Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Shaker on August 14, 2015, 10:20:49 AM
-
Yvette Cooper has called for protest-free zones around abortion clinics, to prevent the harrassment and emotional upset of women going about their business, similar to the way in which the Westboro Baptist Church in the USA have been forced to keep their distance from funerals and suchlike:
The shadow home secretary said the government should introduce measures to enforce designated areas where anti-abortion protests could not be held, after organisations offering abortion services reported an increase in the number of protests outside clinics.
"Women should never be intimidated or threatened on their way to a healthcare appointment or on their way to work. No matter how strongly protesters feel about abortion themselves, they don’t have the right to harass, intimidate or film women who need to make their own very personal decision with their doctors," said Cooper.
"Everyone has the right to access legal healthcare, medical advice and support and to have some privacy and space to do so – and that includes abortion services."
In July, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service confirmed that an abortion clinic had been forced to close "as a direct result of protest activity." BPAS has reported that staff members and women seeking to terminate pregnancies have been confronted with images of foetuses and protesters have tried to film or photograph them entering and leaving clinics.
"Everyone should be allowed to hold legitimate protests. But they shouldn’t be intimidatory ones right in front of the doors of clinics – we don’t want US style abortion wars here," said Cooper.
"That’s why we need a new system of buffer zones which can be introduced to move the location of protests or prevent filming of staff and patients if problems arise."
http://goo.gl/VcI7L9
She's absolutely bang on the money here. The rights of free assembly and peaceful protest are upheld, and women get the medical care they seek unmolested.
-
I disagree with the idea. Clearly if violence breaks out that is a different matter, but why shouldn't people 'going about their business' be challenged about that business provided it is done in a peaceful and positive way? I know of several women who had been forced to attend an abortion clinic by the 'father' or even their own families, who didn't want to go through with the procedure. The fact that they met pro-life campaigners outside the clinic gave them the strength to refuse to kow-tow to their relatives.
-
I disagree with the idea. Clearly if violence breaks out that is a different matter, but why shouldn't people 'going about their business' be challenged about that business provided it is done in a peaceful and positive way?
Because there's no right to challenge people who are by definition seeking medical aid. You presumably don't support such "challenge" with cancer patients about to receive radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy - or do you?
So why with a woman about to have an abortion?
"No matter how strongly protesters feel about abortion themselves, they don’t have the right to harass, intimidate or film women who need to make their own very personal decision with their doctors."
-
I disagree with the idea. Clearly if violence breaks out that is a different matter, but why shouldn't people 'going about their business' be challenged about that business provided it is done in a peaceful and positive way?
Because there's no right to challenge people who are by definition seeking medical aid. You presumably don't support such "challenge" with cancer patients about to receive radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy - or do you?
So why with a woman about to have an abortion?
"No matter how strongly protesters feel about abortion themselves, they don’t have the right to harass, intimidate or film women who need to make their own very personal decision with their doctors."
See the addition to my previous post, Shaker. I hit the wrong button mid-message.
-
I disagree with the idea. Clearly if violence breaks out that is a different matter, but why shouldn't people 'going about their business' be challenged about that business provided it is done in a peaceful and positive way? I know of several women who had been forced to attend an abortion clinic by the 'father' or even their own families, who didn't want to go through with the procedure. The fact that they met pro-life campaigners outside the clinic gave them the strength to refuse to kow-tow to their relatives.
A few anecdotal tales doesn't counter the fact that women undertaking a perfectly legal medical procedure don't need and shouldn't have to be harrassed or intimidated whilst doing so.
If these protestors feel so strongly that they want to stand outside with their placards and posters, they can still do so - further away.
-
"No matter how strongly protesters feel about abortion themselves, they don’t have the right to harass, intimidate or film women who need to make their own very personal decision with their doctors."
That is why I started my response to your OP with 'Clearly if violence breaks out that is a different matter'. One can have a perfectly peaceful demonstration whereby people, women especially, offer to support someone who may well have made a hasty decision or been pushed into it. Accoring to my wife, who used to be a nurse, most 'medically-related' abortions take place in hospitals following consultations with a person's GP, not abortion clinics where the staff have little or no knowledge of their clients' medical history, etc., so your argument that they are seeking 'medical aid' is somewhat ingenuous, and the comment in the subsequent quote about mak{ing} their own very personal decision with their doctors
is largely untrue.
-
why shouldn't people 'going about their business' be challenged about that business provided it is done in a peaceful and positive way?
But it never is peaceful and positive.
I know of several women who had been forced to attend an abortion clinic by the 'father' or even their own families, who didn't want to go through with the procedure. The fact that they met pro-life campaigners outside the clinic gave them the strength to refuse to kow-tow to their relatives.
Good for you, or if they had got inside and been treated with compassion, maybe they would have had the strength.
-
One can have a perfectly peaceful demonstration...
Five hundred yards down the road.
whereby people, women especially, offer to support someone who may well have made a hasty decision or been pushed into it.
So you're claiming psychic powers now, are you?
-
A few anecdotal tales doesn't counter the fact that women undertaking a perfectly legal medical procedure don't need and shouldn't have to be harrassed or intimated whilst doing so.
This, of course, assumes that 1) the peple standing outside ARE harrassing or intimidating anyone.
If these protestors feel so strongly that they want to stand outside with their placards and posters, they can still do so - further away.
Sometimes, such campaigns don't rely of placards and posters, but on talking with women.
-
I disagree with the idea. Clearly if violence breaks out that is a different matter, but why shouldn't people 'going about their business' be challenged about that business provided it is done in a peaceful and positive way? I know of several women who had been forced to attend an abortion clinic by the 'father' or even their own families, who didn't want to go through with the procedure. The fact that they met pro-life campaigners outside the clinic gave them the strength to refuse to kow-tow to their relatives.
How many of those are there, compared to the rest of the possibilities?
How many people having made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy that endangers their life, or that will result in a profoundly disabled life have had to face unthinking, unknowing spite and bile?
Nobody makes the decision to have an abortion lightly. Freedom of Speech is the right to express whatever idea you wish without fear of censorship, but it's not the right to say it in whichever fashion you choose.
People already under duress should not be targeted by people ignorant of their situation: if you wish to change the landscape on abortion, have your say to your MP, not people in an unfortunate situation.
With a right (Freedom of Speech) comes social responsibilities - abusing women and couples seeking medical help is not the time or place to exercise that right.
O.
-
This, of course, assumes that 1) the peple standing outside ARE harrassing or intimidating anyone.
Which they are. Didn't you read the quote at all?
Sometimes, such campaigns don't rely of placards and posters, but on talking with women.
Perhaps some women don't want to be talked to and just want to get on with it?
-
But it never is peaceful and positive.
I appreciate that the ones that turn nasty get on TV and into the media, but not all do. I am also aware that in some cases the violence starts with the campaigners, but I have also heard of ones where the violence was initiated by clinic staff.
Good for you, ....
Had nothing to do with me. It had to do with the women who wanted the best for these 'clients'.
-
How many people having made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy that endangers their life, or that will result in a profoundly disabled life have had to face unthinking, unknowing spite and bile?
Relatively few, since the majority of such abortions aren't carried out in abortion clinics but NHS hospitals.
I realise that, according to 2013 figures, the NHS funded 98% of all abortions carried out in England & Wales, (don't know the figures for Scotland), and that some 65% of those where carried out in independent clinics under NHS contracts.
Nobody makes the decision to have an abortion lightly.
But nor do those with medical conditions that could be exacerbated by pregnancy, or in the case of damage to the foetus, generally take themselves off to a clinic without meeting and discussing with their GP, who will tend to refer them to their local hospital.
-
How many people having made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy that endangers their life, or that will result in a profoundly disabled life have had to face unthinking, unknowing spite and bile?
Relatively few, since the majority of such abortions aren't carried out in abortion clinics but NHS hospitals.
I realise that, according to 2013 figures, the NHS funded 98% of all abortions carried out in England & Wales, (don't know the figures for Scotland), and that some 65% of those where carried out in independent clinics under NHS contracts.
So although people attend hospital to have their situation diagnosed and discussed, 65% of them attend clinics for the procedure. There is no difference in the procedure based on the reason people go - occasionally the diagnosis makes a difference. Hospital abortions are typically only where surgical intervention is required or expected, where complications are likely (because of underlying medical conditions) or for late-term terminations.
There is no way to determine what reason people attending a clinic are attending for. You have no idea of their condition, or their attitude, or their reasoning. I don't doubt there are people who treat abortion like a form of contraception, who trivialise the process, and I disagree with that mentality, but in the absence of any way to identify them from rape victims (for instance) I say that to harass vulnerable (or, at the very least, potentially vulnerable people) is wrong.
I'm personally in favour of lowering the limit on how late voluntary abortions can be granted, but I appreciate that it's a difficult discussion - it's a discussion, though, to be held soberly, reflectively, between medical professionals and the parliamentary authorities with an eye to reviewing the law.
It is not for a mob to try to enforce their opinion by harassing women in a vulnerable place. Are some people coerced into attending clinics - it's likely there are a few, yes. Is that number greater than the number that are coerced out of attending by the harassment when having an abortion actually is in their best interests? Is it a greater number than the number of pregnant rape victims that are put off attending because they don't want to have to run that gauntlet? Is it greater than the number of people who have an already difficult time made harder by people ignorant of their condition presuming they know better?
I don't know the figures, but I suspect the answer to at least one of those questions is no.
There is a place for this debate, and it's not in the face of people facing already difficult circumstances.
But nor do those with medical conditions that could be exacerbated by pregnancy, or in the case of damage to the foetus, generally take themselves off to a clinic without meeting and discussing with their GP, who will tend to refer them to their local hospital.
No, they will tend to refer them to whichever situation suits their circumstances. Early term abortion with no other complications is better treated outside of the formality of a hospital. Some clinics are situated within hospitals, some aren't, to presume that someone attending a clinic is therefore 'fair game' is to a) fail to understand the medical system and b) still a presumption which you shouldn't be making about someone else's medical condition.
Maybe a rape victim hasn't seen their doctor, doesn't want to go through the official rigmarole, just wants to get it over and done with - you are positing adding to their harassment. I know that's not a common circumstance, but I suggest that it's probably no more unlikely than your frogmarched victim rescued from their psychologically-controlling partner/family by the complete stranger harassing them at the door.
O.
-
I think this necessary for anywhere that people are getting medical treatment of any kind. My grandmother died to the sound of car horns blaring in support of a protest outside the hospital building, much to the distress of my mum, who just wanted some quiet time with her. Anybody who needs medical treatment should be free to do so without fear of harassment from any quarter, including women seeking terminations.
-
In one.
-
Maybe a rape victim hasn't seen their doctor, doesn't want to go through the official rigmarole, just wants to get it over and done with - you are positing adding to their harassment. I know that's not a common circumstance, but I suggest that it's probably no more unlikely than your frogmarched victim rescued from their psychologically-controlling partner/family by the complete stranger harassing them at the door.
O.
Wot you said, Outrider.
One small quibble. It is a really small quibble but it's about a matter that infuriates me.
Why are you being so bloody politically correct? How many men do you know that have abortions?
Maybe a rape victim hasn't seen their doctor
What's wrong with her and she?
I also think that the word clinic is being over-interpreted. It's fairly common for a private hospital to call itself clinic rather than hospital.
-
Maybe a rape victim hasn't seen their doctor, doesn't want to go through the official rigmarole, just wants to get it over and done with - you are positing adding to their harassment. I know that's not a common circumstance, but I suggest that it's probably no more unlikely than your frogmarched victim rescued from their psychologically-controlling partner/family by the complete stranger harassing them at the door.
O.
Wot you said, Outrider.
One small quibble. It is a really small quibble but it's about a matter that infuriates me.
Why are you being so bloody politically correct? How many men do you know that have abortions?
Maybe a rape victim hasn't seen their doctor
What's wrong with her and her's and she?
I appreciate, given the context, there is only one viable gender that could be applicable - it's force of habit, really. I've tried to get into the habit of referring to people as people rather than by their gender - in the overwhelming majority of circumstances gender is irrelevant. When it isn't - as this instance - it's typically inferrable and doesn't need to be spelt out anyway.
O.
-
Yvette Cooper has called for protest-free zones around abortion clinics, to prevent the harrassment and emotional upset of women going about their business, similar to the way in which the Westboro Baptist Church in the USA have been forced to keep their distance from funerals and suchlike:
The shadow home secretary said the government should introduce measures to enforce designated areas where anti-abortion protests could not be held, after organisations offering abortion services reported an increase in the number of protests outside clinics.
"Women should never be intimidated or threatened on their way to a healthcare appointment or on their way to work. No matter how strongly protesters feel about abortion themselves, they don’t have the right to harass, intimidate or film women who need to make their own very personal decision with their doctors," said Cooper.
"Everyone has the right to access legal healthcare, medical advice and support and to have some privacy and space to do so – and that includes abortion services."
In July, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service confirmed that an abortion clinic had been forced to close "as a direct result of protest activity." BPAS has reported that staff members and women seeking to terminate pregnancies have been confronted with images of foetuses and protesters have tried to film or photograph them entering and leaving clinics.
"Everyone should be allowed to hold legitimate protests. But they shouldn’t be intimidatory ones right in front of the doors of clinics – we don’t want US style abortion wars here," said Cooper.
"That’s why we need a new system of buffer zones which can be introduced to move the location of protests or prevent filming of staff and patients if problems arise."
http://goo.gl/VcI7L9
She's absolutely bang on the money here. The rights of free assembly and peaceful protest are upheld, and women get the medical care they seek unmolested.
What a good idea. Women in need of an abortion, for whatever reason, shouldn't be harassed. I doubt many women take the decision lightly!
-
Maybe a rape victim hasn't seen their doctor, doesn't want to go through the official rigmarole, just wants to get it over and done with - you are positing adding to their harassment. I know that's not a common circumstance, but I suggest that it's probably no more unlikely than your frogmarched victim rescued from their psychologically-controlling partner/family by the complete stranger harassing them at the door.
O.
Wot you said, Outrider.
One small quibble. It is a really small quibble but it's about a matter that infuriates me.
Why are you being so bloody politically correct? How many men do you know that have abortions?
Maybe a rape victim hasn't seen their doctor
What's wrong with her and her's and she?
I appreciate, given the context, there is only one viable gender that could be applicable - it's force of habit, really. I've tried to get into the habit of referring to people as people rather than by their gender - in the overwhelming majority of circumstances gender is irrelevant. When it isn't - as this instance - it's typically inferrable and doesn't need to be spelt out anyway.
O.
cor, ain't Outrider, sorry, Black leather clad personage, luvverly?
-
What a good idea.
I agree - it's long overdue.
Women in need of an abortion, for whatever reason, shouldn't be harassed. I doubt many women take the decision lightly!
Most don't, some might do - I remember Caitlin Moran once wrote an article in which she said that spent longer choosing the worktops for her new kitchen than in deciding to have an abortion; that caused quite a stir with the usual suspects - but I don't see how that changes anything.
-
What a good idea.
I agree - it's long overdue.
Women in need of an abortion, for whatever reason, shouldn't be harassed. I doubt many women take the decision lightly!
Most don't, some might do - I remember Caitlin Moran once wrote an article in which she said that spent longer choosing the worktops for her new kitchen than in deciding to have an abortion; that caused quite a stir with the usual suspects - but I don't see how that changes anything.
Caitlin Moran?
Has a bit of the Katie Hopkins about her, still, whatever floats your boat......
-
In my opinion women who don't ever want to have children should be sterilised, rather than have lots of terminations. One of my sisters never wanted children, neither did her husband, so she was sterilised to make absolutely sure she would never get pregnant.
-
What a good idea.
I agree - it's long overdue.
Women in need of an abortion, for whatever reason, shouldn't be harassed. I doubt many women take the decision lightly!
Most don't, some might do - I remember Caitlin Moran once wrote an article in which she said that spent longer choosing the worktops for her new kitchen than in deciding to have an abortion; that caused quite a stir with the usual suspects - but I don't see how that changes anything.
I don't know Moran's reasons. But were I to get pregnant now I'd be down to the clinic tomorrow. I had three children in four years, each delivered by c-section, one of which was a crash - it'd be physically risky, I had to spend much of my last pregnancy in hospital.That's without considering the effect on my kids if I'm laid up as I'm a single mother - my eldest seems to need me more than ever now - a baby would tip the balance between what is doable and what is too much.
That doesn't mean I'd be taking the decision lightly. Actually it would be very distressing. But I've thought about it and it's what I would do, for the sake of my kids as well as for myself, however hard. Not that it's a massively likely scenario mind.
-
Yvette Cooper has called for protest-free zones around abortion clinics, to prevent the harrassment and emotional upset of women going about their business, similar to the way in which the Westboro Baptist Church in the USA have been forced to keep their distance from funerals and suchlike:
The shadow home secretary said the government should introduce measures to enforce designated areas where anti-abortion protests could not be held, after organisations offering abortion services reported an increase in the number of protests outside clinics.
"Women should never be intimidated or threatened on their way to a healthcare appointment or on their way to work. No matter how strongly protesters feel about abortion themselves, they don’t have the right to harass, intimidate or film women who need to make their own very personal decision with their doctors," said Cooper.
"Everyone has the right to access legal healthcare, medical advice and support and to have some privacy and space to do so – and that includes abortion services."
In July, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service confirmed that an abortion clinic had been forced to close "as a direct result of protest activity." BPAS has reported that staff members and women seeking to terminate pregnancies have been confronted with images of foetuses and protesters have tried to film or photograph them entering and leaving clinics.
"Everyone should be allowed to hold legitimate protests. But they shouldn’t be intimidatory ones right in front of the doors of clinics – we don’t want US style abortion wars here," said Cooper.
"That’s why we need a new system of buffer zones which can be introduced to move the location of protests or prevent filming of staff and patients if problems arise."
http://goo.gl/VcI7L9
She's absolutely bang on the money here. The rights of free assembly and peaceful protest are upheld, and women get the medical care they seek unmolested.
No. You start here, and it then extends to picketing workplaces during strikes. Remember "I am the Seventh Picket"?
-
No, I don't.
-
Yvette Cooper has called for protest-free zones around abortion clinics, to prevent the harrassment and emotional upset of women going about their business, similar to the way in which the Westboro Baptist Church in the USA have been forced to keep their distance from funerals and suchlike:
The shadow home secretary said the government should introduce measures to enforce designated areas where anti-abortion protests could not be held, after organisations offering abortion services reported an increase in the number of protests outside clinics.
"Women should never be intimidated or threatened on their way to a healthcare appointment or on their way to work. No matter how strongly protesters feel about abortion themselves, they don’t have the right to harass, intimidate or film women who need to make their own very personal decision with their doctors," said Cooper.
"Everyone has the right to access legal healthcare, medical advice and support and to have some privacy and space to do so – and that includes abortion services."
In July, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service confirmed that an abortion clinic had been forced to close "as a direct result of protest activity." BPAS has reported that staff members and women seeking to terminate pregnancies have been confronted with images of foetuses and protesters have tried to film or photograph them entering and leaving clinics.
"Everyone should be allowed to hold legitimate protests. But they shouldn’t be intimidatory ones right in front of the doors of clinics – we don’t want US style abortion wars here," said Cooper.
"That’s why we need a new system of buffer zones which can be introduced to move the location of protests or prevent filming of staff and patients if problems arise."
http://goo.gl/VcI7L9
She's absolutely bang on the money here. The rights of free assembly and peaceful protest are upheld, and women get the medical care they seek unmolested.
Can I see the reports where women have been physically molested outside uk abortion clinics.... Please give us the links...
-
I never mentioned "physically molested." Neither did anyone else - only you did. You needn't have a finger laid upon your person to be threatened, harrassed and intimidated, which is what this is about.
-
I never mentioned "physically molested." Neither did anyone else - only you did. You needn't have a finger laid upon your person to be threatened, harrassed and intimidated, which is what this is about.
Agreed, you never said anything about anyone being physically molested!
-
I never mentioned "physically molested." Neither did anyone else - only you did. You needn't have a finger laid upon your person to be threatened, harrassed and intimidated, which is what this is about.
Yes that is true but I did mention the UK....
I did ask for the links. What happens in the USA is there business.
What happens here is our concern. Because we don't always like what others think or believe, they still have a right to express it.
To be honest and fair... there is absolutely no reason outside rape or medical/pill mishap for any unwanted pregnancy anywhere in the UK.
Take some responsibility if you do not want to get pregnant.
-
I never mentioned "physically molested." Neither did anyone else - only you did. You needn't have a finger laid upon your person to be threatened, harrassed and intimidated, which is what this is about.
Agreed, you never said anything about anyone being physically molested!
I also mentioned the UK.
-
To be honest and fair... there is absolutely no reason outside rape or medical/pill mishap for any unwanted pregnancy anywhere in the UK. Take some responsibility if you do not want to get pregnant.
True. However, to follow that line of thinking, are people incapable of organising their lives without organising contraception really in the right place to be raising children?
As it is, everyone's capable of making mistakes...
O.