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

[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.