petition the government! No protests allowed!

One of these examples is not like the other ones.


Are you seriously arguing that the place where children are legally slaughtered is not a reasonable location to protest the legal slaughter of children? Presumably you don't believe that abortion is the slaughter^* of children, but you haven't been arguing that the protesters shouldn't protest because they're wrong.

(*: I use slaughter instead of murder, because murder requires it to be illegal)


And, of course, criticizing individual protesters for being violent or abusive is an entirely different matter than criticizing protesters for protesting at all!

at which their efforts will have the maximum effect.

Protesting is only allowed if optimized for maximum effect? Sounds like a double-standard to me.

 

[Hurkyl]

If they have a problem with abortion, petition the government and relevant authorities.

Honestly, this looks like the old "I disagree with their view, so they shouldn't be allowed to protest" bit. Many abominable acts deserving of opposed are quite thoroughly legal. And even when they're not legal, it can be difficult to get the government to act. That's one of the reasons protests exist in the first place.

 

[JaredJames]

Honestly, this looks like the old "I disagree with their view, so they shouldn't be allowed to protest" bit. Many abominable acts deserving of opposed are quite thoroughly legal. And even when they're not legal, it can be difficult to get the government to act. That's one of the reasons protests exist in the first place.

Not at all, people can protest. But I think they should choose their audience better. Abortion is a very sensitive issue and there are few people who take the decision to go through with it lightly. These people are protesting as if everyone just had sex, to hell with the consequences and now need to get rid of their 'mistake'. That isn't true for many people using them and they aren't showing any compassion for those people who do make the tuff decision to have one.

If you don't agree with abortion, should you a) petition the government to outlaw it by giving rational and reasonable arguments, or b) shout at random people who try to use the facilities?

I also note your use of the word slaughter, clever. These protestors use murder to describe the act, and as you rightly pointed out, that implies it is illegal. It is not (location dependant).

Now I find course of action b to be irrational and that coupled with other blatant mis-representations such as using the word murder tells me that these people aren't truly thinking about what they are say and or doing and seem to be protesting out of necessity rather than true compassion.
As I said in my previous post, what if the mother is almost certain to die if she attempts to give birth? Does shouting at her, potentially causing her to change her mind about a procedure that could almost certainly save her life, show the protestors are using rational thought and arguments? Does the fact they are potentially condemning women to death if they continue with the pregnancy factor into things for these people?

This to me, applies to many situations. If you just shout and force your point upon others without showing any true rational thought behind your arguments, as far as I'm concerned you are worse than those who are "committing the acts" you are picketing against (regardless of whether or not I agree with them).

With regards to your use of "slaughter of children", as I posted before, do we have something which shows when development reaches a stage when it is medically considered a child?

 

[Hurkyl]

If you don't agree with abortion, should you a) petition the government to outlaw it by giving rational and reasonable arguments, or b) shout at random people who try to use the facilities?

These options are neither exclusive nor exhaustive!

Now I find course of action b to be irrational

It is, however, a rather standard form to protest. (Assuming you meant "shout" was meant as a general verb describing to the kinds of things people do at protests, as opposed to the specific action of getting up in someone's face and yelling at them)

For this criticism, the fact the protest is about abortion and the actual method the protesters in the opening post behaved are irrelevant. You're just condemning the basic idea of a picket on general principle. This was the crux of my earlier remark to mugaliens.

and that coupled with other blatant mis-representations such as using the word murder

Honestly, I think most people just don't know the difference.

As I said in my previous post, what if the mother is almost certain to die if she attempts to give birth?

Would you criticize a picket in front of a grocery store on the off chance it would dissuade someone from going into get food to prevent a friend from going into diabetic shock? Why should this case be any different?

With regards to your use of "slaughter of children", as I posted before, do we have something which shows when development reaches a stage when it is medically considered a child?

Be aware that this looks like an attempt to derail the thread -- so long as we are still talking about this specific instance of protest or protesting in general, trying to turn this into a pro-life/pro-choice debate is inappropriate.

 

[JaredJames]

These options are neither exclusive nor exhaustive!

I understand there are other options, but they are two common choices you could make and I used them for simplicity in argument.

It is, however, a rather standard form to protest. (Assuming you meant "shout" was meant as a general verb describing to the kinds of things people do at protests, as opposed to the specific action of getting up in someone's face and yelling at them)

Correct regarding my use of shout.

For this criticism, the fact the protest is about abortion and the actual method the protesters in the opening post behaved are irrelevant. You're just condemning the basic idea of a picket on general principle. This was the crux of my earlier remark to mugaliens.

I actually like the idea of protesting (believe it or not), but I think there are some issues which need to be played a bit more tactically than others. Due to the nature of the issue being protested.

Honestly, I think most people just don't know the difference.

Ignorance is not a defence. Although I would say that slaughter would be a more effective word to use. As I said before, if you are going to protest, you should know what you are talking about and show knowledge. Using murder shows ignorance to its meaning on the protestors part and so I question whether or not they understand everything else they are protesting.

Would you criticize a picket in front of a grocery store on the off chance it would dissuade someone from going into get food to prevent a friend from going into diabetic shock? Why should this case be any different?

I'd feel the same about the above protest you outlined as I do about this one. You are potentially endangering a persons life by carrying out those actions. I don't know what you mean by "why should this case be any different?". To me they are similar and would invoke the same reaction from myself.

Be aware that this looks like an attempt to derail the thread -- so long as we are still talking about this specific instance of protest or protesting in general, trying to turn this into a pro-life/pro-choice debate is inappropriate.

No attempt to derail intended. It was brought up by someone else previously regarding the consciousness of the unborn baby and by yourself regarding killing of a child. If people want to make these claims then I expect something to back up when a baby is medically conscious or is considered a child. I don't want to attack any persons beliefs here, that isn't my intention. I just want to clarify whether or not the statements made are factual.

 

[Evo]

This is assaulting others with their religious beliefs. That is illegal, it is harrassment.

 

[zomgwtf]

No attempt to derail intended. It was brought up by someone else previously regarding the consciousness of the unborn baby and by yourself regarding killing of a child. If people want to make these claims then I expect something to back up when a baby is medically conscious or is considered a child. I don't want to attack any persons beliefs here, that isn't my intention. I just want to clarify whether or not the statements made are factual.

To just address this conciousness isn't fully developed until well after the baby is born. Brain activity can generally been noticed at around week 16. Even then though it's not really understood to be 'concious'. The fetus doesn't even react to outside stimuli yet. That happens a few weeks later...

I'd guess that conciousness begins to form at around 4 months and ends after birth once the sensory areas of the brain have been developed. The brains development continues until age 20-25 but that only deals with decision making really.

 

[JaredJames]

To just address this conciousness isn't fully developed until well after the baby is born. Brain activity can generally been noticed at around week 16. Even then though it's not really understood to be 'concious'. The fetus doesn't even react to outside stimuli yet. That happens a few weeks later...

I'd guess that conciousness begins to form at around 4 months and ends after birth once the sensory areas of the brain have been developed. The brains development continues until age 20-25 but that only deals with decision making really.

Thank you for that answer. Clears up some issues I had and I hope others can understand why wanted it regarding a previous posters comments regarding consciousness.

 

[Hurkyl]

It was brought up by ... yourself regarding killing of a child. If people want to make these claims then I expect something to back up

The claim I made is that people are protesting the slaughter of children. I was not asserting their hypothesis is correct, although I do believe it.

 

[Evo]

IMO, in any healthy society, there needs to be a good mix of opinions. There also needs to be a balance of tolerence. Respect for others and respect for their personal decisions is a must. Looking back in history on societies that lacked these things you saw insane persecution as the norm.

 

[mugaliens]

This is assaulting others with their religious beliefs. That is illegal, it is harrassment.

Which? One of more of the posts, or the acts of picketing at abortion clinics and funerals? If the former, a little forum administration wouldn't hurt.

If the latter, it's been ruled by the Supreme Court that peaceful protests (pickets) are legal, and are therefore not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault" , which are illegal:

In 1939, the United States Supreme Court found in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization that public streets and parks "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." In the later Thornhill v. Alabama case, the court found that picketing and marching in public areas is protected by the United States Constitution as free speech. However, subsequent rulings - Edwards v. South Carolina, Brown v. Louisiana, Cox v. Louisiana, and Adderley v. Florida - found that picketing is afforded less protection than pure speech due to the physical externalities it creates. Regulations on demonstrations may affect the time, place, and manner of those demonstrations, but may not discriminate based on the content of the demonstration. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Notable_incidents_and_court_proceedings"​

I'd love to see legislation preventing protests or picketing at funerals, not because it's any form of an assault, but because it's grossly disrepectful and because of the state of bereavement usually present at funerals. Of course some may argue a similar sitution exists at abortion clinics, so I'm not sure how likely it would be that such legislation might pass.

 

[Galteeth]

IMO, in any healthy society, there needs to be a good mix of opinions. There also needs to be a balance of tolerence. Respect for others and respect for their personal decisions is a must. Looking back in history on societies that lacked these things you saw insane persecution as the norm.

But you could apply this line of reasoning to the protesters as well.

 

[JaredJames]

But you could apply this line of reasoning to the protesters as well.

Are they tolerating other peoples views or attacking people for what they believe?

I do agree with evo, a good mix of opinions is required. But me personally, it's a case of tolerating them, I do, but I would never try to enforce my views on others. A courtesy they don't seem to extend.

 

[Galteeth]

Are they tolerating other peoples views or attacking people for what they believe?

Any protest is, in a sense, attacking someone for what they believe. We have long accepted in this country the notion that even if we disagree with speech, especially political speech, we must allow it, for exactly the reasons that evo outlined. If their religious beliefs compel them to speak out against what they see as a moral evil, then banning their right to speak would constitute an attack on what they believe, and it is certainly not tolerating their views.

To me this gets away from the specific issue in question, and becomes more a question of the validity of the concept of freedom of speech.

Any attempt to change the law is "forcing" your beliefs on other people.
They are not trying to enforce their views in the sense that they are not threatening the people with violence.

 

[JaredJames]

Any protest is, in a sense, attacking someone for what they believe. We have long accepted in this country the notion that even if we disagree with speech, especially political speech, we must allow it, for exactly the reasons that evo outlined. If their religious beliefs compel them to speak out against what they see as a moral evil, then banning their right to speak would constitute an attack on what they believe, and it is certainly not tolerating their views.

To me this gets away from the specific issue in question, and becomes more a question of the validity of the concept of freedom of speech.

And as per other threads on similar topics, I point out again:

The laws put in place to protect religious people become the enemy of the non-religious, as they hold a clear predjudice towards them, discriminating against them.

Freedom of speech should apply equally to all, but it seems that having a religious argument behind you gives you some additional protection. You can attack my views because your religion wants you to speak out against me, but I can't attack your religious views because I'm encroaching on your religious rights (being non-religious). A nasty snag in the legal system I don't like very much at all.

So far as the issue in the OP goes, you have a bunch of people who don't care for discussion, don't care about how factual their argument is, they just want everyone to believe the same as them and are taking, what I consider, extreme and irrational steps to get the job done.

Like I've said many times previously, believe what you like, I really don't care. But don't try to force your views on me in the same way you expect me not to force mine on yourself. It's give and take. Which is where the law falls down in defending this one sided attitude.

 

[JaredJames]

Any attempt to change the law is "forcing" your beliefs on other people.

Agreed, although I do believe in majority rule so far as laws go. If the masses say it is legal then it is so. If you present your case and the masses believe it is not legal, it will be changed.

They are not trying to enforce their views in the sense that they are not threatening the people with violence.

I'd say psychological damage from calling someone a murderer and the like is just as bad as threatening with violence, if not worse.

 

[Galteeth]

And as per other threads on similar topics, I point out again:

The laws put in place to protect religious people become the enemy of the non-religious, as they hold a clear predjudice towards them, discriminating against them.

Freedom of speech should apply equally to all, but it seems that having a religious argument behind you gives you some additional protection. You can attack my views because your religion wants you to speak out against me, but I can't attack your religious views because I'm encroaching on your religious rights (being non-religious). A nasty snag in the legal system I don't like very much at all.

How so? People can protest or speak out against religious views (at least in America.)

 

[Evo]

How so? People can protest or speak out against religious views (at least in America.)

Except non-religious people are like the majority of non-crazy (normal) religious people. They mind their own business.

We're talking about a lunatic fringe, we are not talking about normal religious people, which are the overwhelming majority. Sure there are crazy non-religious people too.

I avoid both.

 

[Galteeth]

Except non-religious people are like the majority of non-crazy (normal) religious people. They mind their own business.

We're talking about a lunatic fringe, we are not talking about normal religious people, which are the overwhelming majority. Sure there are crazy non-religious people too.

I avoid both.

I agree with this, and it unfortunate, because you wind up with a silent majority of reasonable people. The loudest, most "interventionist" of people have a disproportionate amount of political power, by means of their activism.

 

[Evo]

I agree with this, and it unfortunate, because you wind up with a silent majority of reasonable people. The loudest, most "interventionist" of people have a disproportionate amount of political power, by means of their activism.

Exactly, I have wonderful, very religious friends that I admire and go to for help. They've always stood by me, bent over backwards to help, truly kind, loving and helpful people.

They are not the ones screaming obscenities at people that they don't know at a critical, emotionally distressing time in those people's lives.