Should this woman be habitually locked up?

[Unforgiven]

So, you're now equating with her demonstration with some nut job murdering people? You want to use a comparable comparison, then equate the nut job that murders abortion doctors with the nutjobs that kill baby's for their own personal selfish reasons. No different than the mother or father that kills their kids after they are born.

So you're saying that no one has killed a doctor who performs abortions? Or that the violence that erupts in the past from these protests is of any consequence? There is a reason that there is a safety zone that bars people from protesting within the zone. That's all.

She has a right to protest but not within the safety zone. If she wants to be a scofflaw and ignore that then there is a price to pay. It's not because she is protesting or what she is protesting, just where she is protesting.

Colpy has you beat on that point Karrie. "Being heard" is just part of "freedom of speech".

Who hasn't heard it?

I guess we are getting into the "dangerous territory" of discussing the abortion issue (which some of our opinions are well known on this forum) . In this case I feel the woman is being incarcerated as a "criminal" for what amounts to break a by law. BUT I also realize what to do with her? is a big problem. An even bigger problem is she is costing us $100 thousand or so a year keeping her locked up (in comfort). Maybe THAT is the problem. Maybe 30 days of black bread and water and hard labour will show her the error of her ways. While I certainly don't condemn ALL aborions I don't feel her "crime" is any more serious than some of the abortions.

I submit that it has more to do with her refusal to comply with the court order than it does her protests. If a judge give you an order, you best oblige lest you find your behind incarcerated as is the case here.

 

[earth_as_one]

...I guess we are getting into the "dangerous territory" of discussing the abortion issue (which some of our opinions are well known on this forum) . In this case I feel the woman is being incarcerated as a "criminal" for what amounts to break a by law. BUT I also realize what to do with her? is a big problem. An even bigger problem is she is costing us $100 thousand or so a year keeping her locked up (in comfort). Maybe THAT is the problem. Maybe 30 days of black bread and water and hard labour will show her the error of her ways. While I certainly don't condemn ALL aborions I don't feel her "crime" is any more serious than some of the abortions.

Having an abortion isn't a crime, even if you think it should be according to your sense of morality.

The buffer zone law around abortion clinics was passed because women seeking safe abortions had to run a gauntlet of angry and sometimes violent protesters who were effectively violating the right of women to a legal medical procedure.

 

[Unforgiven]

Actually, it was undercover cops doing the smashing and burning to justify the overkill on the security and so they could get away with smashing heads. Kinda blows your argument but law and order types don't let facts get in their way.

Oh gonna have to have a look at the evidence you have to back this one up. Post the link or it didn't happen mate. ;-)

 

[karrie]

Colpy has you beat on that point Karrie. "Being heard" is just part of "freedom of speech".

I guess we are getting into the "dangerous territory" of discussing the abortion issue (which some of our opinions are well known on this forum) . In this case I feel the woman is being incarcerated as a "criminal" for what amounts to break a by law. BUT I also realize what to do with her? is a big problem. An even bigger problem is she is costing us $100 thousand or so a year keeping her locked up (in comfort). Maybe THAT is the problem. Maybe 30 days of black bread and water and hard labour will show her the error of her ways. While I certainly don't condemn ALL aborions I don't feel her "crime" is any more serious than some of the abortions.

I think you all know I do not support abortion. I tolerate it and respect the letter of the law as it surrounds abortion ONLY because it saves the lives of the few, and grants women their charter rights to security of person. You're claiming that this law amounts to a mere by-law, but it doesn't. This law amounts to an upholding of the charter rights of women, to exercise their rights over their own bodies. Once you start allowing protestors to interfere with that right, you'd better take a new, long hard look at the Charter, and whether or not you're actually going to uphold it as it applies to the medical rights of women in this country. It's not a mere by-law. It's a huge issue. And like the issue or not, where someone has a right to do something, protestors should not be allowed to stand in their way. Gay weddings should not be open for picketing, funerals should not be open for picketing, and medical care should not be interfered with either. There are lines decent humans draw in the sand imo, and respect. Our courts have drawn this one, and despite not respecting the issue, I can respect the decision.

 

[petros]

Just wait until they start cracking down for smoking in doorways.

 

[JLM]

I think you all know I do not support abortion. I tolerate it and respect the letter of the law as it surrounds abortion ONLY because it saves the lives of the few, and grants women their charter rights to security of person. You're claiming that this law amounts to a mere by-law, but it doesn't. This law amounts to an upholding of the charter rights of women, to exercise their rights over their own bodies. Once you start allowing protestors to interfere with that right, you'd better take a new, long hard look at the Charter, and whether or not you're actually going to uphold it as it applies to the medical rights of women in this country. It's not a mere by-law. It's a huge issue. And like the issue or not, where someone has a right to do something, protestors should not be allowed to stand in their way. Gay weddings should not be open for picketing, funerals should not be open for picketing, and medical care should not be interfered with either. There are lines decent humans draw in the sand imo, and respect. Our courts have drawn this one, and despite not respecting the issue, I can respect the decision.

That ****ing Charter is another thing, but a subject for another day- don't want to go p*ssing off too many people on the same day. :lol:

 

[petros]

Interesting stastics...

Number of abortions in United States
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were 820,151 legal induced abortions in the US in 2005.[24]

Histogram of the reported abortion rate per 1,000 live births in 2005 for residents in each of the United States except California, Florida, New Hampshire, and Louisiana[25]


[edit] Abortions and ethnicity

Abortion rates are much more common among minority women in the U.S. In 2000-2001, the rates among black and Hispanic women were 49 per 1,000 and 33 per 1,000, respectively, vs. 13 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic white women. Note that this figure includes all women of reproductive age, including women that are not pregnant. In other words, these abortion rates reflect the rate at which U.S. women of reproductive age have an abortion each year. [26]
In 2004, the rates of abortion by ethnicity in the U.S. were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women, 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, and 11 abortions per 1,000 white women.[27]
[edit] Reasons for abortions

In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[28] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[29]

• 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
• 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
• 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
• 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
• 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
• 7.9% Want no (more) children
• 3.3% Risk to fetal health
• 2.8% Risk to maternal health
• 2.1% Other

According to a 1987 study that included specific data about late abortions (i.e. abortions “at 16 or more weeks' gestation”),[30] women reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion:

• 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
• 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
• 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
• 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
• 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
• 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
• 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
• 6% Woman didn't know timing is important
• 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
• 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
• 11% Other.

 

[Cannuck]

Yes! All women should be habitually locked up....and spanked some times!

 

[JLM]

Yes! All women should be habitually locked up....and spanked some times!

And I was getting to wonder if you are actually capable of making sense.

 

[Colpy]

You'll have to quote where I said a parent can murder their daughter because they have a morality issue with the way she dresses. I never said that and your argument is an example of a straw man:

In fact, your example supports my argument that no one has the right to impose their morality on someone else and that the law must trump morality.

1) You completely ignore the right of the daughter to live her life according to their sense of morality. Parents can try to influence their children, but ultimately if the daughter wants to screw every guy with an erection, there is little the parents can do about it, once she reaches the legal age of consent.

2) Murder is illegal, and the law trumps morality.

Another example would be a husband finding his wife having sex with another man. Sure I can understand why he would upset. According to many people's sense of morality, he would be justified murdering both of them. Again, the law trumps one person's sense of morality. Another husband with a completely different sense of morality, might join them... In which case he wouldn't be breaking any laws, even though some people might find his sense of morality less offensive than murder.

1) While you deny the aborted daughter the right to LIVE....full stop.

2) And law never trumps morality, except for the amoral or the weak-minded.

Damn, I didn't want to get pulled into a debate on abortion.....I avoid the subject like the plague.......

But it seems unavoidable.......so here is my position. The current lack of an abortion law in Canada is atrocious.....I do not believe such a thing exists (or does not exist) in any other country on earth. The law allows abortion at a point where the child could survive outside the mother's body with minimal aid..........and that is indefensible IMHO.

The compromise would be a law that permits early abortion, but restricts access as the pregnancy progresses........that is the only sane solution.

I think you all know I do not support abortion. I tolerate it and respect the letter of the law as it surrounds abortion ONLY because it saves the lives of the few, and grants women their charter rights to security of person. You're claiming that this law amounts to a mere by-law, but it doesn't. This law amounts to an upholding of the charter rights of women, to exercise their rights over their own bodies. Once you start allowing protestors to interfere with that right, you'd better take a new, long hard look at the Charter, and whether or not you're actually going to uphold it as it applies to the medical rights of women in this country. It's not a mere by-law. It's a huge issue. And like the issue or not, where someone has a right to do something, protestors should not be allowed to stand in their way. Gay weddings should not be open for picketing, funerals should not be open for picketing, and medical care should not be interfered with either. There are lines decent humans draw in the sand imo, and respect. Our courts have drawn this one, and despite not respecting the issue, I can respect the decision.

Ann Coulter on her lack of concern over the hatred liberals feel for her.....

"..........these are people who believe you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and pronounce that a constitutional right has just been exercised. That really says it all. You don't want such people to like you!"

 

[karrie]

Ann Coulter on her lack of concern over the hatred liberals feel for her.....

"..........these are people who believe you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and pronounce that a constitutional right has just been exercised. That really says it all. You don't want such people to like you!"

I'm sorry but you're going to have to explain a bit more concisely how that applies to my post.

 

[Colpy]

But the subject was a 63 year old lady spending most of her time in jail for gently trying to assert her right to free speech...

Anyone remember her?

 

[karrie]

But the subject was a 63 year old lady spending most of her time in jail for gently trying to assert her right to free speech...

Anyone remember her?

No, the subject was about a 63 year old woman who has willingly, repeatedly, violated what the government has clearly laid out as the safe, respectful distance from which to protest.

 

[Colpy]

I'm sorry but you're going to have to explain a bit more concisely how that applies to my post.

I don't believe the Charter gives anyone the right to kill a late-term baby.

And, (as an aside) the SCOC NEVER judged all abortion laws to be unconstitutional..........just the law that required the consent of a panel of Doctors for early term abortions.

 

[Cannuck]

No, the subject was about a 63 year old woman who has willingly, repeatedly, violated what the government has clearly laid out as the safe, respectful distance from which to protest.

The law also said that Rosa Parks had to get her ass to the back of the bus. Do you think she should have been thrown in the klink?

 

[karrie]

I don't believe the Charter gives anyone the right to kill a late-term baby.

And, (as an aside) the SCOC NEVER judged all abortion laws to be unconstitutional..........just the law that required the consent of a panel of Doctors for early term abortions.

In Canada less than 1% of abortions happen after the age of viability, and of those, the reason is sometimes because the pregnancy isn't viable, ie., the mother's health has deteriorated to the point where it could kill her, or the baby is brain dead, etc. , making the number of viable babies aborted that way very slim. Do I agree with it? Hell no. Am I willing to stop a mother whose life DOES depend on getting an abortion from getting one, because of less than 1% of abortions? No.

So long as abortion remains a valid medical necessity for some women, and they have a government protected right to receive it without protestors barring their way, this woman is flouting valid law.

The law also said that Rosa Parks had to get her ass to the back of the bus. Do you think she should have been thrown in the klink?

Whose rights was Rosa Parks interfering with by sitting at the front of the bus?

 

[Cannuck]

Whose rights was Rosa Parks interfering with by sitting at the front of the bus?

The white whose seat she was in.

Peaceful struggle for human rights should not be a crime.

 

[petros]

Whose rights was Rosa Parks interfering with by sitting at the front of the bus?

Jim Crow

 

[karrie]

The white whose seat she was in.

Peaceful struggle for human rights should not be a crime.

You all can throw out the human rights argument all you want, but you're talking about impeding women's access to medical treatment. I'm sorry, but the rights of a 63 year old who doesn't need medical treatment, do not get to trump the rights of the women who are heading into a medical clinic.

 

[Cannuck]

You all can throw out the human rights argument all you want, but you're talking about impeding women's access to medical treatment.

You all can throw out the medical treatment argument all you want, but you're talking about impeding the child's right to life.

I'm sorry, but the rights of a 63 year old who doesn't need medical treatment, do not get to trump the rights of the women who are heading into a medical clinic.

The 63 year old isn't fighting for her own rights. She is fighting for the rights of the child. Some might argue that her motives are less selfish than Rosa's