Confronting Life

  • Thread starter zomgwtf
  • Start date

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
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.
 
2,662
20
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?
 
Last edited:

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
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 in to 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.
 
2,662
20
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 in to 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

Mentor
22,873
2,349
This is assaulting others with their religious beliefs. That is illegal, it is harrassment.
 
36
2
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.
 
2,662
20
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
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

Mentor
22,873
2,349
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.
 
173
1
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" [Broken], 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
30
1
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.
 
2,662
20
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.
 
30
1
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.
 
2,662
20
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.
 
2,662
20
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.
 
30
1
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

Mentor
22,873
2,349
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.
 
30
1
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

Mentor
22,873
2,349
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.
 

Related Threads for: Confronting Life

  • Last Post
7
Replies
161
Views
12K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
385
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Top