Free speech does not allow the right to do harm. We can debate where exactly that line is, but in my book protesting right outside of a clinic is harassment.
Why does the protest have to be right in front? Isn't a march through the city just as, if not more, effective to get your voices heard? Of course you won't be able to terrify vulnerable young women, but it'd be great if we could all agree that's a good thing!
If you are mentally capable of doing something then you should be mentally capable of hearing that doing that is wrong - it'd be great if we could all agree that's a good thing, also.
Using the term "vulnerable young women" is trying to remove the agency from them, which is despicable.
> If you are mentally capable of doing something then you should be mentally capable of hearing that doing that is wrong - it'd be great if we could all agree that's a good thing, also.
Would you be okay if, for the rest of your life, protesters stood in front of your home and shouted "die for breathing, die for breathing"? Presumably not, right? Although you're mentally capable of breathing, which should mean you're mentally capable of hearing that doing that is wrong?
> Using the term "vulnerable young women" is trying to remove the agency from them, which is despicable.
Can you explain why? I don't see how any agency is removed from them. Pregnancy itself makes women more vulnerable, and someone going through a very hard decision will be impacted even more. Whose agency did I just try to remove?
By definition, breathing and killing are complete opposites.
I wouldn't like it if people shouted slogans in front of my house but they have a right to it.
If women are in a vulnerable, hormonal state maybe they shouldn't be the ones making these decisions. Either they can make the decision and go through the consequences, or they can't. There's no middle ground of doing something and then having people who disagree with what you did silenced.
So no thing that isn't a person (yet) can be vulnerable?
Pets can't be vulnerable? Trees can't be vulnerable? Buildings can't be vulnerable?
Perhaps the baby is extra vulnerable exactly because it isn't a person yet capable of defending itself. It will become one though, unless someone murders it out of selfish convenience.
If you hit an animal with your car, do you leave it to bleed out because it isn't a person and thus can't be vulnerable?
We don't agree that an unborn fetus isn't yet a person. I was deconstructing your logic. I think a person is created the moment sex cells fuse. Sometimes I even think about the hypothetical potential of a person and what they'd want me to do, such that they could one day exist and tell me.
My use of the word 'murder' is for dramatic effect to emphasize my beliefs. I concede that it's an opinion counter to the current laws, and thus technically incorrect. Still gonna call it that though.
> If you hit an animal with your car, do you leave it to bleed out because it isn't a person and thus can't be vulnerable?
I would treat an animal I hit with my car very differently from a human, since I'd call an ambulance for a human, but would bring the animal into an animal clinic myself. Would you not call an ambulance for a human, or would you call an ambulance for an animal? Which one is it?
> I think a person is created the moment sex cells fuse.
Are you trying to do anything about IVF clinics? If I were to follow your standards, that would be way worse for me, since IVF clinics produce a big surplus of inseminated eggs. Every couple might kill multiple "babies" instead of just one.
> My use of the word 'murder' is for dramatic effect to emphasize my beliefs.
Could you try to refrain from doing so for our conversation? I'm going to take what you write literally since I assume you're writing in good faith, so misrepresenting your own positions is just going to hurt the discussion.
> [...] since IVF clinics produce a big surplus of inseminated eggs. Every couple might kill multiple "babies" instead of just one.
True, but at least they do so unintentionally and in the pursuit of creating life. It's still kinda bad, especially if the woman needs IVF because she put off her motherly duties for so long she can't concieve naturally.
A woman getting an abortion is doing so intentionally and in the pursuit of her own convenience. In my opinion that should be criminal negligence, so I call it murder. That's not a misrepresentation of my position, that's what I actually believe. I know current laws disagree. That doesn't affect my position. Laws have been so very very wrong before, too.
So we agree that things that aren't persons can be vulnerable, but we disagree on the degree of vulnerability. Is my understanding correct that in your opinion a human being with a functioning brain is by definition more vulnerable than any other kind of life? So you equate vulnerability with degree of consciousness, presumably due to its ability to comprehend pain and injustice?
> True, but at least they do so unintentionally and in the pursuit of creating life.
That's not true, they do so fully intentionally. That's what should make it way worse than abortion: they create babies just to kill them! Why does it matter that it's in the pursuit of life? Or could it be that you dislike abortion for other reasons than you previously stated?
> A woman getting an abortion is doing so intentionally and in the pursuit of her own convenience.
And a woman getting IVF is doing so intentionally and in the pursuit of her own family wishes. Imagine if every family sacrificed dozens of children to receive their newborn. Why are you not fighting against this monstrous horror?
> That's not true, they do so fully intentionally. [...] Why are you not fighting against this monstrous horror?
Nobody goes to an IVF clinic intent to kill babies. Everyone goes to an abortion clinic explicitly to kill babies. IVF could be attempted one life at a time. What you're describing is a cost-cutting measure, a technical implementation detail of the clinic, and who said I'm not fighting against it?
> Why does it matter that it's in the pursuit of life?
Killing in the pursuit of life is less worse than killing in the pursuit of death.
> Nobody goes to an IVF clinic intent to kill babies.
Everyone goes to an IVF clinic knowing they'll kill multiple babies in the process. How can this be acceptable to a single person?
> IVF could be attempted one life at a time. What you're describing is a cost-cutting measure, a technical implementation detail of the clinic, and who said I'm not fighting against it?
You didn't say anything against it so far. So based on your statements it would be okay to abort babies to save the mothers some money, right? After all you find IVF acceptable, where they kill babies to save money?
> Killing in the pursuit of life is less worse than killing in the pursuit of death.
Really? Does the law say that? Is it generally okay to kill people if you also create new people?
> Everyone goes to an IVF clinic knowing they'll kill multiple babies in the process. How can this be acceptable to a single person?
Knowledge =/= intent. And I bet most people going to IVF don't know the process involves killing viable babies, unless and until they are informed of it at the clinic. Regardless, it's definitely not the intention, but an unnecessary side-effect. If I had to peruse IVF, I'd take my business to an ethical clinic that doesn't do such cost-cutting, just like I buy ethical food even though it's more expensive. Factory meat is torture and murder for me as well.
> You didn't say anything against it so far.
Factually incorrect. Me, two days ago [1] in reply to you, about killing babies in IVF process: "It's still kinda bad".
> Really? Does the law say that? Is it generally okay to kill people if you also create new people?
A very good and complex question with ethical dilemmas and conflicting precedent.
The simplest case is that of self-defense and defense of others. If suspect A is threatening to murder victim B, it's largely accepted that killing suspect A to preserve victim B's life is a necessary evil, especially if victim B is a pregnant woman.
According to the old unwritten Custom of the Sea it was accepted until 1884 that shipwreck survivors were forgiven for killing and eating each other to pervail. Mignonette The case of R v Dudley and Stephens (1884 14 QBD 273 DC) convicted two sailors to six months imprisonment for murdering and eating their unconscious crewmate to survive, which de facto set the practice antiquated and illegal.
Consider the maternal–fetal conflict of an unconscious woman in childbirth with complications lethal to both herself and the baby, doctors able to save one but not both (somewhat common trope in media). My understanding is that the husband gets to decide which of them dies by choosing who to save, and conventional wisdom says to save the baby at the mother's expense. My cursory search provided poor information so I don't know.
From a practical and moral standpoint I consider this an analogue of the trolley problem, and posit that yes, of course an act of killing is less worse if it additionally results in a new life (or saving of existing one(s)). That's the natural precedent for predation.
How does that matter? Have you ever encountered the concept of "negligence"? You're knowingly and willfully killing multiple babies.
> Regardless, it's definitely not the intention, but an unnecessary side-effect. If I had to peruse IVF, I'd take my business to an ethical clinic that doesn't do such cost-cutting, just like I buy ethical food even though it's more expensive.
And yet you're not trying to get those baby murderers classified as baby murderers, are you? You're okay with letting people choose whether they want to murder babies to save money. Why are you okay with it in this context, and not in the context of abortion?
> Factually incorrect. Me, two days ago [1] in reply to you, about killing babies in IVF process: "It's still kinda bad".
Okay, I'll give you that. You paid lip service. Good job!
> The simplest case is that of self-defense and defense of others. If suspect A is threatening to murder victim B, it's largely accepted that killing suspect A to preserve victim B's life is a necessary evil, especially if victim B is a pregnant woman.
Self-defense and defense of others doesn't factor in, because you're not defending anybody against anything. Nobody is in danger, you're just murdering babies because you desire something. Would you mind trying again with some kind of real analogue?
No problem with abortion but protesting outside an abortion clinic isn't doing harm; not in the criminal sense at least unlike all the domestic abuse the MET have failed to prosecute.
A similar argument could be used for environmental protestors blocking a highway (the reason the bill was created) - they're interfering with someone else's right to travel.
Are the abortion protestors blocking access to the clinic? That's not the sentiment I got. They don't interfere with anyone's right to abortion, they are expressing their dissent about it (presumably on grounds of a child's right to be born).
