# Abort 67 "intimidating protests" outside Blackfriars/London clinic



## cantsin (Nov 6, 2014)

just read this , but been going on for last couple of weeks it seems - first I've heard of US style ( + US funded) bigots doing this stuff in London - can't find anything about oppo to them, just petitions etc - no one wants to see moody / confrontational counter demos outside abortion clinics, but a Policewoman is quoted as saying "this is the first time they've come close to shutting a practise down" - which would be v alarming . 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...imidating-protests-at-gp-surgery-9836271.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

if the police wanted to they could deal with this under the poa, setting conditions on the assembly.


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 6, 2014)

i know for a fact if animal right protesters appear outside a shipping company with more than 2 members and have not informed the police they will be moved on

wtf "limited power's"


----------



## Sea Star (Nov 6, 2014)

years ago I was leafleting outside a McDonalds on my own on a very wide pavement with hardly any people around. It took about half an hour before the police turned up and threatened to arrest me for "obstructing the pavement". So stuff likes this says to me that the police are very much politically motivated.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2014)

Scumbags.


----------



## cantsin (Nov 6, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> i know for a fact if animal right protesters appear outside a shipping company with more than 2 members and have not informed the police they will be moved on
> 
> wtf "limited power's"



seems ridiculous when you think of it in those terms - having said that, am not sure pushing for police to restrict their rights to be there would be helpful in the long term for obvious reasons. Physical show of support for the clinic and the service it provides might be.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2014)

These people know exactly what they can and cannot get away with and will quote the law chapter and verse to the police if challenged.  The police tend to rely on ignorance of the law and easy compliance when they want to just move people on.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2014)

cantsin said:


> seems ridiculous when you think of it in those terms - having said that, am not sure pushing for police to restrict their rights to be there would be helpful in the long term for obvious reasons. Physical show of support for the clinic and the service it provides might be.


What rights? The right to harass and provoke women and girls making a really tough decision? 

Fuck that. The rights of the women to be allowed into the clinic in peace trump any right they might have to be there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What rights?


so people's right to protest flies out the window when you disgree with them. are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is and arrange or attend a counter-demonstration?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so people's right to protest flies out the window when you disgree with them. ?


Did you even read my post? There are two kinds of right, broadly - the right to act, and the right not to be acted upon. In this case, the right of the women not to be acted upon by these wankers is the one I'm more concerned about.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did you even read my post? There are two kinds of right, broadly - the right to act, and the right not to be acted upon. In this case, the right of the women not to be acted upon by these wankers is the one I'm more concerned about.


i simply stated your pov, that people's right to protest flies out the window when you disagree with them.

now, are you prepared to do something about it by, for instance, attending or organising a counter-demonstration, or are you a lightweight larry, happy only to snipe from behind a computer?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i simply stated your pov, that people's right to protest flies out the window when you disagree with them.


That's not my point of view.

Fuck me, you're a twat sometimes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not my point of view.
> 
> Fuck me, you're a twat sometimes.


that's ok, you're a twat all the time.

now, pleasantries aside, we all know people have a well-established right to protest. you say they don't, for (frankly) no better reason than you disagree with them in this instance.

now, are you prepared to do anything about it or are you not prepared to put your money where your mouth is?


----------



## cantsin (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i simply stated your pov, that people's right to protest flies out the window when you disagree with them.
> 
> now, are you prepared to do something about it by, for instance, attending or organising a counter-demonstration, or are you a lightweight larry, happy only to snipe from behind a computer?



(am in the smoke every other week , and wld deffo want to attend a demo , either v early doors or after work - tho realise you're not looking to organise one , any more than i am, just putting it out there )


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

cantsin said:


> (am in the smoke every other week , and wld deffo want to attend a demo , either v early doors or after work - tho realise you're not looking to organise one , any more than i am, just putting it out there )


in the spirit of not organising a protest let's find out when they're not protesting outside the clinic and not call a counter-demonstration for when they're not there.



or not even a counter-demonstration, let's not have a picnic in the street when they're not there.


----------



## cantsin (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not my point of view.
> 
> Fuck me, you're a twat sometimes.


(no need for this to go off on a 1 vs 1 ding dong tangent here, we're all on the same bigger page )


----------



## cantsin (Nov 6, 2014)

y


Pickman's model said:


> in the spirit of not organising a protest let's find out when they're not protesting outside the clinic and not call a counter-demonstration for when they're not there.
> 
> 
> 
> or not even a counter-demonstration, let's not have a picnic in the street when they're not there.


deffo, count me out


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> that's ok, you're a twat all the time.
> 
> now, pleasantries aside, we all know people have a well-established right to protest. you say they don't, for (frankly) no better reason than you disagree with them in this instance.
> 
> now, are you prepared to do anything about it or are you not prepared to put your money where your mouth is?



In fairness, he explained that their right to protest was trumped by the women's right to peace.  It's not a sentient with which I necessarily agree, but it's different from saying that their right to protest ought to be curtailed because he doesn't agree with them.

I'm sure we can all agree that these people are cunts, though.  I guess the real question is how to respond.  I don't know whether the drama of a counter-demo will put the women attending at ease.  But, I have to admit being at a loss to think of anything better.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2014)

Athos said:


> In fairness, he explained that their right to protest was trumped by the women's right to peace.  It's not a sentient with which I necessarily agree, but it's different from saying that their right to protest ought to be curtailed because he doesn't agree with them.
> 
> I'm sure we can all agree that these people are cunts, though.  I guess the real question is how to respond.  I don't know whether the drama of a counter-demo will put the women attending at ease.  But, I have to admit being at a loss to think of anything better.


I wouldn't frame the thing in terms of 'rights' at all, tbh. It was a response to another poster. Sometimes people can become so twisted up by a logic discussion involving rights that they forget what is important, what is the decent and compassionate thing to do. Here, what is important above all is the wellbeing of the women using the clinic. That's what I'm concerned about.


----------



## killer b (Nov 6, 2014)

I don't necessarily agree they're cunts - I think that, were I convinced that abortion were the murder of a baby - a conclusion which I can understand someone coming to, even if I disagree - then I might be moved to campaign against it.

They probably are cunts though, tbf.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

Athos said:


> In fairness, he explained that their right to protest was trumped by the women's right to peace.  It's not a sentient with which I necessarily agree, but it's different from saying that their right to protest ought to be curtailed because he doesn't agree with them.
> 
> I'm sure we can all agree that these people are cunts, though.  I guess the real question is how to respond.  I don't know whether the drama of a counter-demo will put the women attending at ease.  But, I have to admit being at a loss to think of anything better.


we all want these xians and that to fuck off. but you can't imo say they can't protest because it's not nice when i'm sure most of us would support some sort of similar protest elsewhere (that is, for example, a protest outside a council leader or mp's house or outside a building where the social tenants are treated as second class citizens).


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I wouldn't frame the thing in terms of 'rights' at all, tbh. It was a response to another poster. Sometimes people can become so twisted up by a logic discussion involving rights that they forget what is important, what is the decent and compassionate thing to do. Here, what is important above all is the wellbeing of the women using the clinic. That's what I'm concerned about.


and so far concern's all you've shown, you don't seem concerned enough to initiate or support a course of action to show your sympathy to the women concerned.

they have, as cantsin said, a right to protest there. whether you like it or not.


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 6, 2014)

We have problems in Cardiff occassionally with pro life groups although the police here do make them protest across the street, and the department store across the street isn't keen either. The counter demos are very deliberately when the clinic isn't open so it doesn't add to the distress of anyone attending.


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> we all want these xians and that to fuck off. but you can't imo say they can't protest because it's not nice when i'm sure most of us would support some sort of similar protest elsewhere (that is, for example, a protest outside a council leader or mp's house or outside a building where the social tenants are treated as second class citizens).



I agree.  It's a slippery slope.  I think there ought to be  better response, but, as I said, I'm not sure what it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2014)

Plumdaff said:


> The counter demos are very deliberately when the clinic isn't open so it doesn't add to the distress of anyone attending.


Yep, good plan.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep, good plan.


 
Also more convenient for the pro-life protesters.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2014)

8ball said:


> Also more convenient for the pro-life protesters.


Perhaps. But first do no harm.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps. But first do no harm.


 
Not at the expense of doing no good.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if the police wanted to they could deal with this under the poa, setting conditions on the assembly.



They have no problem doing so with protests held by non-wankers for genuine causes.


----------



## Yelkcub (Nov 6, 2014)

killer b said:


> They probably are cunts though, tbf.



Religious. The worst.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so people's right to protest flies out the window when you disgree with them. are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is and arrange or attend a counter-demonstration?



Do you have the right to demonstrate in favour of denying rights to others? It's a tricky one.

e2a: There are laws against causing harassment or distress, which demonstrating outside an abortion clinic is pretty much guaranteed to cause. And they're specifically targetting vulnerable people, which I don't believe anyone has the right to do. They could go to westminster and demonstrate outside parliament, taking their views to the people who can actually change the laws around abortion, but they don't do that. Most likely because they know they'd be chased off by counter-demonstrators.


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I wouldn't frame the thing in terms of 'rights' at all, tbh. It was a response to another poster. Sometimes people can become so twisted up by a logic discussion involving rights that they forget what is important, what is the decent and compassionate thing to do. Here, what is important above all is the wellbeing of the women using the clinic. That's what I'm concerned about.



Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure that sentiment is the best basis for a principled position; it must be tempered by reason.  I don't think the right to protest should be discounted so easily.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Do you have the right to demonstrate in favour of denying rights to others? It's a tricky one.


the legal right? yes. and often the moral right, too. i think many people would support a demonstration to deny civil rights to lib dem mps, for example.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2014)

Athos said:


> Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure that sentiment is the best basis for a principled position; it must be tempered by reason.  I don't think the right to protest should be discounted so easily.


They want the law changing. Let them demonstrate outside parliament. Do we have the right to upset others to make our point wherever and whenever we like? No we don't.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They want the law changing. Let them demonstrate outside parliament. Do we have the right to upset others to make our point wherever and whenever we like? No we don't.


How would that play out in say,  the anti-poll tax movement?


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They want the law changing. Let them demonstrate outside parliament. Do we have the right to upset others to make our point wherever and whenever we like? No we don't.



Hmmm, a toughie.  Does anyone have a right not to be upset?  Ought that to trump a right to free speech?  Is speech truly free if it is limited to particular locations?

All in all, I don't think this is something with which we ought to look to the law for help.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How would that worked in say,  the anti-poll tax movement?


Were they targeting and intimidating individuals who'd paid the poll tax? Or were they targeting the govt machinery?

If you can't see the difference between women seeking an abortion and government employees enforcing a tax, then you're lost.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the legal right? yes. and often the moral right, too. i think many people would support a demonstration to deny civil rights to lib dem mps, for example.



Lib dem MPs have chosen to become such. By definition nobody chooses to have an unwanted pregnancy.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How would that play out in say,  the anti-poll tax movement?



To me this sort of protest is more like opposing the poll tax by barracking the binmen and road gritters whose wages the poll tax would've paid for.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Were they targeting and intimidating individuals who'd paid the poll tax? Or were they targeting the govt machinery?
> 
> If you can't see the difference between women seeking an abortion and government employees enforcing a tax, then you're lost.


We were targeting bailiffs and stopping them going about their lawful business and harassing and intimidating them at their homes and places of business. And i was speaking more of the suggestion that _here is the place that laws are made, so you must go there and only there to protest._ Not only does this give unwarranted legitimacy to parliament, it's also tactically suicidal, politically limiting and radical vicarish. if you can't see why then...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> To me this sort of protest is more like opposing the poll tax by barracking the binmen and road gritters whose wages the poll tax would've paid for.


I'm not making a comparison between the two but asking how the command to go to parliment and only parliament - this being the only legitimate form of protest apparently - would have played out in the poll tax if followed. I'll tell you, it would have strangled the social movement we helped create at birth by removing it from wider social life and into the only _acceptable _arena of parliament and official politics. Never mind the same question posed as regards the miners strike or other more direct clashes.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Were they targeting and intimidating individuals who'd paid the poll tax? Or were they targeting the govt machinery?
> 
> If you can't see the difference between women seeking an abortion and government employees enforcing a tax, then you're lost.


I asked you about how your suggestion of what the only legitimate thing for protesters to do would have played out in the anti-poll tax movement if followed. Can you try and give an answer please?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 6, 2014)

Plumdaff said:


> We have problems in Cardiff occassionally with pro life groups although the police here do make them protest across the street, and the department store across the street isn't keen either. The counter demos are very deliberately when the clinic isn't open so it doesn't add to the distress of anyone attending.


they've been seen off apparently
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/anti-choice-bigots-defeated-in-cardiff.328279/


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not making a comparison between the two but asking how the command to go to parliment and only parliament - this being the only legitimate form of protest apparently - would have played out in the poll tax if followed. I'll tell you, it would have strangled the social movement we helped create at birth by removing it from wider social life and into the only _acceptable _arena of parliament and official politics. Never mind the same question posed as regards the miners strike or other more direct clashes.



I'm not suggesting everyone should take all their grievances to parliament square, as you say that would preclude basically any effective direct action. I'm saying that women going to an abortion clinic are not the best target to choose if you want things to change, but they are the best people to target if you just want to cause the maxmimum possible distress.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not suggesting everyone should take all their grievances to parliament square, as you say that would preclude basically any effective direct action. I'm saying that women going to an abortion clinic are not the best target to choose if you want things to change, but they are the best people to target if you just want to cause the maxmimum possible distress.


But again, that's irrelevant to my point. The content of this specific protest - or any other -  doesn't matter. What matters is the argument that if you want the law changed then all you can and must do is go to parliament. That's what i was querying by asking how it would have played out in previous protests.


----------



## cantsin (Nov 6, 2014)

like they do against the Westboro Baptist bigade, stand in front of them / form a barrier between them and the clinic / anyone attending ?

( apols, in response to the 'what can be done' comment ?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

A lot of the anti-choice movement's tactics stem from willful disinformation as well, like in the US where they'll set up centres purporting to offer impartial advice but which actually exist only to dissuade women from getting an abortion. This goes hand in hand with political campaigning to close down abortion clinics and legitimate advice centres. 

This is not a social movement. It's a crusade run by a handful of wealthy and influential people and groups which has aspects that are designed to like like a social movement. It's literally rent-a-mob tactics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They want the law changing. Let them demonstrate outside parliament. Do we have the right to upset others to make our point wherever and whenever we like? No we don't.


why not? on what basis do you make that bold claim?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> But again, that's irrelevant to my point. The content of this specific protest - or any other -  doesn't matter. What matters is the argument that is you want the law changed then all you can and must do is go to parliament. That's what i was querying by asking how it would have played out in previous protests.



I've stood outside parliament shouting a fair few times. It hasn't yet achieved anything as far as I can tell.

 People can choose how to protest just as they can choose what to protest about. I just think their choice of tactics and targets is proof of their cruelty and cynicism.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> A lot of the anti-choice movement's tactics stem from willful disinformation as well, like in the US where they'll set up centres purporting to offer impartial advice but which actually exist only to dissuade women from getting an abortion. This goes hand in hand with political campaigning to close down abortion clinics and legitimate advice centres.
> 
> This is not a social movement. It's a crusade run by a handful of wealthy and influential people and groups which has aspects that are designed to like like a social movement. It's literally rent-a-mob tactics.


Again, it doesn't matter if it was the exact same as the anti-poll tax movement or other examples i could give. What matters is what the advice offered by lbj as to what protesters should/must do would have done to those movements. If anything, the argument that, well it's different for the examples i gave actually bolsters the idea that it's only things that he agrees with that need such policing. Now given there's many things that we disagree on, i don't find that very reassuring - and certainly not regarding support for my right to protest in ways outside of the rules for things we disagree on.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I've stood outside parliament shouting a fair few times. It hasn't yet achieved anything as far as I can tell.
> 
> People can choose how to protest just as they can choose what to protest about. I just think their choice of tactics and targets is proof of their cruelty and cynicism.


Well then we're talking about entirely different things - and i can't see why you responded to my original question.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

I was trying to clarify the distinction between people who are responsible for something you disapprove of, and those merely involved in it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I was trying to clarify the distinction between people who are responsible for something you disapprove of, and those merely involved in it.


You what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I was trying to clarify the distinction between people who are responsible for something you disapprove of, and those merely involved in it.


pedantry alive and well i see.


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> i know for a fact if animal right protesters appear outside a shipping company with more than 2 members and have not informed the police they will be moved on
> 
> wtf "limited power's"



Is there some legal significance to you saying "more than 2 members"?

The reason I ask is that a few years ago I went to an abortion clinic with my then girlfriend, to be met with a small scale protest/picket of two people. We both found this annoying/unpleasant, but thinking about it now, I would agree that they had a reasonable right to protest which I don't think they were exceeding.

The picture in the article linked to suggests a far larger protest which might be considered intimidating and therefore unreasonable (to me personally), but I'm wondering if there is a clear legal definition which might be relevant.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> pedantry alive and well i see.



You think that's a trivial distinction then I take it?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You what?



Why don't you and Pickmans take turns in the tedious old grouch role, instead of both rocking up on the same thread and saying the same things?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why don't you and Pickmans take turns in the tedious old grouch role, instead of both rocking up on the same thread and saying the same things?


I  asked a question of lbj - he hasn't bothered replying. You jumped in and answered another one. No prob. Talked and clarified. Hours later no needed attack comes.

And oddly enough, spotting the gaps and probs in what people post, many people do it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> You think that's a trivial distinction then I take it?


you haven't clarified it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why don't you and Pickmans take turns in the tedious old grouch role, instead of both rocking up on the same thread and saying the same things?


why don't you say things worth reading instead of things which a child of eight would be embarrassed with?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> why don't you say things worth reading instead of things which a child of eight would be embarrassed with?



Has it occurred to you that you're not the sole arbiter of what's worth reading?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Has it occurred to you that you're not the sole arbiter of what's worth reading?


you want someone else to say you're embarrrassing yourself? a second opinion, as it were?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you want someone else to say you're embarrrassing yourself? a second opinion, as it were?



Presumably you have a sock puppet available for this very purpose?


----------



## BigTom (Nov 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> Is there some legal significance to you saying "more than 2 members"?
> 
> The reason I ask is that a few years ago I went to an abortion clinic with my then girlfriend, to be met with a small scale protest/picket of two people. We both found this annoying/unpleasant, but thinking about it now, I would agree that they had a reasonable right to protest which I don't think they were exceeding.
> 
> The picture in the article linked to suggests a far larger protest which might be considered intimidating and therefore unreasonable (to me personally), but I'm wondering if there is a clear legal definition which might be relevant.



I thought that maybe s12/s14 of the public order act would define a procession / assembly as 3 or more people, but it doesn't - violent disorder needs 3 or more people, you need 12 for a riot. But maybe the numbers needed for something to be a procession/assembly are defined elsewhere.



> (1)If the senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public procession is being held or is intended to be held and to its route or proposed route, reasonably believes that—
> 
> (a)it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or
> 
> (b)the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do,


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/12

is the relevant part of the section (both are the same, except one is for processions, one for assemblies). Clearly the protestors would be contravening (b) and this could be used... it was originally brought in to deal with the violence surrounding orange order marches btw, but is now used for anyone and everyone... except these anti-choice tossers.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 6, 2014)

When spotted in Brighton, they don't tend to last five minutes after opposition arrives. Fucking filthy bastards that they are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Presumably you have a sock puppet available for this very purpose?


only if you want one sweetcheeks


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

BigTom said:


> I thought that maybe s12/s14 of the public order act would define a procession / assembly as 3 or more people, but it doesn't - violent disorder needs 3 or more people, you need 12 for a riot. But maybe the numbers needed for something to be a procession/assembly are defined elsewhere.
> 
> 
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/12
> ...



Thanks for that. It's not clear to me if this act relates only to processions or assemblies for which permission has been asked and granted, or if it potentially applies to any moving or stationary gathering of people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> Thanks for that. It's not clear to me if this act relates only to processions or assemblies for which permission has been asked and granted, or if it potentially applies to any moving or stationary gathering of people.


it does, yes


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it does, yes



The former or the latter?


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

BigTom said:


> I thought that maybe s12/s14 of the public order act would define a procession / assembly as 3 or more people, but it doesn't - violent disorder needs 3 or more people, you need 12 for a riot. But maybe the numbers needed for something to be a procession/assembly are defined elsewhere.
> 
> 
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/12
> ...



I wonder if the reference to two or more is in respect of s61 The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so people's right to protest flies out the window when you disgree with them. are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is and arrange or attend a counter-demonstration?


I know you're playing devil's advocate but is there any need to adopt liberal positions to have your fun? 

I don't ever recall you crying over the BNP's 'right to protest', for example.


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> Thanks for that. It's not clear to me if this act relates only to processions or assemblies for which permission has been asked and granted, or if it potentially applies to any moving or stationary gathering of people.



Generally, you don't need police permission for a stationary assembly in a public place (with the exception of certain designated locations), as long as it's not blocking the highway.


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

Athos said:


> Generally, you don't need police permission for a stationary assembly in a public place (with the exception of certain designated locations), as long as it's not blocking the highway.



So this potentially relates to any public assembly?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

killer b said:


> I don't necessarily agree they're cunts - I think that, were I convinced that abortion were the murder of a baby - a conclusion which I can understand someone coming to, even if I disagree - then I might be moved to campaign against it.
> 
> They probably are cunts though, tbf.


This topic gives me nothing but cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> So this potentially relates to any public assembly?



I think so, yes.  Which is why these people are able to hold these demonstrations without contravening the law.  Had it been on private land, they could be removed, but, on public land, they just about get away with it.  They stop just short of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, such that they don't fall foul of Public Order Act 1986; and, although what they do comes close to harassment, they avoid falling foul of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 by virtue of the fact that their conduct is not unreasonable (because the bar is, quite rightly, set high when it comes to infringing the fundamental rights of freedom of assemble and expression; and, they don't block the highway, so avoid falling foul of the Highways Act 1980.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> Thanks for that. It's not clear to me if this act relates only to processions or assemblies for which permission has been asked and granted, or if it potentially applies to any moving or stationary gathering of people.



It relates to any gathering, it's what was used to arrest everyone on the critical mass ride that went past the olympic stadium on the day of the opening ceremony for instance.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 6, 2014)

Athos said:


> I wonder if the reference to two or more is in respect of s61 The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.



possibly



> If the senior police officer present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and—



but you can't be trespassing on the public footpath/highway so protesters who know their stuff won't fall foul of this. It may even be in case law that three or more people defines a gathering, rather than in statute law. There's also the bit of the CJA which defines many people you need for something to be a rave, but I think that was 7 or more.


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

BigTom said:


> possibly
> 
> 
> 
> but you can't be trespassing on the public footpath/highway so protesters who know their stuff won't fall foul of this. It may even be in case law that three or more people defines a gathering, rather than in statute law. There's also the bit of the CJA which defines many people you need for something to be a rave, but I think that was 7 or more.



I don't think there's any prohibition on two or more people gathering in a public place, so long as it's not one of the SOCPA locations, they're not part of a procession without permission, they're not obstructing the highway, and their conduct does not fall foul of either the Public order Act 1986 or Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

That's not to say the OB won't try to bully people off with threats of arrest, though.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 6, 2014)

Athos said:


> I think so, yes.  Which is why these people are able to hold these demonstrations without contravening the law.  Had it been on private land, they could be removed, but, on public land, they just about get away with it.  They stop just short of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, such that they don't fall foul of Public Order Act 1986; and, although what they do comes close to harassment, they avoid falling foul of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 by virtue of the fact that their conduct is not unreasonable (because the bar is, quite rightly, set high when it comes to infringing the fundamental rights of freedom of assemble and expression; and, they don't block the highway, so avoid falling foul of the Highways Act 1980.



I haven't actually seen one of these demos, but do you not think that they would be considered to be trying to intimidate people into not having an abortion? Isn't that the point of demonstrating outside a clinic? I mean, we got nicked and some of us charged for being in fortnum and mason, and the CPS produced no evidence of individuals doing anything intimidating but got convictions* using Joint Enterprise on the argument that as a group we were intimidating and that we must have known that would be the case. This was aggravated trespass not s14 but it's very similar wording.
edit: I mean similar wording in terms of intention to stop people doing something lawful through intimidation

*because I can't tell the story often enough.. 30 people were ultimately taken to court, of the 145 arrested & charged. one person had their charges accidentally dropped by the cps, and weren't allowed to reinstate them. Westminster crown court can only hold 10 defendants in a court, so the 29 were split into 3 trial for administrative purposes. Different magistrates, different results - two groups were found guilty, one group found not guilty and the two guilty groups got different fines/costs. fucking justice eh?


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

BigTom said:


> I haven't actually seen one of these demos, but do you not think that they would be considered to be trying to intimidate people into not having an abortion? Isn't that the point of demonstrating outside a clinic? I mean, we got nicked and some of us charged for being in fortnum and mason, and the CPS produced no evidence of individuals doing anything intimidating but got convictions* using Joint Enterprise on the argument that as a group we were intimidating and that we must have known that would be the case. This was aggravated trespass not s14 but it's very similar wording.
> edit: I mean similar wording in terms of intention to stop people doing something lawful through intimidation
> 
> *because I can't tell the story often enough.. 30 people were ultimately taken to court, of the 145 arrested & charged. one person had their charges accidentally dropped by the cps, and weren't allowed to reinstate them. Westminster crown court can only hold 10 defendants in a court, so the 29 were split into 3 trial for administrative purposes. Different magistrates, different results - two groups were found guilty, one group found not guilty and the two guilty groups got different fines/costs. fucking justice eh?



They presumably *could* be considered to be trying to intimidate people into not having an abortion, but it would be up to the senior police officer present to decide whether or not to make that decision. 

We all know that the law isn't applied equitably to everyone, but my original enquiry was whether there is some particular way in which three or more people can be prevented from doing something which two can get away with. It appears from the suggestions made so far that there isn't.


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

BigTom said:


> I haven't actually seen one of these demos, but do you not think that they would be considered to be trying to intimidate people into not having an abortion? Isn't that the point of demonstrating outside a clinic? I mean, we got nicked and some of us charged for being in fortnum and mason, and the CPS produced no evidence of individuals doing anything intimidating but got convictions* using Joint Enterprise on the argument that as a group we were intimidating and that we must have known that would be the case. This was aggravated trespass not s14 but it's very similar wording.
> edit: I mean similar wording in terms of intention to stop people doing something lawful through intimidation
> 
> *because I can't tell the story often enough.. 30 people were ultimately taken to court, of the 145 arrested & charged. one person had their charges accidentally dropped by the cps, and weren't allowed to reinstate them. Westminster crown court can only hold 10 defendants in a court, so the 29 were split into 3 trial for administrative purposes. Different magistrates, different results - two groups were found guilty, one group found not guilty and the two guilty groups got different fines/costs. fucking justice eh?



Are you referring to a1(1A) of PfH'97?  If so, then I think that, on the face of it, a lot of what they do might fall within that category, but is protected by the defence in s1(3) i.e. that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.  I think that a court would be very reluctant to hold this conduct unreasonable, and thereby criminalise a peaceful protest, given that to do so might amount to a breach of articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of ECHR.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> They presumably *could* be considered to be trying to intimidate people into not having an abortion.


Ya think? With those big poster images of foetuses?

That's exactly what they are doing. And trying to make those not intimidated feel shit about themselves. I know they justify it to themselves as saving the life of the foetus, but that does not change the cuntishness of the behaviour.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 6, 2014)

Athos said:


> Are you referring to a1(1A) of PfH'97?  If so, then I think that, on the face of it, a lot of what they do might fall within that category, but is protected by the defence in s1(3) i.e. that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.  I think that a court would be very reluctant to hold this conduct unreasonable, and thereby criminalise a peaceful protest, given that to do so might amount to a breach of articles 8, 9 and 10 of ECHR.



No, to s14 1(b) POA 1986:



> (1)If the senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public assembly is being held or is intended to be held, reasonably believes that—
> 
> (a)it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or
> 
> (b)the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do,



which strikes me as being very similar in wording to Aggravated Trespass, s68 1(a) CJA 1994:



> *68Offence of aggravated trespass.*
> A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—
> 
> (a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,



I mean I think the whole joint enterprise thing was fucking shit and a misuse of what that was intended for, and of course it's political anyway and the reason the police don't use s14 (or at least don't try to use it) is that they have no political pressure to do so, whereas they had a lot of pressure to arrest everyone involved with ukuncut, but if we ignore the reality of the world, then if one applies, the other does too I think?


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ya think? With those big poster images of foetuses?
> 
> That's exactly what they are doing. And trying to make those not intimidated feel shit about themselves. I know they justify it to themselves as saving the life of the foetus, but that does not change the cuntishness of the behaviour.



I'm not in any way trying to say they aren't behaving to intimidate - I'm saying that *legally* it's up to the police to decide if they are and to therefore arrest or threaten to arrest.

We can all condemn them from the comfort of our keyboards, and we can organise a counter demo if we think it's appropriate - I was asking a specific question about the existing legal position, but I wasn't suggesting for one moment that's the only aspect which is relevant.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm not in any way trying to say they aren't behaving to intimidate - I'm saying that *legally* it's up to the police to decide if they are and to therefore arrest or threaten to arrest.
> 
> We can all condemn them from the comfort of our keyboards, and we can organise a counter demo if we think it's appropriate - I was asking a specific question about the existing legal position, but I wasn't suggesting for one moment that's the only aspect which is relevant.


Well this is where BigTom's point comes in. Yes, there is the capacity to move them on _if there is pressure on the police to do so_. But the relative powerlessness in society of the women using the clinic means the police don't give a fuck about them or their wellbeing. Unlike an establishment like Fortnum and Mason...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> The former or the latter?


yes


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well this is where BigTom's point comes in. Yes, there is the capacity to move them on _if there is pressure on the police to do so_. But the relative powerlessness in society of the women using the clinic means the police don't give a fuck about them or their wellbeing. Unlike an establishment like Fortnum and Mason...


i don't believe fortnum & mason offer abortions. but i'll look more carefully next time i'm down that way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I know you're playing devil's advocate but is there any need to adopt liberal positions to have your fun?
> 
> I don't ever recall you crying over the BNP's 'right to protest', for example.


i don't believe the issue was ever raised. nonetheless, while they have that right i and others like me have the same right to make our own feelings known. but there's nothing more liberal than demanding people you disagree with are jogged on by the state.


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

BigTom said:


> No, to s14 1(b) POA 1986:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No.  I think the difference is that the PfH offence only requires harassment, whereas s14(1)(b) can only be engaged if the senior officer reasoable believes there's intimidation - a higher threshold.  As odious as what they do is, I don't think it goes as far as to amount to intimidation; whilst those on the receiving end are understandably upset, I doubt they could reasonably claim they are are in fear of being harmed.  The anti-choice protesters are cute enough not to do anything which would rise that possibility: they don't rant and rave, issue threats, invade people's personal space or gesticulate.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 6, 2014)

I wonder how these cunts would react to people doing similar behaviour outside their places of worship (assuming they attend such places)?  I suspect they'd be quick to ring the police whinging about being harassed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I wonder how these cunts would react to people doing similar behaviour outside their places of worship (assuming they attend such places)?  I suspect they'd be quick to ring the police whinging about being harassed.


it's a tempting thought, giving them a dose of their own medicine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

we could turn up with placards saying "born again? twice too often!" and that


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's a tempting thought, giving them a dose of their own medicine.



I'm sure it would be quite easy to be suitably offensive to them with slogans and placards.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> we could turn up with placards saying "born again? twice too often!" and that


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

.


----------



## Athos (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's a tempting thought, giving them a dose of their own medicine.



They thrive off that though.  The more they're 'persecuted', the more they're convinced they're doing God's work.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

Athos said:


> They thrive off that though.  The more they're 'persecuted', the more they're convinced they're doing God's work.


i think they might have second thoughts when they're cast to the lions and tigers and leopards in the zoo.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 6, 2014)

Athos said:


> They thrive off that though.  The more they're 'persecuted', the more they're convinced they're doing God's work.



True enough, but it might sway some of the less rabid ones to think again about how they approach the issue, when faced with it thrown back at them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> True enough, but it might sway some of the less rabid ones to think again about how they approach the issue, when faced with it thrown back at them.


we could hammer the point home


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 6, 2014)




----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think they might have second thoughts when they're cast to the lions and tigers and leopards in the zoo.



I'd feel sorry for the animals if this happens - the 'pro-life' protesters probably taste bitter and nasty, just like their personalities.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't believe the issue was ever raised. nonetheless, while they have that right i and others like me have the same right to make our own feelings known. but there's nothing more liberal than demanding people you disagree with are jogged on by the state.


I didn't realise anyone was suggesting that - or not LBJ anyway.


----------



## John Allman (Nov 8, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I wonder how these cunts would react to people doing similar behaviour outside their places of worship (assuming they attend such places)?  I suspect they'd be quick to ring the police whinging about being harassed.


Abort 67 isn't a religious organisation.  However, that has not discouraged protests held outside places of worship, such as this one:

http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/in.../468-pro-choice-events-on-sunday-4th-november


----------



## J Ed (Nov 8, 2014)

John Allman said:


> Abort 67 isn't a religious organisation.



Yes it is you batshit right-wing cunt

How many women in distress have you managed to harass and intimidate today?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 8, 2014)

I see from John Allman's twitter profile that he's also not very keen on gays or feminism. Surprising.


----------



## Athos (Nov 8, 2014)

John Allman said:


> Abort 67 isn't a religious organisation.  However, that has not discouraged protests held outside places of worship, such as this one:
> 
> http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/in.../468-pro-choice-events-on-sunday-4th-november



Hello John.  Are you the same John Allman that was involved with 'Christians Against Mental Slavery'?


----------



## John Allman (Nov 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> we could turn up with placards saying "born again? twice too often!" and that


Abort 67 isn't attempting to deliver a religious message.  Abort 67 isn't a religious organisation.  Abort 67 has no beliefs other than that killing humans isn't morally acceptable just because the humans killed are very young, and those who decided that they should be killed happened to have wombs.

Because Abort 67 has no religion, Abort 67 cannot be opposed using placards that make fun of any religion, as you propose.

Instead, you will need to engage with Abort 67's argument.  Nobody here is engaging with Abort 67's *content*, its *message*, its *argument*. Instead, people are just expressing anger towards one particular type of direct action activist, without explaining what they are angry about.

Abort 67 displays posters showing what abortion does, to whom, outside retail outlets of the abortion industry.  Why are these displays any more "intimidating" than the contents of a butcher's shop window?  Think about THAT question, and you shall have begun to think about Abort 67's message, and will become able to think about how to refute it, other than by mindless name-calling of the personnel.

A butcher displays dead animals in his shop window, to *encourage* hungry people to buy, cook and eat bits of the dead animals, not to shock them into never eating meat again.   What Abort 67 is doing, is *advertising* BPAS' service for them, free of charge.  Arguably BPAS should be grateful, rather "intimidated" by free advertising of BPAS' product on the part of Abort 67.  If not, then (here's the challenge) WHY NOT?

Apparently, a lot of people think that what Abort 67 does isn't the equivalent of displaying pieces of meat in a butcher's shop window.  But what they do about this, is to heap fairly mindless, ad hominem abuse upon Abort 67 activists, without actually answering the $64,000 question: Why isn't it GOOD for BPAS' business, for somebody kindly to advertise its product for it, outside its shops, graphically?  The same way that it is apparently GOOD for the butcher's business for him to advertise graphically his product.

Abort 67 is simply telling the public that what they see, on Abort 67's posters, is what those who buy abortions from BPAS are getting. Somebody needs to complete the sentence: "What Abort 67 does, is intimidating towards BPAS, because ..."  In this entire thread, nobody has done that job properly.  There is no "because".  It is taken for granted that Abort 67 are wrong, not argued.  Abort 67 will never go away if that is the poor quality of the opposition to their message.  They will eventually win, if nobody refutes them.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 8, 2014)

This probably sounds very clever to you but it is bullshit. Go away please.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I didn't realise anyone was suggesting that - or not LBJ anyway.


He's thrown strawmen around like it's harvest time on this thread. I think it's time for the pedantick one to go back on ignore.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2014)

John Allman said:


> Abort 67 isn't attempting to deliver a religious message.  Abort 67 isn't a religious organisation.  Abort 67 has no beliefs other than that killing humans isn't morally acceptable just because the humans killed are very young, and those who decided that they should be killed happened to have wombs.
> 
> Because Abort 67 has no religion, Abort 67 cannot be opposed using placards that make fun of any religion, as you propose.
> 
> ...






			
				John Allman said:
			
		

> Homophobia is a legitimate, effective and desirable defence mechanism against homosexuality in the individual and in society.


----------



## peterkro (Nov 8, 2014)

John Allman said:


> Abort 67 isn't attempting to deliver a religious message.  Abort 67 isn't a religious organisation.  Abort 67 has no beliefs other than that killing humans isn't morally acceptable just because the humans killed are very young, and those who decided that they should be killed happened to have wombs.
> 
> Because Abort 67 has no religion, Abort 67 cannot be opposed using placards that make fun of any religion, as you propose.
> 
> ...


Well aren't you quite the pleasant person.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 8, 2014)

John Allman said:


> Abort 67 isn't attempting to deliver a religious message.  Abort 67 isn't a religious organisation.  Abort 67 has no beliefs other than that killing humans isn't morally acceptable just because the humans killed are very young, and those who decided that they should be killed happened to have wombs.
> 
> Because Abort 67 has no religion, Abort 67 cannot be opposed using placards that make fun of any religion, as you propose.
> 
> ...


You really are a heartless bastard devoid of empathy, aren't you?


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2014)

John Allman said:


> Abort 67 is simply telling the public that what they see, on Abort 67's posters, is what those who buy abortions from BPAS are getting. Somebody needs to complete the sentence: "What Abort 67 does, is intimidating towards BPAS, because ..."





andysays said:


> Is there some legal significance to you saying "more than 2 members"?
> 
> The reason I ask is that a few years ago I went to an abortion clinic with my then girlfriend, to be met with *a small scale protest/picket of two people. We both found this annoying/unpleasant*, but thinking about it now, I would agree that they had a reasonable right to protest which I don't think they were exceeding.
> 
> The picture in the article linked to suggests *a far larger protest which might be considered intimidating and therefore unreasonable (to me personally*), but I'm wondering if there is a clear legal definition which might be relevant.



(my emphasis)

Now fuck off you would be murderous homophobic cunt, you've lost your argument, on your own terms you have to give it up.


----------



## John Allman (Nov 8, 2014)

Athos said:


> Hello John.  Are you the same John Allman that was involved with 'Christians Against Mental Slavery'?


I only joined this forum today, Athos, so the rules I agreed to keep to when posting here are still fresh in my mind.  One of them precludes me from answering your question, or discussing here things that I am involved, which might be misconstrued as advertising. However, the information you seek is easily enough obtained.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2014)

John Allman said:


> A
> 
> Instead, you will need to engage with Abort 67's argument.  Nobody here is engaging with Abort 67's *content*, its *message*, its *argument*. Instead, people are just expressing anger towards one particular type of direction action activist, without explaining what they are angry about.



No one needs to engage with abort 67s arguments. We've won. It's over. Apart from the small sale intimidation that you can get up to - but that's not your rational _argument _is it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2014)

John Allman said:


> Abort 67 isn't attempting to deliver a religious message.  Abort 67 isn't a religious organisation.  Abort 67 has no beliefs other than that killing humans isn't morally acceptable just because the humans killed are very young, and those who decided that they should be killed happened to have wombs.
> 
> Because Abort 67 has no religion, Abort 67 cannot be opposed using placards that make fun of any religion, as you propose.
> 
> ...


i don't think people go to bpas to get food. why don't you do something decent and stand outside army recruitment offices with pictures of dismembered men, women and children?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

John Allman said:


> I only joined this forum today, Athos, so the rules I agreed to keep to when posting here are still fresh in my mind.  One of them precludes me from answering your question, or discussing here things that I am involved, which might be misconstrued as advertising. However, the information you seek is easily enough obtained.



So why did you advertise a pro-choice event in your opening post you disingenuous shit-stain?


----------



## N_igma (Nov 8, 2014)

They certainly have a right to protest but I also have the right to call them fucking wankers - fucking wankers.


----------



## John Allman (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> So why did you advertise a pro-choice event in your opening post you disingenuous shit-stain?


It wasn't an event that I had organised, and it happened in the past, so I wasn't "advertising" it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

John Allman said:


> It wasn't an event that I had organised, and it happened in the past, so I wasn't "advertising" it.



You drew attention to it. Which is advertising. So now that's out of the way you're free to draw attention to the disgusting shit you get up to.


----------



## John Allman (Nov 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Homophobia is a legitimate, effective and desirable defence mechanism against homosexuality in the individual and in society.


That sentence occurred in a _context_, to which you did not link.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2014)

John Allman said:


> That sentence occurred in a _context_, to which you did not link.


i am struggling to think of a context in which that might be acceptable


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

"Advertising" in the context of this forum means brands/products not political actions.

So don't feel restrained by that rule.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2014)

John Allman said:


> That sentence occurred in a _context_, to which you did not link.



The context was  the crude attempt to provide some sort of rational _appearing _justification for the functional worth of homophobia. And you yourself offered the above quote as an accurate summation of that argument concerning that which you are so fascinated by.


----------



## Athos (Nov 8, 2014)

John Allman said:


> Abort 67 isn't attempting to deliver a religious message.  Abort 67 isn't a religious organisation.  Abort 67 has no beliefs other than that killing humans isn't morally acceptable just because the humans killed are very young, and those who decided that they should be killed happened to have wombs.
> 
> Because Abort 67 has no religion, Abort 67 cannot be opposed using placards that make fun of any religion, as you propose.
> 
> ...



If you went to surgery for cancer treatment, would you be pleased to see graphic pictures of excised, bloody tumors in your way in?  Why not, it's only advertising the procedures they provide?  Just because you don't want look at something doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it; would you like to watch your parents have sex?

When people are at their most vulnerable, because they have had to make a difficult decision, and are about to undergo a surgical procedure about which they might be nervous, they might well find it very upsetting to be confronted with gory images, even to the extent that they are intimidated.

But, as Butch rightly says, there's really no need to engage with you.  You've already lost.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 8, 2014)

Is there a point in keeping him around?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2014)

i wonder if we'll ever get an anti-abortion type here who can put even a semblence of an argument


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

There is a point in engaging if his actions harrass women. In what form that engagement manifests itself is what he should be intererested in discussing.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 8, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Is there a point in keeping him around?



Yeah, he think's he has a point, let him argue it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2014)

I don't know why you don't just use your  Hypersonic Sound System on them John.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

Okay. He's ill. He needs the hospital himself.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I don't know why you don't just use your  Hypersonic Sound System on them John.



"John Allman has been hearing voices in his head for years." Nuff said.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

And i doubt anyone would be heartless enough to jeer him with placards as he is admitted.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 8, 2014)

Ah fuck.


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2014)

> Transoriented people (as I am defining the term here) have a similar tale to tell.  They have experienced (for example) same sex attraction, but have decided that they want in future to be people who are attracted to the opposite sex (or _vice versa_).  They want other people to accept them as they are, complete with their desire to change, or that fact of their having already changed, their “sexual orientation” (so-to-speak).  But, unlike transgendered people, they have changed their _minds_ rather than their _bodies_, so that their _behaviour_ resembles more that of their acquired sexual orientation than the sexual orientation with which they have formerly identified.  Transoriented people often experience rejection on the part of people with strong, fixed beliefs too.  Beliefs, in this case, that it isn’t possible for somebody who has in the past said that he has had a homosexual orientation really to change into somebody who now has a heterosexual orientation to all practical intents and purposes.



there you go, change your mind. stop being gay. and that makes you a victim of bigotry that is equivalent to that faced by transgendered people


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2014)

BigTom said:


> (my emphasis)
> 
> Now fuck off you would be murderous homophobic cunt, you've lost your argument, on your own terms you have to give it up.



I'm assuming I'm not the would be murderous homophobic cunt you're referring to, even though that comment comes directly after a quote from me


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2014)

> Pitched against her own legal team, the mental patient, Mrs SB, had two psychiatrists, her mother, her father, her husband (presumably the baby’s father) and the NHS hospital in which she was sectioned, along with their various solicitors and barristers, all agreeing that she was “not thinking straight”.



she's not a woman. she' defined as a mental patient. stripped of identity beyond her illness.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

He's banned now. Not sure why other than FM ruthlessly enforcing the don't be a dick rule.


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> There is a point in engaging if his actions harrass women. In what form that engagement manifests itself is what he should be intererested in discussing.



I don't know for sure whether his personal actions harrass women or not (most likely they do), but I have a feeling that he's not open to being persuaded to change his actions by anything that we say to him here anyway, so from that point of view there's really little need for any of us to engage.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 8, 2014)

It was never going to end well.


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2014)

> ccording to official Dept of Health statistics, during 2011, the percentage of legal abortions in England and Wales that were carried out because the mother had a mental health problem, was 97.9%. That's almost 49 out of every 50 legal abortions!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2014)

toggle said:


> ...



Where are you getting these quotes from? Maybe you've mentioned it upthread, but I'm playing catch-up ATM


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2014)

http://www.suncornwall.com/apps/for...-because-of-mother-s-mental-illness?page=last

http://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> I don't know for sure whether his personal actions harrass women or not (most likely they do), but I have a feeling that he's not open to being persuaded to change his actions by anything that we say to him here anyway, so from that point of view there's really little need for any of us to engage.



The implication was that the engagement might be via the boot, but a daft thing for me to say given it's unlikely I'd be the one doing it.


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2014)

toggle said:


> http://www.suncornwall.com/apps/for...-because-of-mother-s-mental-illness?page=last
> 
> http://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/



Looks like he's not just an anti abortion nutter, but a general all-purpose any-subject-you-like nutter


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> Looks like he's not just an anti abortion nutter, but a general all-purpose any-subject-you-like nutter



yep


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> The implication was that the engagement might be via the boot, but a daft thing for me to say given it's unlikely I'd be the one doing it.



When I encountered a couple of these protestors a few years ago, as mentioned up thread, I was tempted to engage with them in a rather forceful manner, but decided that in the circumstances it would probably cause more upset to my then-partner and myself and was probably counter-productive


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> There is a point in engaging if his actions harrass women. In what form that engagement manifests itself is what he should be intererested in discussing.


i have my doubts that he's engaging in a great many actual protests in London.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 8, 2014)

I've only just noticed this 

Is there a date for not turning up to a counter protest to these cunts? 

If so feel free to not PM me or whatever


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

toggle said:


> i have my doubts that he's engaging in a great many actual protests in London.



Fair point. I sort of melded the op with the fact that he turned up and people started recognising his name as some indicator that he was involved in some way.


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I've only just noticed this
> 
> Is there a date for not turning up to a counter protest to these cunts?
> 
> If so feel free to not PM me or whatever


http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/

are probably the lot to ask about that


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Fair point. I sort of melded the op with the fact that he turned up and people started recognising his name as some indicator that he was involved in some way.



googled it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

toggle said:


> googled it.



Well, yes. But I obviously drew an incorrect conclusion rather than also google it.


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2014)

toggle said:


> http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/
> 
> are probably the lot to ask about that





> Abortion Rights UK has called for police and law-makers to take steps to end the harassment of staff and patients and prevent delays to provision of medical services. This move follows the news that the first British clinic closure due to protest activity is likely in the next few weeks.



Doesn't look they are inclined to encourage any sort of counter demo


> Abort67 activists have bombarded the practice with emails and staged several protests specifically targeted at a mother and baby clinic also at the practice. Anti-abortion extremists flooded the area with activists carrying graphic posters, filmed patients coming in and out of the practice. They have openly stated that their intention is to force the practice to stop providing an abortion service. The practice have now said they are considering withdrawing the service because their staff and patients are distressed by the protestors.



The problem with counter protest is obviously the danger of increasing the distress felt by patients and staff. That's not an argument for doing nothing, but if abortion rights themselves aren't calling for that sort of action, people obviously need to tread very carefully and sensitively


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

I'd be up for a counter protest if it was tomorrow given I'm rarely in london at weekends.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm assuming I'm not the would be murderous homophobic cunt you're referring to, even though that comment comes directly after a quote from me




no, the now banned one who'd see women die from back street abortions. apologies if that wasn't clear.


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2014)

BigTom said:


> no, the now banned one who'd see women die from back street abortions. apologies if that wasn't clear.



I thought that was probably what you meant, though when I first read your post I was a little bit


----------



## Athos (Nov 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i wonder if we'll ever get an anti-abortion type here who can put even a semblence of an argument



It's a shame that they tend to be evangelical Christian nutjobs, because there are some decent - albeit, ultimately unpersuasive, in my opinion - scientific, legal and philosophical arguments that can be made against abortion.  In my opinion, it's the rebuttal of those arguments which forms a more persuasive case for abortion rights than a number of those that are typically cited by the pro-choice movement.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 8, 2014)

Athos said:


> there are some decent - albeit, ultimately unpersuasive, in my opinion - scientific, legal and philosophical arguments that can be made against abortion.


There are?

I rather think that there are not. Hence, once the religious argument has been lost, anti-abortionists lose.


----------



## Athos (Nov 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There are?
> 
> I rather think that there are not. Hence, once the religious argument has been lost, anti-abortionists lose.



Of course there are.  Take ethics, for example; that doesn't have to turn on religious belief.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 8, 2014)

Jutht outthide London, no?


----------



## Athos (Nov 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Jutht outthide London, no?



Big breaths.

Yeth, and I'm only thixteen.


----------



## toggle (Nov 9, 2014)

andysays said:


> Doesn't look they are inclined to encourage any sort of counter demo
> 
> 
> The problem with counter protest is obviously the danger of increasing the distress felt by patients and staff. That's not an argument for doing nothing, but if abortion rights themselves aren't calling for that sort of action, people obviously need to tread very carefully and sensitively



yep.

my thought tis that this org would be in contact with the clinic and would know whether they believed counterprotest would be useful or apropriate.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 9, 2014)

Isn't there stuff about causing alarm and distress they could be nicked for? People have been warned/nicked for having rude words on T-shirts/banners in the past, surely some of the graphic stuff being waved about could fall under the same rules? (Not that I agree with such a law).

I'm surprised they don't get ASBOed by one of the more lefty councils, but that'd feed their martyr complex.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Nov 9, 2014)

I drive past people 'praying to end abortion' (according to their hoodies) almost every day outside the Marie Stopes clinic in Leeds. Even when it's raining there's one or two of the hardcore men there (sure there are women, never seen them).

They flank the gates in to the car park  (it's in like a light industrial unit). They are there, literally standing in silent visible judgement. The pious unchristian dickheads.

My dad does this shit down South. He prays outside abortion centres. For the little babies and Jesus. My dad is really fucking stupid tho and he broke my brothers arm behind his back when he was a kid and we all went to refuges with our shit in plastic bags every other week. Now he prays for the unborn babies outside abortion clinics.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 9, 2014)

I agree with those saying that a counter protest may be unhelpful, and certainly I wouldn't support one unless it was supported by/organised by Abortion Rights and/or BPAS (which is run by people who are no strangers to organising pickets or counter pickets) but I think a mass one off mobilisation either as a counter picket or a march or rally near by would help to reinforce a pro-choice message.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 10, 2014)

Hundal http://labourlist.org/2014/11/the-pro-choice-majority-needs-to-mobilise-against-intimidation/

I walk past there most lunchtimes and haven't seen anything going on. Nor has anybody I work with mentioned seeing anything going on.

So it could be that you have a couple of protests, with the press invited along, and the predictable outrage when the coverage comes out?

ETA - which is not to diminish the upset that the protests would cause to staff and users of the facility.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Hundal http://labourlist.org/2014/11/the-pro-choice-majority-needs-to-mobilise-against-intimidation/
> 
> I walk past there most lunchtimes and haven't seen anything going on. Nor has anybody I work with mentioned seeing anything going on.
> 
> So it could be that you have a couple of protests, with the press invited along, and the predictable outrage when the coverage comes out?


The thing in there that says the GP is considering removing the service, that was also in the OP. I suspect that's where he got it from, but it would be good if we could bulk that claim up a bit. Anyone seen anything else?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 10, 2014)

This local story says that the clinic is going to be redeveloped in a few years:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7900


----------



## everything2go (Nov 17, 2014)

I can't find any stuff online about it but the Oxford Feminist Network have been holding counter protests against a similar group in Oxford. I think they have been doing a Disco for Choice. I know they've discussed at length the merits of holding a counter protest, and I shall try and find it and post on here.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 5, 2014)

Smackdown!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 5, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Smackdown!




My son just came in and told me to have a look at this; she does a great job and the look on the guy's face says it all.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 5, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> My son just came in and told me to have a look at this; she does a great job and the look on the guy's face says it all.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Fantastic. Well done that woman! 

But the bloke wasn't listening. He couldn't look at her, no, but he was also tuning out. As was the woman to the left. She was almost smiling at the end of it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 5, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fantastic. Well done that woman!
> 
> But the bloke wasn't listening. He couldn't look at her, no, but he was also tuning out. As was the woman to the left. She was almost smiling at the end of it.



I think the guy was listening and that's why he was turning out.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## andysays (Dec 5, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fantastic. Well done that woman!
> 
> But the bloke wasn't listening. He couldn't look at her, no, but he was also tuning out. As was the woman to the left. She was almost smiling at the end of it.



I very much doubt that those two will have their opinions changed, or re-consider what they're doing, but the way that woman (who I'm assuming was simply a random passer-by rather than someone who'd gone deliberately to oppose them) challeged them and pulled what they're doing to pieces in about half a dozen ways in a couple of minutes was absolutely brilliant. 

I hope that video goes fucking viral and that those who watch it recognise what a bunch of arseholes this Abort 67 and their ilk really are, including by the fact that they had no response, that all they could do was look sheepishly and patronisingly away.


----------



## gamerunknown (Dec 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> I hope that video goes fucking viral and that those who watch it recognise what a bunch of arseholes this Abort 67 and their ilk really are, including by the fact that they had no response, that all they could do was look sheepishly and patronisingly away.



Already has, 2m views in 2 days.


----------



## andysays (Dec 5, 2014)

gamerunknown said:


> Already has, 2m views in 2 days.



And 17,000 likes


----------



## harpo (Dec 6, 2014)

And on the news


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 10, 2014)

I just walked past them to and from the post office. Seems like Wednesdays is the day.

About 7 or 8 protestors on the other side of the road from the clinic. Mainly young, mainly women, fwiw. They had a garish banner up that I didn't look at too much, said it was a photo of an eight week old foetus or something. They were silent when I was there.

There was another group of 3 people further down the street who were filming them. Couldn't tell if they were with them, against them, or media. Near the film crew someone had put up a notice saying "Warning - graphic abortion imagery up ahead" or something.

There were two cops in a van and another one in a car.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 10, 2014)

Doing their shite outside the Brighton clinic today too. Fucking parasites.


----------



## tonysingh (Dec 10, 2014)

I live in Chatham and recently a group very similar to this have been out a couple of times, same sort of m.o with a few worrying differences, at least from my point of view.

They'll have the graphic imagery etc but they also have what appears to be dolls of fetuses and they were talking to girls who seemed clearly underage.

Might have to harass the fuck out of them if I see them again


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 17, 2014)

This is probably the wrong place for it, being Missouri and all, but what the actual? 


> A Missouri Republican is pushing a bill that would allow a man who gets a woman pregnant to stop her from having an abortion. The measure would force a woman who wants an abortion to obtain written permission from the father first—unless she was the victim of "legitimate rape."


http://www.motherjones.com/politics...s-women-get-permission-father-having-abortion


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 17, 2014)

So as a bonus this bill would create circumstances where a women needing an abortion might be motivated to spuriously claim rape to get what they want, thus undermining those with genuine rape claims, who are already often accused of making stuff up.  What a massively shitty bit of legislation.  Are people going to have to prove 'legitimate rape' too?  We already know how difficult that can be.  Horrible.


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 17, 2014)

Well, that's a corollary I hadn't thought of. It's bad enough that Brattin thinks women should have to get permission from a partner at all, let alone one from whom they may be separated, who may be abusive, or whom they don't know at all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 17, 2014)

bluescreen said:


> This is probably the wrong place for it, being Missouri and all, but what the actual?
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/politics...s-women-get-permission-father-having-abortion


Pretty sure that would be struck down by roe v wade.


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 17, 2014)

Isn't Roe v Wade already wobbling? As I said, not sure this is the right thread.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 17, 2014)

I got spammed an email from one of the petition sites today (which always happens after I sign one for a few weeks, which puts me off signing any at all really) calling for the protests to be banned. 

Do people protesting against protests they don't like not see any problem in asking for protests to be outlawed by the state?


----------



## toggle (Dec 17, 2014)

bluescreen said:


> Well, that's a corollary I hadn't thought of. It's bad enough that Brattin thinks women should have to get permission from a partner at all, let alone one from whom they may be separated, who may be abusive, or whom they don't know at all.



and unless they are forcing dna testing and publicising that every woman is seeking rape, how in the hell do they know the signatory is the 'father'? not freinds helping them out. where it's necessary for a woman to have rights over her own body, I'd not only accept a partner 'helping out' freindsby signing such bullshit permission forms, i'd actively encourage him to do so



littlebabyjesus said:


> Pretty sure that would be struck down by roe v wade.



eventually. in the meantime, they get to throw about time wasting bullshit.


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 17, 2014)

Bullshit is the operative word. And make no mistake, it's not about the rights of the unborn, it's about controlling women.


----------



## toggle (Dec 17, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I got spammed an email from one of the petition sites today (which always happens after I sign one for a few weeks, which puts me off signing any at all really) calling for the protests to be banned.
> 
> Do people protesting against protests they don't like not see any problem in asking for protests to be outlawed by the state?



banned completely, nope. they are entitled to be arseholes.

an exclusion zone arround clinics so they aren't harassing staff and patients, to allow people some way into clinics without having to walk right past people waving stuff at them, or shouting at them. yes. they deserve protection from being abused by those arseholes.


----------



## toggle (Dec 17, 2014)

bluescreen said:


> Bullshit is the operative word. And make no mistake, it's not about the rights of the unborn, it's about controlling women.



of course it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 17, 2014)

toggle said:


> banned completely, nope. they are entitled to be arseholes.
> 
> an exclusion zone arround clinics so they aren't harassing staff and patients, to allow people some way into clinics without having to walk right past people waving stuff at them, or shouting at them. yes. they deserve protection from being abused by those arseholes.


Yep. It's already been done in some places. Can't remember where. It's the very least people using the clinic should be able to expect, imho.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 17, 2014)

That's fair enough really. My anarcho hackles twitch with any state involvement tbh but allowing the EDL to protest inside a mosque can only lead to an ocean of grief and it should be true in this case too. Have there been any counter protests?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 17, 2014)

Sorry that was at toggle


----------



## toggle (Dec 17, 2014)

bluescreen said:


> Isn't Roe v Wade already wobbling? As I said, not sure this is the right thread.



there needs to be some kind of protection beyond the court decision.  constitutional? something that stops this attempt at nitpicking the right to abort to death. 

It's interesting to compare to here. I was reading someting last night about how civil rights were discussed during the last labour administration and the polls were claiming that if we got a constitution/bill of rights, then over half the population wanted to see abortion access included in that. a percentage that appeared to be increacing rapidly.


----------



## toggle (Dec 17, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> That's fair enough really. My anarcho hackles twitch with any state involvement tbh but allowing the EDL to protest inside a mosque can only lead to an ocean of grief and it should be true in this case too. Have there been any counter protests?



absolutely. plus, police have a nasty habit of using threats to publuic order or safety to stop protest spuriously. but there's definately examples where that kind of restriction is necessary. at the very least, keep the protest on the other side of the road from the clinics.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 17, 2014)

Then maybe there needs to be a counter protest built forcing the fuckers to protest in some car park three miles away from aggravating anyone. I'm game.


----------



## toggle (Dec 17, 2014)

would be if i wasn't 250 miles away.

even just turning up and being enough of a fucking nuisance that the police clear off everyone would help.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 17, 2014)

I might solo pilot it. Probs not this side of Christmas though.


----------



## gamerunknown (Dec 19, 2014)

IANAL, but afaik: The constitutional basis for abortion now rests with Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, rather than Roe vs. Wade.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Then maybe there needs to be a counter protest built forcing the fuckers to protest in some car park three miles away from aggravating anyone. I'm game.


or inside a motorway bridge


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They want the law changing. Let them demonstrate outside parliament. Do we have the right to upset others to make our point wherever and whenever we like? No we don't.



I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that I'm against abortion unless there is a good medical reason.

I would vote to outlaw abortion. Would I protest outside parliament for a change in law? If I had nothing better to do.

Protesting outside clinics? No way. That's as futile and as stupid as the "Meat is murder" crowd protesting outside a butchers shop.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

oh god


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> oh god



Nope. He doesn't have any influence in my thinking in this one.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that I'm against abortion unless there is a good medical reason.


 
Yeah, that's not going to be popular...


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

8ball said:


> Yeah, that's not going to be popular...



Most probably not. But it's honest. Besides, it's one thing to have views on an issue, how that issue has context and perspective against other social issues and how someone would fit it in to their moral compass, how they would put their views across and evangalise those views, is another thing altogether.

Yeah, abortion for convenience isn't something I agree. But there are far bigger problems in the country for me to let the issue take over my life!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

The very fact you term it 'abortion for convenience' shows how fucked your thinking is on this one.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that I'm against abortion unless there is a good medical reason.
> 
> I would vote to outlaw abortion. Would I protest outside parliament for a change in law? If I had nothing better to do.
> 
> Protesting outside clinics? No way. That's as futile and as stupid as the "Meat is murder" crowd protesting outside a butchers shop.


ahh, clearer.
let me guess 50+ white male from SE england? does your username relate to Slade green at all?


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

ddraig said:


> ahh, clearer.
> let me guess 50+ white male from SE england? does your username relate to Slade green at all?



Wrong...on most counts. 

Slade aspect of my moniker relates to Slade Gardens, a park I have found childhood memories of.

Do you believe some people are less equal than others?


----------



## marty21 (Jan 5, 2015)

ddraig said:


> ahh, clearer.
> let me guess 50+ white male from SE england? does your username relate to Slade green at all?


 not sure what your point is there, I'm 50 in a few months and a white male who is pro abortion


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

aye not really a good line to take ddraig. I wonder if Slade would ask a raped woman to carry a child to term? or would that be a non medical convenience abortion?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 5, 2015)

marty21 said:


> not sure what your point is there, I'm 50 in a few months and a white male who is pro abortion


ai a shit guess/stab in the dark at pigeonholing (sp!)

aware that most/many 50+ blokes would not have issues with women choosing what to do with their own bodies


----------



## maomao (Jan 5, 2015)

marty21 said:


> I'm 50 in a few months and a white male who is pro abortion


Pro choice not pro abortion surely.


----------



## marty21 (Jan 5, 2015)

maomao said:


> Pro choice not pro abortion surely.


 both tbf - but pro choice is probably a better way of saying it


----------



## maomao (Jan 5, 2015)

marty21 said:


> both tbf - but pro choice is probably a better way of saying it


I just think pro-abortion sounds like you're against pregnancies being carried to full-term at all whereas pro-choice means it's up to the woman in question what she does with her body.


----------



## marty21 (Jan 5, 2015)

maomao said:


> I just think pro-abortion sounds like you're against pregnancies being carried to full-term at all whereas pro-choice means it's up to the woman in question what she does with her body.


 fair point


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 5, 2015)

Well this 50+ middle class male from SE England who's user name relates to where he lived as a child supports a woman's right to choose 100%!


----------



## ddraig (Jan 5, 2015)

yes shit point by me! should've done it somewhere else


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> ...abortion for convenience isn't something I agree.


 
Me neither, but I'm not sure about how watertight this "medically necessary" vs. "don't fancy it right now" dichotomy is...


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

8ball said:


> Me neither, but I'm not sure about how watertight this "medically necessary" vs. "don't fancy it right now" dichotomy is...



Oh absolutely,  there's more than 50 shades of grey!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> Oh absolutely,  there's more than 50 shades of grey!


i understand william shatner's in line to do an audiobook version


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i understand william shatner's in line to do an audiobook version



That reminds me, I need to see if I can get his voice on a TomTom when I can next afford to run a car.

"45 degrees Starboard at the next saucer-shaped mystery cycle after you've left the federation regulated highway"


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> Oh absolutely,  there's more than 50 shades of grey!


 
We can all think of some caricatured case where we would consider an abortion to not be the 'best choice', and might draw the line in different places, but all the alternatives that I can think of to accepting a woman's choice as the final say are pretty frightening and barbaric.

We have a tendency to conflate a desire that some things didn't happen with a desire to force others into stopping them happening.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

8ball said:


> We can all think of some caricatured case where we would consider an abortion to not be the 'best choice', and might draw the line in different places, but all the alternatives that I can think of to accepting a woman's choice as the final say are pretty frightening and barbaric.
> 
> We have a tendency to conflate a desire that some things didn't happen with a desire to force others into stopping them happening.


things like voting tory for example.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> things like voting tory for example.


 
That's certainly something I'd prefer didn't happen...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

8ball said:


> That's certainly something I'd prefer didn't happen...


but what do you do to prevent it occurring?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but what do you do to prevent it occurring?


 
You seem to be doing the conflating thing I mentioned above.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

8ball said:


> We can all think of some caricatured case where we would consider an abortion to not be the 'best choice', and might draw the line in different places, but all the alternatives that I can think of to accepting a woman's choice as the final say are pretty frightening and barbaric.
> 
> We have a tendency to conflate a desire that some things didn't happen with a desire to force others into stopping them happening.



But that's the abortion debate in a nutshell is that the other side to it see's the termination of a baby as "frightening and barbaric".

I don't want this to turn into an abortion debate itself per se. This is about anti-abortionists protesting outside clinics. This anti-abortionist thinks that's not appropriate. Whether it should be against the law to protest outside clinics. No it shouldn't be. But the police should stop it from turning into harassment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

8ball said:


> You seem to be doing the conflating thing I mentioned above.


surely you try to talk people out of it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> But that's the abortion debate in a nutshell is that the other side to it see's the termination of a baby as "frightening and barbaric".
> 
> I don't want this to turn into an abortion debate itself per se. This is about anti-abortionists protesting outside clinics. This anti-abortionist thinks that's not appropriate. Whether it should be against the law to protest outside clinics. No it shouldn't be. But the police should stop it from turning into harassment.


yeh it's always someone else's responsibility to do something about things.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh it's always someone else's responsibility to do something about things.



Of course not. But then again, sometimes it is someone elses responsibility.

You can't expect an pro-lifer to be running around telling pro-choice people that they have a moral duty to protest against protesting pro-lifers!

Or have I misunderstood your point?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> surely you try to talk people out of it?


 
I don't think I know any Tory voters who would mention such intentions in front of me.

I suppose I could wear a t-short with "DON'T VOTE TORY!!" on big letters on the front and back of it just in case I wander into the view of a potential Tory voter who might be swayed, but I doubt it would do much good, realistically speaking. 

It might even get misinterpreted and send a few Tory voters in UKIP's direction (though whether that would be a good or bad thing is a whole other argument).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> Of course not. But then again, sometimes it is someone elses responsibility.
> 
> You can't expect an pro-lifer to be running around telling pro-choice people that they have a moral duty to protest against protesting pro-lifers!
> 
> Or have I misunderstood your point?


yes


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> But that's the abortion debate in a nutshell is that the other side to it see's the termination of a baby as "frightening and barbaric".


 
I think the pro choice bunch would much prefer it if abortions involved as little fear and barbarism as possible.  Such as not having vulnerable women be forced to run a gauntlet of shouting protesters to get to a clinic.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yes



How did I know you was going to say that!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> How did I know you was going to say that!


because everyone's wise after the event


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

8ball said:


> I think the pro choice bunch would much prefer it if abortions involved as little fear and barbarism as possible.  Such as not having vulnerable women be forced to run a gauntlet of shouting protesters to get to a clinic.



I would like to think that there's a swathe of people that take my stance. Which is something like

...would much prefer it if there was as few abortions as possible, but those that are would not involve vulnerable women be forced to run a gauntlet of shouting protesters to get to a clinic...


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> because everyone's wise after the event



Is this a good time to ask you if you had a smashing day at work?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> Is this a good time to ask you if you had a smashing day at work?


as good as any i suppose. but is this the thread for such an enquiry?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> I would like to think that there's a swathe of people that take my stance. Which is something like
> 
> ...would much prefer it if there was as few abortions as possible, but those that are would not involve vulnerable women be forced to run a gauntlet of shouting protesters to get to a clinic...


 
That stance seems a world away from "would vote to outlaw abortion", which is what you said earlier.


----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2015)

8ball said:


> That stance seems a world away from "would vote to outlaw abortion", which is what you said earlier.



as well as the aritificial dichotomy between woman as vulnerable victim for whom I can sympathise, and other women who would rather not be pregnant. what names does he use for those I wonder?


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> as good as any i suppose. but is this the thread for such an enquiry?



Well i suppose this one could be a better one:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/eastenders-bizarre-and-shit.204757/page-105


8ball said:


> That stance seems a world away from "would vote to outlaw abortion", which is what you said earlier.



I would still vote to outlaw it in most cases. But in the meantime it's legal so I don't believe people should be harassed when they are going to a clinic, because for starters, I or anyone else who shares my views, wouldn't know the circumstances of the women involved. 

The religious nutjobs don't believe in ANY circumstances in which an abortion is permissible, which probably explains why they don't have any qualms with making a nuisance of themselves outside an abortion clinic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> Well i suppose this one could be a better one:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/eastenders-bizarre-and-shit.204757/page-105
> 
> ...


to my mind it's a greater pity their parents did not believe in contraception. or at least did not use it at the appropriate time.


----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2015)

the result of outlawing abortion will not be fewer abortions. just like legalising abortion was not to allow abortions to happen. it was to make them safe, to stop women being killed by quacks with knitting needles and coat hangers. by people who remembered the alternative was baby farms and overlaying epidemics. and if you don't know what those are, then you need to educate yourself on that. 

people with money will still be able to access abortion, unless you plan to pregnancy test every woman leaving and then returning to the country. people with less money and some level of education will be able to access medications online, others will go for herbal options. many herbswidely advertised as helping induce labour in overdue pregnancy will cause an abortion, if taken in early pregnancy. i've said before, I know several options, and that was without having intentionally gone looking for them. bvut for others, basically almost kill yourself with posion, from the sounds of things there's a large variety of options that will work. a slightly sub lethal dose to the woman will kill the foetus.

not as safe as chatting to your GP. but you've still got the option of turning up to the hospital if things go wrong. Just as women did before legal abortion. at least these days a lot will have options that aren't risking having their uterus perforated with a rusty coathanger.

the only people who will be effectively prevented from aborting are those who can't access the above options. people who don't have money or access to information. IE, the most vulnerable in society.

aren't they the women you were feeling sorry for?


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

toggle said:


> the result of outlawing abortion will not be fewer abortions. just like legalising abortion was not to allow abortions to happen. it was to make them safe, to stop women being killed by quacks with knitting needles and coat hangers. by people who remembered the alternative was baby farms and overlaying epidemics. and if you don't know what those are, then you need to educate yourself on that.
> 
> people with money will still be able to access abortion, unless you plan to pregnancy test every woman leaving and then returning to the country. people with less money and some level of education will be able to access medications online, others will go for herbal options. many herbswidely advertised as helping induce labour in overdue pregnancy will cause an abortion, if taken in early pregnancy. i've said before, I know several options, and that was without having intentionally gone looking for them. bvut for others, basically almost kill yourself with posion, from the sounds of things there's a large variety of options that will work. a slightly sub lethal dose to the woman will kill the foetus.
> 
> ...



They certainly are the woman I *am* feeling sorry for. There is a balance - I'm not for a second saying that all abortion should be outlawed, but certainly for convenience. Provisions can be made for all those heartbreaking circumstances, teenage pregnancies etc.

Anyway, I don't claim to have all the answers on this one...I've never wanted a blanket ban on abortion, but I'm not comfortable with the current setup. 

Any changes in the law, would spark a debate and I would think very carefully before I decide where I draw that line. I've always admitted that there's a big grey area to this - it least that's the way I see it.


----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2015)

you're not addressing my points. you're either not understahnding or choosing not to address the fact that restricting access to abortion will only impact the vulnerable - the people who you claim you don't want to restrict access for.

the only way to reduce abortion numbers without fucking over vulnerable women is to reduce the need for abortion. to get the 'moral majority' bullshit out of the equation when you discuss contraception and relationships in schools. to end the opt out. and the bullshit taught in some faith based institutions.

you then need contraception that is fully effective for all women. with minimal side effects. this dosen't exist atm. you need to change NHS prescribibng policies to look at the latest and best options, not the older cheaper ones with more side effects.

then you need to prevent rape.

and spousal abuse.

and fix the welfare system so women aren't bearing the brunt of the cuts. and stupid cunts aren't whining that single mums are responsible for all society's problems.

and make it so women are treated with more respect in the workplace, where pregnancy isn't considered a career killer. where low level employees aren't pushed to work extreme hours to prove their worth in a way that is incompatable with pregnancy and childraising. and fuck off the attitudes that pregnancy and parenting kills women's intelect. Not men's of course. just women.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

toggle said:


> you're not addressing my points. you're either not understahnding or choosing not to address the fact that restricting access to abortion will only impact the vulnerable - the people who you claim you don't want to restrict access for.
> 
> the only way to reduce abortion numbers without fucking over vulnerable women is to reduce the need for abortion. to get the 'moral majority' bullshit out of the equation when you discuss contraception and relationships in schools. to end the opt out. and the bullshit taught in some faith based institutions.
> 
> ...



I'm not really addressing your points, because I'm not on this thread to promote pro-life, or win any arguements. My first post on this thread, I was pointing out that demonstrations outside abortion clinics is not really helpful, even though my views are pro-life leaning.

I very quickly pointed out, that I wasn't really up for a debate on whether abortion should be legal or not. I even told you that if there was a vote on it anytime soon, there would be a debate, which I would listen to, before I decide where that legal line should be.

I'm a single bloke. Of course I'm not going to be aware of all the issues that pregant women, single mothers etc face. All I can do is promise myself that I would research as best as possible, listen to as many people, before making my mind up which way I vote.

All I know is, I would like to see real positive work done to see the number of abortions cut down, without being absolute fuckers and ruining peoples lives etc.

Does that sound reasonable enough to you?


----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> I'm not really addressing your points, because I'm not on this thread to promote pro-life, or win any arguements.



you have however claimed you wish to limit access to abortion. why then refuse to address the consequences of that?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)




----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2015)

and this false dichotomy between acceptable and unaccpetable abortions. who is in a position to judge whether it's the right decision to abort other than the woman making that choice for herself? why should she have to prove she fits someone else's arbritrary standard of vulnerable? and what if she'[s too vulnerable to be able to evidence that?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

toggle said:


> and this false dichotomy between acceptable and unaccpetable abortions. who is in a position to judge whether it's the right decision to abort other than the woman making that choice for herself? why should she have to prove she fits someone else's arbritrary standard of vulnerable? and what if she'[s too vulnerable to be able to evidence that?




who, when it comes down to it, enacts legislation, has the debates surrounding it and sees to the enforcement of it? Not working class women, thats for sure


----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> who, when it comes down to it, enacts legislation, has the debates surrounding it and sees to the enforcement of it? Not working class women, thats for sure



innit. 

male dominated legislature. that's proven it dosen't have a fucking clue about being poor.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

toggle said:


> you have however claimed you wish to limit access to abortion. why then refuse to address the consequences of that?



Because the whole thing has the potential to derail the thread, which is more about the balance between the right to protest and peoples right to conduct their lawful business without harassment.


----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> Because the whole thing has the potential to derail the thread, which is more about the balance between the right to protest and peoples right to conduct their lawful business without harassment.



you derailed the thread already by coming on here and claiming to support the principle behind this nutcase group's actions, if not their methods. you're now being asked to explain your comments and dodging doing so left right and center.

why do you not want to address the consequences of and inconsistencies contained within your statement?

is that because you know there's no logical premise behind your moralising judgements of which women are victims and which women are consequence avoiding strumpets? why should a woman's medical decisions be controlled by your moral judgement, rather than her own? why is your moral judgement superior to hers?


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> I would vote to outlaw abortion.





Spirit Of Slade said:


> I would still vote to outlaw it in most cases.





Spirit Of Slade said:


> I'm not for a second saying that all abortion should be outlawed...





Spirit Of Slade said:


> ... if there was a vote on it anytime soon, there would be a debate, which I would listen to, before I decide where that legal line should be.



Consistent?


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

toggle said:


> you derailed the thread already by coming on here and *claiming to support the principle behind this nutcase group's actions, if not their methods*. you're now being asked to explain your comments and dodging doing so left right and center.
> 
> why do you not want to address the consequences of and inconsistencies contained within your statement?
> 
> is that because you know there's no logical premise behind your moralising judgements of which women are victims and which women are consequence avoiding strumpets? why should a woman's medical decisions be controlled by your moral judgement, rather than her own? why is your moral judgement superior to hers?



You're either trolling or you haven't bothered to read my posts. 

The above claim by you in bold is absolutely outrageous. 

Scroll back and read my posts.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

Athos said:


> Consistent?



No one is when they are quoted out of context.

Anyway, for the 3rd time. The only point I was trying to make on this thread, was about the right to protest versus the right for people to go about their legal business.

Besides, I'm not out to change anyone's minds on this thread concerning abortion, so I don't have to make watertight arguements etc.

. And if some people want to shape my mind about anything, they ain't doing a good job of it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> No one is when they are quoted out of context.


You weren't quoted out of context.



Spirit Of Slade said:


> Anyway, for the 3rd time. The only point I was trying to make on this thread, was about the right to protest versus the right for people to go about their legal business.


I understand the point you were trying to make about lawful protest.  But you also made the point that you would outlaw abortion, and you made the point that some abortions are simply for convenience.



Spirit Of Slade said:


> Besides, I'm not out to change anyone's minds on this thread concerning abortion, so I don't have to make watertight arguements etc.


You certainly haven't made watertight arguments; your position has shifted in the space of a handful of posts.



Spirit Of Slade said:


> And if some people want to shape my mind about anything, they ain't doing a good job of it.


I don't suppose anyone hopes you'll change your mind.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

toggle said:


> is that because you know there's no logical premise behind your moralising judgements....



I don't agree with him, but surely there's no greater logic behind either the pro- or anti-choice positions?  It all comes down to differing moral positions, doesn't it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

Athos said:


> I don't agree with him, but surely there's no greater logic behind either the pro- or anti-choice positions?  It all comes down to differing moral positions, doesn't it?



You'll need expand on that pls. If we are coming from the point where a persons body is their own and the choices they make regarding it are theirs, then the argument reducts to 'where does life begin' and so on.
outside of debate space the reality is that anti-abortion laws lead to all sorts of ills, including infanticide. Infants stuffed in septic tanks by irish nuns etc, it getss really ugly very fast


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

Athos said:


> You weren't quoted out of context.
> 
> I understand the point you were trying to make about lawful protest.  But you also made the point that you would outlaw abortion, and you made the point that some abortions are simply for convenience.
> 
> ...



Well, please mate, go and look at my posts again. It's obvious, that the actual subject matter is not really high up on my agenda, that I'm really not out to change minds and more to the point, what I really think on the subject matter of abortions v pro-life really isn't that important.

Some people are so passionate about their causes close to their hearts, they end up being awful advertisements for their cause, rather than reaching out to people, they go on the absolute offensive to the point where it's real personal.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> Well, please mate, go and look at my posts again. It's obvious, that the actual subject matter is not really high up on my agenda, that I'm really not out to change minds and more to the point, what I really think on the subject matter of abortions v pro-life really isn't that important.
> 
> Some people are so passionate about their causes close to their hearts, they end up being awful advertisements for their cause, rather than reaching out to people, they go on the absolute offensive to the point where it's real personal.



I've read (and reread) your posts.  You made points in addition to the one about lawful protest.  And much of what you said was inconsistent.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> You'll need expand on that pls. If we are coming from the point where a persons body is their own and the choices they make regarding it are theirs, then the argument reducts to 'where does life begin' and so on.
> outside of debate space the reality is that anti-abortion laws lead to all sorts of ills, including infanticide. Infants stuffed in septic tanks by irish nuns etc, it getss really ugly very fast



Simply that the starting point - that a person's body is their own  etc. - is, of itself, ultimately a moral position, rather than a matter of logic.

For the record, I am pro-choice, not least of because of the real harm that flows from denying abortion.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

Athos said:


> I've read (and reread) your posts.  You made points in addition to the one about lawful protest.  And much of what you said was inconsistent.



So before all of that inconsistency....

what part of "I'm not interested in a debate about abortion" don't you get?

I couldn't a fuck whether my posts on this subject are consistent or not, considering that right from the start, I said I wasn't out to change anyone's minds on any of it! 

Are you really bored or what?

Have your debate on abortion rather than about right to protest etc because I'm not that interested in abortion or pro-life or whatever, it's not something I'm passionate about! 

I was only interested in the protest v right to be free of harassment bit.

Some feminist thinks I'm some kind of cunt and I won't be on her Christmas card list, even though I wasn't on it anyway. 

What a surprise!


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> what part of "I'm not interested in a debate about abortion" don't you get?


You were interested enough to make the points; not interested enough to defend them.  Or, more likely, can't.




Spirit Of Slade said:


> I couldn't a fuck whether my posts on this subject are consistent or not...


That's handy.




Spirit Of Slade said:


> Have your debate on abortion rather than about right to protest etc because I'm not that interested in abortion or pro-life or whatever, it's not something I'm passionate about!


So dispassionate that you'd vote to outlaw it.  Though, in fairness to you, you'd resiled from that position within just a handful of posts.

Clown.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

Athos said:


> Simply that the starting point - that a person's body is their own  etc. - is, of itself, ultimately a moral position, rather than a matter of logic.
> 
> For the record, I am pro-choice, not least of because of the real harm that flows from denying abortion.



I don't see it as a moral position- that meat machine in your head that generates a sense of personhood is housed in your body- if a person doesn't have control of their own body then why not justify slavery? I'll grant you we act when someone is incapcitated and needs treatment they might refuse consciously, that MH patients can be force drugged, children are medicated neccesarily over their vocal protests sometimes. But those are not the same as denying an adult woman the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy are they? Except perhaps similar in the case of forced drugging of patients under section- thats a violation of itself.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

Slade, You're not consistent enough. 





It's worse than that, he's a judgmental, nutcase supporting, moralizing cunt! 





FFS pick on someone else will you?


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't see it as a moral position- that meat machine in your head that generates a sense of personhood is housed in your body- if a person doesn't have control of their own body then why not justify slavery? I'll grant you we act when someone is incapcitated and needs treatment they might refuse consciously, that MH patients can be force drugged, children are medicated neccesarily over their vocal protests sometimes. But those are not the same as denying an adult woman the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy are they? Except perhaps similar in the case of forced drugging of patients under section- thats a violation of itself.



There are religious people who believe that their bodies belong to God; that's the philosophical justification for the Christian proscription of suicide.  The idea of bodily autonomy is an alternative moral position.  One I share, but  moral position nonetheless.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

Athos said:


> You were interested enough to make the points; not interested enough to defend them.  Or, more likely, can't.
> 
> That's handy.
> 
> ...



People exercising their vote given the chance, isn't an indication of passion.


----------



## killer b (Jan 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't see it as a moral position- that meat machine in your head that generates a sense of personhood is housed in your body- if a person doesn't have control of their own body then why not justify slavery? I'll grant you we act when someone is incapcitated and needs treatment they might refuse consciously, that MH patients can be force drugged, children are medicated neccesarily over their vocal protests sometimes. But those are not the same as denying an adult woman the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy are they? Except perhaps similar in the case of forced drugging of patients under section- thats a violation of itself.


The anti-abortionist's argument is presumably _what is a woman's right to bodily autonomy next to a child's right to live?_ 

The two arguments _are_ based on moral positions, surely. You might not recognise the legitimacy of one position, but it's there sure enough.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> People exercising their vote given the chance, isn't an indication of passion.



You'll have to settle on a position before you vote, you realise?


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

Athos said:


> You'll have to settle on a position before you vote, you realise?



More proof you haven't been reading my feckin posts! 

 

Yes, of course I'll have to settle on a position. As I said earlier, there are many shades of grey and I can't expect someone who is passionately pro-choice to agree with me on that.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> More proof you haven't been reading my feckin posts!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, of course I'll have to settle on a position. As I said earlier, there are many shades of grey and I can't expect someone who is passionately pro-choice to agree with me on that.



I understand that there are many shades of grey.  Not sure why you think that my position is inconsistent with an appreciation of that?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

killer b said:


> The anti-abortionist's argument is presumably _what is a woman's right to bodily autonomy next to a child's right to live?_
> 
> The two arguments _are_ based on moral positions, surely. You might not recognise the legitimacy of one position, but it's there sure enough.


thats why I previously mentioned that it then reduct to 'when is an embryo 'alive' as we see it'

which is slightly different from saying the very idea of bodily autonomy is a moral position.

Caveat: I'm not saying moral judgements play no part on either side, simply that I'm right, and everyone else is wrong excluding those who agree with me on a real or theoretical level.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 5, 2015)

Athos said:


> I understand that there are many shades of grey.  Not sure why you think that my position is inconsistent with an appreciation of that?



I don't tbh...though I could think of a few...


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> which is slightly different from saying the very idea of bodily autonomy is a moral position.



Is slavery morally wrong?  Why?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

Athos said:


> Is slavery morally wrong?  Why?


because people should not be owned like property- now you'll explicate how women as chattel and serfs were exactly that in legal terms for x amount of years, save it. And yes we can talk in terms of well- greco-roman slavery was different from 18th century african style slavery. Again, shelve it. I think you are trying to imply that some absolutes are fluid dependant to the culture/society and one mans morality is anothers abomination. Its not a new argument on me. I just don't buy it. What slave in a moraly accepted slave situation did not chafe at his bonds?


----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> You're either trolling or you haven't bothered to read my posts.
> 
> The above claim by you in bold is absolutely outrageous.
> 
> Scroll back and read my posts.



i have. 

you want to restrict abortion. so do they. 

now respond to the rest of that post you goalpost moving disingenuous twunt


----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> More proof you haven't been reading my feckin posts!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, of course I'll have to settle on a position. As I said earlier, there are many shades of grey and I can't expect someone who is passionately pro-choice to agree with me on that.



a position you are unable or unwilling to either discuss or defend. 

or even consistently articulate


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> because people should not be owned like property- now you'll explicate how women as chattel and serfs were exactly that in legal terms for x amount of years, save it. And yes we can talk in terms of well- greco-roman slavery was different from 18th century african style slavery. Again, shelve it. I think you are trying to imply that some absolutes are fluid dependant to the culture/society and one mans morality is anothers abomination. Its not a new argument on me. I just don't buy it. What slave in a moraly accepted slave situation did not chafe at his bonds?



No, you've got the wrong end of the stick.  I'm not going to suggest that slavery could ever be justified on some dodgy relativist (or any!) grounds.  Quite the opposite: I used it as an example of something that I was sure we'd both agree is always immoral!  It was to demonstrate that the issue of bodily autonomy is a moral one.  If slavery is immoral because it breaches a person's right to choose to do what they will with their own body, then it follows that it is morally good to uphold the right to such autonomy.  Surely then the question of whether or not someone ought to have the freedom to do what they will with their own body is a question of morality (and one on which I think we agree - I'm certainly pro-choice).   That was the point I was making in response to toggle's apparent suggestion that the pro-choice position is founded on logic whereas the anti-choice position is founded on morality.


----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2015)

Athos said:


> No, you've got the wrong end of the stick.  I'm not going to suggest that slavery could ever be justified on some dodgy relativist (or any!) grounds.  Quite the opposite: I used it as an example of something that I was sure we'd both agree is always immoral!  It was to demonstrate that the issue of bodily autonomy is a moral one.  If slavery is immoral because it breaches a person's right to choose to do what they will with their own body, then it follows that it is morally good to uphold the right to such autonomy.  Surely then the question of whether or not someone ought to have the freedom to do what they will with their own body is a question of morality (and one on which I think we agree - I'm certainly pro-choice).   That was the point I was making in response to toggle's apparent suggestion that the pro-choice position is founded on logic whereas the anti-choice position is founded on morality.



i was saying that there was no logical coherency in his positions. he's all over the fucking shop.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

I think where toggle (correct me if I'm wrong toggle) talks about the logic of a position she is talking about real world consequence- how the stated aims of one moral position produces results running contrary to it- hence if there is an internal logic, they fail to obey that in practise because the premises are at odds with reality


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

toggle said:


> i was saying that there was no logical coherency in his positions. he's all over the fucking shop.



That's true enough.  I may have got the wrong end of the stick; it looked to me like you were suggesting that the anti-choice position is a question of morality, whereas the pro-choice position (which I share) is based on logic.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

oh you were talking about slade's nebulouse ever shifting goalposts. Fair enough


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I think where toggle (correct me if I'm wrong toggle) talks about the logic of a position she is talking about real world consequence- how the stated aims of one moral position produces results running contrary to it- hence if there is an internal logic, they fail to obey that in practise because the premises are at odds with reality



You might be right, though that wasn't how I understood toggle's post.


----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2015)

Athos said:


> That's true enough.  I may have got the wrong end of the stick; it looked to me like you were suggesting that the anti-choice position is a question of morality, whereas the pro-choice position (which I share) is based on logic.



there's also the difference between moral judgement and moralising. he's separating women out into classes of victims and strumpets, not accepting that each woman has her own logical reasons for her actions. she's either an innocent who ins't in control or someone thoughtless. there's no acceptance that their choice can be their own moral and logical decision, taken by a person with a vagina with her own fully functioning mental faculties and moral compass.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

toggle said:


> there's also the difference between moral judgement and moralising. he's separating women out into classes of victims and strumpets, not accepting that each woman has her own logical reasons for her actions. she's either an innocent who ins't in control or someone thoughtless. there's no acceptance that their choice can be their own moral and logical decision, taken by a person with a vagina with her own fully functioning mental faculties and moral compass.



In categorising women as victims or strumpets, he's taking a moral position.  In saying that all women ought to have autonomy over their own bodies (even where that involves terminating a foetus), so are we.  Don't get me wrong, I think we (and DotCommunist) agree that this guy's views are abhorrent, but my point was about the similarity in the fundamental nature of our respective positions.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

toggle said:


> a position you are unable or unwilling to either discuss or defend.
> 
> or even consistently articulate





toggle said:


> i have.
> 
> you want to restrict abortion. so do they.
> 
> now respond to the rest of that post you goalpost moving disingenuous twunt



http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ars-london-clinic.328955/page-8#post-13636234

I've said next to nothing on the subject before that, except to say I'm pro-life but don't agree with people harassing clients of an abortion clinic.

You've then decided that your highest priority isn't campaigning against religious nutters protesting outside abortion clinics, or even to discuss that subject matter on this thread, 
but to take lumps out of some hapless cunt, who incidentally doesn't really give that much of a fuck.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 6, 2015)

Super. Another professional misogynist. Just what this site needs


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

trashpony said:


> Super. Another professional misogynist. Just what this site needs



Oh go and put the tea on love.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 6, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> Oh go and put the tea on love.



Keyboard big man on the loose - impressive


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

your on your way out


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> your on your way out



Yeah well. Abused all the way through by people who even accused me having views that said that I'm opposed to.

If people want to claim I'm some kind of woman hater just because I don't agree with everything they say, then what kind of reaction can they expect?

If some feminist thinks I hate women just for having that view, then he/she can think whatever the fuck they want to.

Baiting people by accusing them of being women haters / mysongist etc just as an insult, is pretty fucking sick.

Why change hearts and minds, when you can just wade in with insults like that?


----------



## trashpony (Jan 6, 2015)

If you value the life of a foetus above that of the woman that is incubating it, then you are a woman hater. Sorry about that


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

nobody here is evangelising. 'Some feminist' is a shit thing to say. Grow up.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

trashpony said:


> If you value the life of a foetus above that of the woman that is incubating it, then you are a woman hater. Sorry about that



You really want to stop making assumptions about my views.

You're so wrapped up in your hatred of me, just because I don't share your views, that you're letting your imagination run wild.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> nobody here is evangelising. 'Some feminist' is a shit thing to say. Grow up.



Is an "Angry Feminist" a shit thing to have as a Status/Slogan below ones avatar then?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

yeah well, if feminism was a negative attribute for you to use as a dismissal of argument, it would be. But it isn't and your dismissal therein betrays you as a bit of a dick. As if confirmation further was needed on that point


----------



## trashpony (Jan 6, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> You really want to stop making assumptions about my views.
> 
> You're so wrapped up in your hatred of me, just because I don't share your views, that you're letting your imagination run wild.


I'm making assumptions about your views based on what you've typed on this thread. 

Are those not your views then?


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah well, if feminism was a negative attribute for you to use as a dismissal of argument, it would be. But it isn't and your dismissal therein betrays you as a bit of a dick. As if confirmation further was needed on that point



Well. I've looked back at the thread and I've missed posts from yourself, so I'm quite confident that people have been jumping to conclusions about my views..I don't blame people for doing that, because people are after all human.

If you think that I think all or most abortions are just done for convenience, then you've got me all wrong.

So I'm going to say this once more. 

My views on abortion isn't important. I'm not interested in fucking trying to change anyone's minds. I'm not passionate about it. 

Yet many people seem to be more passionate about my views, or my views on the subject that I haven't explained yet - than they are about a bunch of nutjobs protesting outside abortion clinics.

Earlier on in this thread, there are people that made pro-choice points to me and I agreed with them...and everyone was OK.

Laughably others accused me of making moral judgements (When I couldn't give a fuck), then went on to make moral judgements about me.

If someone wants to terminate their pregancy, they can go to bed worrying about bigger things than what I think...because guess what...I don't think that people who terminate their pregnancies are horrible people.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

you mean the bit where you didn't explain your views by twice posting that you'd vote to see abortion outlawed? yeah you've been so coy haven't you.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

trashpony said:


> I'm making assumptions about your views based on what you've typed on this thread.
> 
> Are those not your views then?



I'm pro-life. That's for the mother and the baby.

I expressed support of women being able to legally terminate while it's legal without harassment from extremist pro-lifers. 

I stuck my neck out to explain that even pro-lifers such as myself, do not believe in those kind of protests outside abortion clinics.

A number of people then laid into me, demanding that I defend my pro-life views.

Sorry to disappoint, but I will not.  Because this thread is supposed to be about the protests outside abortion clinics.

Now if your hatred of me out burns your desire for people to get along with the whole defending of abortion clinics so that people can go about their legal business...

Well. What can I possibly say?

I have told people a number of times now. I'm not going to defend my pro-life views on this thread. 

That's not changing. People have said they reckon I couldn't defend such views. I don't care.

I've got bigger fish to fry than getting worked up over pro-choice / versus pro-life and you should have bigger fish to fry than me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

So basically you are a shit out who can't defend his views and regards other peoples principles on the matter as trivial


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you mean the bit where you didn't explain your views by twice posting that you'd vote to see abortion outlawed? yeah you've been so coy haven't you.



You would have known a long way back on this thread, that I don't want to see ALL abortion outlawed, grey areas etc. 

But you know that I don't give a fuck, which is why I never set out to win arguements or change minds. 

So guess what, another day roles on by where complete strangers on the net, thinks that each other is a pratt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

oh right, no I get it now, because you attach so little 'give a fuck' to the matter you regard other people's views in the same category as your own, they shouldn't give a fuck and care because you don't and hey its just the internet etc


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> So basically you are a shit out who can't defend his views and regards other peoples principles on the matter as trivial



A shit? Is that the best you could come up with? Is that all the anger that you have within you?

Whatever happened to you-fucking-sub-human-cunt-of-a-parasite-loser-scum-bag!!!

You're not good at this are you? Why would I want to defend views that I have, which I'm not that fussed about or deem that important?

And where have I said that other peoples views are trivial?

Fucking hell. Do you read any of my stuff? I've said about 3 times that I don't even regard my views on the subject as important. How can I? It's not a subject I've researched well or have even fucking claimed to have researched well.

Please tell me that you're not involved in any kind of campaigning for any cause.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

no, a shit out. As in you have shit out of defending your views by handwaving, goalpost moving and other sand throwing obfuscatory bollocks


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> oh right, no I get it now, because you attach so little 'give a fuck' to the matter you regard other people's views in the same category as your own, they shouldn't give a fuck and care because you don't and hey its just the internet etc



They can give a fuck all they want about the subject. 

If I wanted to change someones mind about something, I wouldn't start from the M.O. of trying to make someone feel bad about themselves, stupid or somehow selfish, arrogant etc. 

But maybe my expectations of this place is a bit to high I guess!


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> no, a shit out. As in you have shit out of defending your views by handwaving, goalpost moving and other sand throwing obfuscatory bollocks



OK. In that case, do you want a cup of tea dear?

You sound like you need one!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

if pointing out the logic or lack of it in your position makes you feel bad then perhaps thats a failure of your own position rather than the erroneous views of the people presenting an opposing one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

but who cares eh? its not something you'd bother thinking about before outlawing abortion eh! cock privilege in actiion


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> if pointing out the logic or lack of it in your position makes you feel bad then perhaps thats a failure of your own position rather than the erroneous views of the people presenting an opposing one.



My position on abortion was peripheral, considered unimportant to the main point I was making, therefore it was not a position I was ever going to defend, so there is no failure on my part.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> but who cares eh? its not something you'd bother thinking about before outlawing abortion eh! cock privilege in actiion



Oh do fuck off!  You're digging up old arguments that we've already covered.

XX


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

its a position you made clear as corollary to your main point, you were challenged on it and have massively shitted out on the defense of that point.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its a position you made clear as corollary to your main point, you were challenged on it and have massively shitted out on the defense of that point.



Yeah because I didn't want the thread derailed and what thanks did I get for that?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

schooled?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

but regardless, derail is a derail. The thing is being strictly on topic is no defense to hide behind. Threads evolve, discussions move as they will. This isn't debate club.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 7, 2015)

The Blackfriars protestors do not appear to be there today.


----------



## gamerunknown (Jan 7, 2015)

Content warning for discussion of sexual violence.




			
				Spirit of Slade said:
			
		

> I expressed support of women being able to legally terminate while it's legal without harassment from extremist pro-lifers.



Yes, but if you voted to make abortion illegal, they'd suffer far worse harassment from the state when trying to undergo one. Abortion clinics would be shut down and women would most likely travel abroad or have them done clandestinely. Having exemptions would mean additional intrusive questions for the women: "Can you _prove_ you were raped?". 

Trying to agitate against abortion outside of the framework of the state is more likely to be effective and less likely to lead to perverse outcomes, though by the time pregnant women have decided to attend abortion clinics such agitation is likely to be counter-productive. I'd also like to echo some of the sentiments of the previous posters: comprehensive sexual education and greater provisions for women are two of the best predictors of a reduction in abortions. Legislation hampering access to abortion _isn't_. 

For what it's worth, I have two acquaintances who'd count themselves as feminists and socialists that "disapprove" of abortion. One has expressed that the time-restriction should be further reduced below viability (at about 18 weeks). Another debated the subject at the feminist society she attended. I personally believe that the arguments based on bodily autonomy may not withstand scrutiny if utilitarian concerns trump those of liberty (I suppose one could bring Thomson's defence in here). However, I constrain myself to arguing for the two outcomes above - better sexual education and more provisions for women in general.


----------

