Abortions are a legal medical procedure. People have a right to seek legal medical procedures in a way that is safe and harassment free. She knowingly breaks the law to harasses people over and over, which is why she has spent most of the last 20 years in prison. she could easily avoid prison by respecting the law. She is entitled to her beliefs, but she has no right to try to impose her beliefs on others.
I suspect you seem to have a hard time understanding why harassing people seeking abortions is a crime is because of your own beliefs regarding abortion. If she was harassing people seeking other types of legal medical procedures, like dialysis or a blood transfusion, you might be less sympathetic.
I don't understand what "habitually locked up" means. Yes there are and Harper will be opening new prisons and 4000 women will fill them so they gotta start somewhere.
If you get lonely you can talk to them. Just dial "1-800 Hello BC" and you'll find a lonely convict on the other end working as a slave.
Abortions are a legal medical procedure. People have a right to seek legal medical procedures in a way that is safe and harassment free. She knowingly breaks the law to harasses people over and over, which is why she has spent most of the last 20 years in prison. She could easily avoid prison by respecting the law. She can even protest if she likes as long as she respects the minimum distance requirement.
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but no one has the right to harass others who don't share your beliefs.
I suspect you seem to have a hard time understanding why harassing people seeking abortions is a crime is because of your own beliefs regarding abortion. If she was harassing people seeking other types of legal medical procedures, like dialysis or a blood transfusion, you might be less sympathetic.
I am pro-life (do not mistake me with anti-abortion), but even I see why the law has no real tangible choice but to incarcerate someone who breaches the law regarding the 60ft 'bubble' that allows women access to legal medical treatment. Especially given the fact that it is a real, valid, medical need in some cases.
A fine or community service may be more appropriate.
I suppose in our system legality trumps morality.
Which time? Presumably that's where they started. She clearly has no intent of stopping.
In a free society, the law must trump morality, because everyone has their own version of morality. Iran is an example of how screwed up things can get when the state tries to impose one version of morality on everyone.
I support this woman's right to choose not to have an abortion. I don't support her attempts to impose her morality on others.
That said, abortion is a gray area, since the rights of a mother must be balanced with the rights of a child. In Canada, you can legally have an abortion right up until labor. I have a problem with that, because at some point a fetus should have rights too.
According to my morality, people should be able to get an abortion at any time during the first three months with little interference. After three months, the person should have to justify their abortion. During the last three months, the fetus has rights that must be respected and abortion can only be justified for serious medical reasons.
But I'm a guy, so I wouldn't presume to impose my morality on a pregnant woman...
Holy crap. I agree with Colpy.
Well, you know, I'm not a Muslim, so far be it from me to pass any moral judgement when the guy next door butchers his daughter for wearing a miniskirt.
Ludicrous argument.
Has the left EVER heard of freedom of speech, the right to peacefully assemble?
The lady does NOT "impose her morality on others" by speaking, by holding up signs, by protesting, and certainly not by praying.
Were she harassing passers-by, or blocking the entrance to the clinic, or throwing blood on clients, or anything that put her in anothers' personal space, you might have a point.
But she is not.
This country is increasingly becoming farcical.
If you can explain to me why she HAS to do what she does from within the legally defined zone, rather than from outside of it, then I might perhaps buy into what you're saying. As it is, the law has given the women a zone of access to the clinics. There's no reason for this woman to be in that zone, plain and simple, when she can just as easily hold her sign and say her prayers from outside of it.
If you can explain to me why she HAS to do what she does from within the legally defined zone, rather than from outside of it, then I might perhaps buy into what you're saying. As it is, the law has given the women a zone of access to the clinics. There's no reason for this woman to be in that zone, plain and simple, when she can just as easily hold her sign and say her prayers from outside of it.
Simple really....twenty meters isolates here from those she wishes to influence....it effectively silences her....unless she shows up with a megaphone.
As long as she does not interfere with clients, the women's "zone of access" is not affected.
You're negating your own argument... you want her closer so that she can be heard, but you claim that she won't be interfering. Well guess what... being heard IS interfering.
Freedom of speech and freedom of audience are not the same thing. You are not guaranteed the right to get into women's faces to have your opinion heard.
You're negating your own argument... you want her closer so that she can be heard, but you claim that she won't be interfering. Well guess what... being heard IS interfering.
Freedom of speech and freedom of audience are not the same thing. You are not guaranteed the right to get into women's faces to have your opinion heard.
yup, you can object to the murder of children from the comfort of your home only.
yup, you can object to the murder of children from the comfort of your home only.
Oh come on!
By that logic, the government would be perfectly correct to pass a law restricting my speech to my bathroom........or not permitting me to project outside of my house by any means any politically incorrect view.
Freedom of speech and freedom of audience are EXACTLY the same thing.
Well, you know, I'm not a Muslim, so far be it from me to pass any moral judgement when the guy next door butchers his daughter for wearing a miniskirt.
Ludicrous argument.
Has the left EVER heard of freedom of speech, the right to peacefully assemble?
The lady does NOT "impose her morality on others" by speaking, by holding up signs, by protesting, and certainly not by praying.
Were she harassing passers-by, or blocking the entrance to the clinic, or throwing blood on clients, or anything that put her in anothers' personal space, you might have a point.
But she is not.
This country is increasingly becoming farcical.
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
2) Murder is illegal,
You're negating your own argument... you want her closer so that she can be heard, but you claim that she won't be interfering. Well guess what... being heard IS interfering.
Freedom of speech and freedom of audience are not the same thing. You are not guaranteed the right to get into women's faces to have your opinion heard.