So is me not being able to demonstrate inside your house. That free speech can be limited by the right of free association, private property and public safety needs has been an established principle for centuries.
And if anti-abortionists can demonstrate elsewhere, which they can and do, it isn't much of an issue. It's not as if the pro-life camp is at risk of not having their views heard if they can't block the doors to abortion clinics and call women whores and killers right to their faces.
>So is me not being able to demonstrate inside your house.
That is quite the movement of goalposts. "Outside an abortion clinic" is by definition a public space. Inside my house is not a public space. Demonstrating in a public space should be protected as free speech.
I think you moved the goalposts from making a broad argument about free speech to now a narrow argument about property rights.
Now maybe try to address my actual point, which is that no rights are absolute and always need to be balanced in context against other rights and public safety.
>Demonstrating in a public space should be protected as free speech.
That, for me, is an absolute.
Demonstrating doesn't include blocking a highway or not allowing entrance to such clinic. Not even touching a client or worker. But staying there? Yes of course it should be protected.
If that's actually such an established principle, there wouldn't be such a problem with the way the law goes after "peaceful actions used by those protesting about human rights and environmental issues" because the peaceful actions it's targetting are things like protesters gluing themselves to famous artworks in museums, public protest whose main goal is to shut down major roads, railways and other critical infrastructure rather than protest somewhere where they're likely to be seen by the public, and vandalism of company headquarters. After all, it's not like the environmental activists are at risk of not having their views heard if they can't sling paint all over the doors of fossil fuel and chemical companies and banks and call their employees murderers to their faces, especially since most of the mainstream media in this country is already on their side.
If you scroll down to the bottom of the comments, downvoted into the grey, someone even linked an article pointing out that these protests included roadblocks that stopped ambulances getting through. Clearly public safety only matters sometimes. (And to be clear, this wasn't an incidental side effect of some protest where the sheer volume of protesters caused disruption. Building blockades and maintaining them for days/weeks was the protest action.)
Someone does have the right to demonstrate inside your house, if you've first invited them to be there. Even if you tell someone "I'm only inviting you inside if you don't bring up abortion" and they do anyway, they have not committed a crime unless they also refuse to leave after you revoke their invitation. If someone has the right to be at a location they have the right to peacefully protest there.
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).
anecdata - E/Rs in my locale are 6 to 8 hour waits with total time spent with triage/nurse/physician totalling maybe 15 minutes (20 if they decide you need an x-ray). Since the queue seems to vary very little it just seems weird.
Due to this wait, I've been conditioned to treat it as a last resort. Perhaps that is the desired effect.
20 seconds a month is about normal for a quartz watch.
Quartz is (generally) accurate to about 0.5 seconds a day. (It varies, mostly by temperature.) Compare to a good quality mechanical watch, which is accurate to about 3-5 seconds a day. Cheaper mechanical watches, considerably less.
Casio "wave ceptor" watches receive the time signal every night, and so don't drift. Some other more expensive watches sync with the GPS signal, or with bluetooth to your phone.
If you demand accuracy without a regular sync, so called "high accuracy quartz" watches do exist, which can be accurate to about 15-30 seconds per year. The Bulova "Precisionist" line of watches are good examples of these.
> 20 seconds a month is about normal for a quartz watch. [...] so called "high accuracy quartz" watches do exist, which can be accurate to about 15-30 seconds per year.
Heh, you can get much better quartz watches than that if you're willing to pay for it. I have a Grand Seiko 9F super high accuracy quartz watch (SBGP017 is the model number if you're curious) that has gained just a little over a second in the year that I've had it. Citizen also makes high end quartz watches with similar accuracy (look up the Chronomaster).
Diminishing returns, probably, especially if you live in a location where you're going to be setting your watch twice a year anyway for daylight saving.
My SBGP017 has a jump-hour movement that I can use for DST (or while traveling) to set the hour hand without hacking the seconds hand. That's how I know its accuracy over an entire year, even though I've adjusted it for DST twice since I got it and done some international traveling as well. I'll literally only ever need to set the time once every battery change.
Of course it's diminishing returns regardless, but the accuracy achievable is nevertheless impressive.
That's actually a normal amount for any watch. A well-maintained Rolex is +- 5 seconds a day. AFAIK, only the 'atomic' watches or ones sync'd against your cellphone do better.
Also, 20 seconds means <2 min drift between the adjustments you make for daylight savings time.
The F91W is like $20 though. You're expecting too much from something so cheap. If you pay a bit more than that you'll get a better product. The profit margins on a $20 watch are too low to individually calibrate the rate accuracy of each one, which is the bare minimum that you need to compensate for the manufacturing differences on each individual quartz crystal. And then for accuracy beyond that you would need thermo-compensated quartz, though you only see that on models costing in the 4 figures so if you only care about price performance, you'd sooner get a radio/GPS-controlled model.
>Please be aware that should you continue to use the discontinued version(s), you may be at risk of potential claims of infringement by third parties
And users like the ones who posted those tweets read that as Adobe themselves wanting to sue them. Says a lot of the mental capacity of some people.