FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Praying for Abortion
Praying for Abortion
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do. Not. Have. The. Spoons. Is this thread really necessary? 🙄" In what sense? It's today's news not tomorrows chip wrappings | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes she deserved arrested. Those anti choice scum need beaten off the streets. " She was just stood there preying. Nothing else | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes she deserved arrested. Those anti choice scum need beaten off the streets. She was just stood there preying. Nothing else" Preying is accurate. I think you meant praying though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Better off praying in church. Miscarriage ends more pregnancies than abortions and they are supposedly acts of God - if you believe in that sort of thing. " The prier doesn't work better the closer you are. Could have done the same further away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Better off praying in church. Miscarriage ends more pregnancies than abortions and they are supposedly acts of God - if you believe in that sort of thing. The prier doesn't work better the closer you are. Could have done the same further away." Totally missed the point of my comment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Better off praying in church. Miscarriage ends more pregnancies than abortions and they are supposedly acts of God - if you believe in that sort of thing. The prier doesn't work better the closer you are. Could have done the same further away. Totally missed the point of my comment. " Church would have been a better place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Better off praying in church. Miscarriage ends more pregnancies than abortions and they are supposedly acts of God - if you believe in that sort of thing. The prier doesn't work better the closer you are. Could have done the same further away. Totally missed the point of my comment. Church would have been a better place." Nailed it  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. " Exactly this 👏 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Better off praying in church. Miscarriage ends more pregnancies than abortions and they are supposedly acts of God - if you believe in that sort of thing. The prier doesn't work better the closer you are. Could have done the same further away. Totally missed the point of my comment. Church would have been a better place." One can only guess why. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Praying for abortion, mixed race baby rejected, smacking children triples? why you making these threads guy? " Because the less controversial ones slide into oblivion. Shame it doesn't happen with these ones too. 🙄 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Praying for abortion, mixed race baby rejected, smacking children triples? why you making these threads guy? Because the less controversial ones slide into oblivion. Shame it doesn't happen with these ones too. 🙄" Heyyy I'm all about the Lily Allen foot fetish | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was the second time she was arrested for silently praying within a public space protection order (PSPO) zone outside a closed abortion facility so I would say yes, she knew what she was doing and knew she would likely be arrested. " And she brought a civil case against the Police chief and got 13k | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who tries to deny choice isn't a very good human being. " And if it's your choice to chastise your children with a gentle smack ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was the second time she was arrested for silently praying within a public space protection order (PSPO) zone outside a closed abortion facility so I would say yes, she knew what she was doing and knew she would likely be arrested. And she brought a civil case against the Police chief and got 13k" You asked should she have been arrested, I answered that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who tries to deny choice isn't a very good human being. And if it's your choice to chastise your children with a gentle smack ?" No, I believe you're deliberately misconstruing my words. Pro choice regarding abortion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tom thinks she should not of been arrested but to be fair he does not know the full facts" Does that go for any rule/law broken? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who tries to deny choice isn't a very good human being. " So you respect and wouldn’t criticise my choice not get vaccinated? Because your a good human being? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She was in an area that was designated as a public protection area" Nobody needs protecting from an old lady praying. It’s the other way round. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who tries to deny choice isn't a very good human being. So you respect and wouldn’t criticise my choice not get vaccinated? Because your a good human being? " Your body and your choice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She was in an area that was designated as a public protection area" Breaching a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) can result in a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) or prosecution. The penalty depends on the behavior and the issuing authority | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We're lucky to live in a country where women's reproductive rights are protected and also people have the right to peacefully protest. Just look across the pond at what is happening there.... " The pond ? South London? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She was in an area that was designated as a public protection area Breaching a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) can result in a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) or prosecution. The penalty depends on the behavior and the issuing authority" And she was arrested ? But the Cheif of police paid out in a private prosecution but accepted no liability as the saying goes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. " The only way that would work is if it was located inside a compound with security on guard duty | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. The only way that would work is if it was located inside a compound with security on guard duty" Is that because what they are doing is wrong ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. The only way that would work is if it was located inside a compound with security on guard duty Is that because what they are doing is wrong ?" No not at all but it's the only way yo7 could guarantee access without being hassled by protesting people. And as far as we are concerned the lady is within her rights to do whatever she believes is the right thing to do. We do think that if she is part of a couple the other person should have a say too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. The only way that would work is if it was located inside a compound with security on guard duty" From what I understand, the area surrounding abortion clinics will hopefully have buffer zones put in place to prevent such incidents. The article I read on BBC website said: “The Home Office said it had not yet set out the guidance but was "committed to introducing buffer zones around abortion clinics as soon as possible". The Daily Telegraph reported last week it understood the Home Office was considering banning silent prayer within the 150m zones. Meanwhile, Birmingham City Council confirmed its PSPO was still being enforced.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes she deserved arrested. Those anti choice scum need beaten off the streets. She was just stood there preying. Nothing else" Why do it there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who tries to deny choice isn't a very good human being. So you respect and wouldn’t criticise my choice not get vaccinated? Because your a good human being? " Shots fired | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She was in an area that was designated as a public protection area Breaching a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) can result in a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) or prosecution. The penalty depends on the behavior and the issuing authority And she was arrested ? But the Cheif of police paid out in a private prosecution but accepted no liability as the saying goes " You are doing the normal thing you do of going all round the houses to avoid answering a question. We know she was arrested, you asked should she be. When I answered the question you dismissed it and said but she got paid out. You then said you didn't think she should have been arrested. So I asked a question "Does that go for any rule/law broken?" you avoided it and repeated there was a protection order in place, which wasn't a quote to anyone so I answered about what happens if you breach the order. You then say but but but she got paid out. None of that answers the question of "Does that go for any rule/law broken?" Now obviously you don't have to answer the question but it makes a discussion very one sided | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She was in an area that was designated as a public protection area Breaching a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) can result in a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) or prosecution. The penalty depends on the behavior and the issuing authority And she was arrested ? But the Cheif of police paid out in a private prosecution but accepted no liability as the saying goes You are doing the normal thing you do of going all round the houses to avoid answering a question. We know she was arrested, you asked should she be. When I answered the question you dismissed it and said but she got paid out. You then said you didn't think she should have been arrested. So I asked a question "Does that go for any rule/law broken?" you avoided it and repeated there was a protection order in place, which wasn't a quote to anyone so I answered about what happens if you breach the order. You then say but but but she got paid out. None of that answers the question of "Does that go for any rule/law broken?" Now obviously you don't have to answer the question but it makes a discussion very one sided " Was that directed at Tom ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes she deserved arrested. Those anti choice scum need beaten off the streets. She was just stood there preying. Nothing else Why do it there" Why not? Her choice? She was troubled by what was happening there? I mean why to people have vigils and prayer where there have been tragedies? Who knows? Seems strange though if it was breaching the law that they would cough up 13k compo. Nice little earner. Precedent has been set. Cue more silent prayers... Maybe she was praying for a lotto win? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes she deserved arrested. Those anti choice scum need beaten off the streets. She was just stood there preying. Nothing else Why do it there" Right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech and expression. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And prayers do what exactly " Give the person praying comfort? Faith? Belief? In some cases helps them. Many more reasons I'm sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wish these people would follow their Bible. This is quite literally Gospel And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:5-6, NIV, via Bible Hub)" The context is very different. The hypocrite prays publicly only to appear pious and godly to others. The woman praying at the abortion place is not trying to do that. She is praying for the lives ended early there. She wasn’t standing in speakers corner with a bullhorn. She was praying at the site of the abortions because countless human lives are ended/prevented there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She should take her prayers elsewhere and stay out of other peoples business. " Can you see the irony? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She should take her prayers elsewhere and stay out of other peoples business. Can you see the irony? " My opinion is not infringing on womens rights to privacy in healthcare. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wish these people would follow their Bible. This is quite literally Gospel And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:5-6, NIV, via Bible Hub) The context is very different. The hypocrite prays publicly only to appear pious and godly to others. The woman praying at the abortion place is not trying to do that. She is praying for the lives ended early there. She wasn’t standing in speakers corner with a bullhorn. She was praying at the site of the abortions because countless human lives are ended/prevented there. " Is it though? Is it really? Can't she pray at home, rather than making a spectacle of herself by doing so at the site, when told to go elsewhere? Is "at the abortion clinic" as described in the second verse? Is the Christian god so feeble that you have to be at the site of the alleged harm for him to understand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She should take her prayers elsewhere and stay out of other peoples business. Can you see the irony? " There are layers and layers of hypocrisy and irony in this thread. I didn’t point it out because I don’t think they get it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wish these people would follow their Bible. This is quite literally Gospel And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:5-6, NIV, via Bible Hub) The context is very different. The hypocrite prays publicly only to appear pious and godly to others. The woman praying at the abortion place is not trying to do that. She is praying for the lives ended early there. She wasn’t standing in speakers corner with a bullhorn. She was praying at the site of the abortions because countless human lives are ended/prevented there. Is it though? Is it really? Can't she pray at home, rather than making a spectacle of herself by doing so at the site, when told to go elsewhere? Is "at the abortion clinic" as described in the second verse? Is the Christian god so feeble that you have to be at the site of the alleged harm for him to understand?" Yes, it’s like visiting someone’s grave or where someone died. People sometimes have a vigil there, which is a very traditional and accepted behaviour. Paying your respects from some other random location isn’t how it’s done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wish these people would follow their Bible. This is quite literally Gospel And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:5-6, NIV, via Bible Hub) The context is very different. The hypocrite prays publicly only to appear pious and godly to others. The woman praying at the abortion place is not trying to do that. She is praying for the lives ended early there. She wasn’t standing in speakers corner with a bullhorn. She was praying at the site of the abortions because countless human lives are ended/prevented there. Is it though? Is it really? Can't she pray at home, rather than making a spectacle of herself by doing so at the site, when told to go elsewhere? Is "at the abortion clinic" as described in the second verse? Is the Christian god so feeble that you have to be at the site of the alleged harm for him to understand? Yes, it’s like visiting someone’s grave or where someone died. People sometimes have a vigil there, which is a very traditional and accepted behaviour. Paying your respects from some other random location isn’t how it’s done. " Why? The God I was raised to believe in is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He would have heard my prayers from the bottom of the ocean or on the moon. All powerful is all powerful. Either these people don't worship the same God that I was raised to believe in - maybe his pitiful whiny attention seeking little brother - or they like to draw attention to themselves, break the law, and ignore the Bible in order to have a negative impact on people who are doing things they don't agree with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lady who peacefully prayed outside an abortion clinic was arrested over alledgedly breaking a public spaces protection order in Birmingham, famous as the home of Birmingham City Football Club. The Chief of Police has just paid her £13,000 in compensation. Should he have been nicked in the first place? It's all over the news" Is Birmingham City football club in Birmingham? Well I never | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She should take her prayers elsewhere and stay out of other peoples business. Can you see the irony? My opinion is not infringing on womens rights to privacy in healthcare. " That is true. But it is however infringing on a woman's rights to worship her God as she feels most appropriate in dictating when where and how an individual should practise their faith and beliefs. Not defending it, just pointing out the irony. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She should take her prayers elsewhere and stay out of other peoples business. Can you see the irony? My opinion is not infringing on womens rights to privacy in healthcare. That is true. But it is however infringing on a woman's rights to worship her God as she feels most appropriate in dictating when where and how an individual should practise their faith and beliefs. Not defending it, just pointing out the irony. " Sometimes there are places where you can't do things for public policy reasons. Them's the breaks. And their own religion talks about it being better to pray in private. Not in some minor text. Matthew is kind of a big deal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She should take her prayers elsewhere and stay out of other peoples business. Can you see the irony? My opinion is not infringing on womens rights to privacy in healthcare. That is true. But it is however infringing on a woman's rights to worship her God as she feels most appropriate in dictating when where and how an individual should practise their faith and beliefs. Not defending it, just pointing out the irony." I understand your point but a woman’s right to privacy in healthcare should trump a woman’s choice to pray in a random place, hence why I said she should go and pray somewhere else. A woman will be limited to the places she can have an abortion procedure. A person can pray anywhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm pretty sure that if it had been a Muslim man praying there, then everyone above who is defending this woman, would have been screaming that he should be deported. And if anyone starts going off that "this is a Christian country!", please go throw yourself in the sea. PS. I am a Christian, one who has not just read most of the scriptures, but who has tried to understand them in the wider context of the societies where they were written. I get really really pissed off with the constant stream of people who continually shit on everything that real Christianity stands for by using it as an excuse to be vile specimens of humanity..." Is abortion mentioned in the bible, just out of the interest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She should take her prayers elsewhere and stay out of other peoples business. Can you see the irony? My opinion is not infringing on womens rights to privacy in healthcare. That is true. But it is however infringing on a woman's rights to worship her God as she feels most appropriate in dictating when where and how an individual should practise their faith and beliefs. Not defending it, just pointing out the irony. Sometimes there are places where you can't do things for public policy reasons. Them's the breaks. And their own religion talks about it being better to pray in private. Not in some minor text. Matthew is kind of a big deal." A huge part of the population felt the pride marches broke public policy and outraged public decency. Men with arses out in gimp costumes, people twirking, police dancing with them like it’s an orgy in the street… so I know how you feel about wanting people to keep stuff to themselves. (Just different stuff) Nowhere in the bible does it say not to pray or to prevent anyone who chooses to pray, anywhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm pretty sure that if it had been a Muslim man praying there, then everyone above who is defending this woman, would have been screaming that he should be deported. And if anyone starts going off that "this is a Christian country!", please go throw yourself in the sea. PS. I am a Christian, one who has not just read most of the scriptures, but who has tried to understand them in the wider context of the societies where they were written. I get really really pissed off with the constant stream of people who continually shit on everything that real Christianity stands for by using it as an excuse to be vile specimens of humanity... Is abortion mentioned in the bible, just out of the interest? " Yes it is. Exodus 20-13. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are doing the normal thing you do of going all round the houses to avoid answering a question. We know she was arrested, you asked should she be. When I answered the question you dismissed it and said but she got paid out. You then said you didn't think she should have been arrested. So I asked a question "Does that go for any rule/law broken?" you avoided it and repeated there was a protection order in place, which wasn't a quote to anyone so I answered about what happens if you breach the order. You then say but but but she got paid out. None of that answers the question of "Does that go for any rule/law broken?" Now obviously you don't have to answer the question but it makes a discussion very one sided Was that directed at Tom ? " No worries. I would have been very surprised if you had answered anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm pretty sure that if it had been a Muslim man praying there, then everyone above who is defending this woman, would have been screaming that he should be deported. And if anyone starts going off that "this is a Christian country!", please go throw yourself in the sea. PS. I am a Christian, one who has not just read most of the scriptures, but who has tried to understand them in the wider context of the societies where they were written. I get really really pissed off with the constant stream of people who continually shit on everything that real Christianity stands for by using it as an excuse to be vile specimens of humanity... Is abortion mentioned in the bible, just out of the interest? Yes it is. Exodus 20-13. " So it’s not mentioned then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Headlines should read "THICK WOMAN ARRESTED BY THICK POLICE OFFICER AND GIVEN 13k FOR THE PLEASURE". You're welcome tax payer. " Yes it should. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What have babies done to you this week?" Surely the question should be what have foetuses done this week? I had a wank the other day and came on a tissue. I then threw away the tissue. Did I kill humans? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What have babies done to you this week? Surely the question should be what have foetuses done this week? I had a wank the other day and came on a tissue. I then threw away the tissue. Did I kill humans? " It was in reference to all Tom’s other threads this week about kids. Not so smart now, are you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What have babies done to you this week? Surely the question should be what have foetuses done this week? I had a wank the other day and came on a tissue. I then threw away the tissue. Did I kill humans? " The question you’re alluding to is at what point does life begin. Is it at the point where a zygote is created when a sperm. Penetrates an egg? Is it after 3, 6 months or after the child is born? Abortion is allowed up to 23 weeks. That’s more than half the term of a pregnancy. Babies born at this point can survive and go on to live normal lives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What have babies done to you this week? Surely the question should be what have foetuses done this week? I had a wank the other day and came on a tissue. I then threw away the tissue. Did I kill humans? It was in reference to all Tom’s other threads this week about kids. Not so smart now, are you?" I don’t know, am I? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What have babies done to you this week? Surely the question should be what have foetuses done this week? I had a wank the other day and came on a tissue. I then threw away the tissue. Did I kill humans? The question you’re alluding to is at what point does life begin. Is it at the point where a zygote is created when a sperm. Penetrates an egg? Is it after 3, 6 months or after the child is born? Abortion is allowed up to 23 weeks. That’s more than half the term of a pregnancy. Babies born at this point can survive and go on to live normal lives. " That is my point - so when should the cut off be set? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What have babies done to you this week? Surely the question should be what have foetuses done this week? I had a wank the other day and came on a tissue. I then threw away the tissue. Did I kill humans? The question you’re alluding to is at what point does life begin. Is it at the point where a zygote is created when a sperm. Penetrates an egg? Is it after 3, 6 months or after the child is born? Abortion is allowed up to 23 weeks. That’s more than half the term of a pregnancy. Babies born at this point can survive and go on to live normal lives. That is my point - so when should the cut off be set? " I don’t know the answer to this. Sometimes it’s a trade off if the mother could be seriously harmed or serious birth defects detected. Many women who are pro choice argue that it’s their body, their choice. I think they forget the fact that their body is butchering a new body, that’s not theirs. The pro life side feel that these mothers owe it to the unborn children to nurture them. My personal view is that people who value their bodies must make a good effort to use birth control as prevention is better than cure. This does not work for all women, especially in cases of abuse or r*pe. It’s a very emotive subject. As for the lady praying, let her pray. Let her protest as long as she breaks no laws. If she does, then she will see the consequences. She has been a crisis pregnancy volunteer for 20 years, support women who would rather not have abortions, but were often pressured into this by partners or for other reasons. The charges against her were dropped as her actions did not meet the full test for prosecution. She was not coercing or being intimidating to anyone. She has received an out of court settlement from West Midlands police, settling her civil claim for unlawful arrest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. " Used to do it over here and punks would gather and abuse the anti choice scum. Religion needs banned or at least confined to churches so normal people don't have to put up with it. Should not be allowed to be taught in schools. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What have babies done to you this week? Surely the question should be what have foetuses done this week? I had a wank the other day and came on a tissue. I then threw away the tissue. Did I kill humans? The question you’re alluding to is at what point does life begin. Is it at the point where a zygote is created when a sperm. Penetrates an egg? Is it after 3, 6 months or after the child is born? Abortion is allowed up to 23 weeks. That’s more than half the term of a pregnancy. Babies born at this point can survive and go on to live normal lives. That is my point - so when should the cut off be set? I don’t know the answer to this. Sometimes it’s a trade off if the mother could be seriously harmed or serious birth defects detected. Many women who are pro choice argue that it’s their body, their choice. I think they forget the fact that their body is butchering a new body, that’s not theirs. The pro life side feel that these mothers owe it to the unborn children to nurture them. My personal view is that people who value their bodies must make a good effort to use birth control as prevention is better than cure. This does not work for all women, especially in cases of abuse or r*pe. It’s a very emotive subject. As for the lady praying, let her pray. Let her protest as long as she breaks no laws. If she does, then she will see the consequences. She has been a crisis pregnancy volunteer for 20 years, support women who would rather not have abortions, but were often pressured into this by partners or for other reasons. The charges against her were dropped as her actions did not meet the full test for prosecution. She was not coercing or being intimidating to anyone. She has received an out of court settlement from West Midlands police, settling her civil claim for unlawful arrest. " They're butchering nothing. Just removing a leech that could ruin their life. Absolutely no ones choice but the woman. Fucking butchering. That's a dudgi thing to say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Abortion is hard enough a decision as it is without strangers staring at you judging. That said, if other faiths are allowed to pray publicly then that means nobody should be arrested for it. Also, folk who are anti-abortion aren't necessarily scum. It's not men who have to decide whether to terminate a gestating life inside them. It also should NEVER be something that is celebrated or encouraged, as its more sensible to avoid risks of damaging your body by having to have abortions in the first place." They are scum. Think of nothing but their stupid backwards beliefs. It's hard enough for women without scum shouting abuse and standing in judgement on them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tom thinks she should not of been arrested but to be fair he does not know the full facts" Trixie wants to know when was the last time Tom had an abortion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'Removing a leech' is probably the most disgusting description for this that I've ever heard, foul beyond belief, Mrs x" That's what it is. Would not survive outside the woman's body. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'Removing a leech' is probably the most disgusting description for this that I've ever heard, foul beyond belief, Mrs x That's what it is. Would not survive outside the woman's body. " Yes, it’s a parasite | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. " This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. " Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What have babies done to you this week? Surely the question should be what have foetuses done this week? I had a wank the other day and came on a tissue. I then threw away the tissue. Did I kill humans? The question you’re alluding to is at what point does life begin. Is it at the point where a zygote is created when a sperm. Penetrates an egg? Is it after 3, 6 months or after the child is born? Abortion is allowed up to 23 weeks. That’s more than half the term of a pregnancy. Babies born at this point can survive and go on to live normal lives. That is my point - so when should the cut off be set? I don’t know the answer to this. Sometimes it’s a trade off if the mother could be seriously harmed or serious birth defects detected. Many women who are pro choice argue that it’s their body, their choice. I think they forget the fact that their body is butchering a new body, that’s not theirs. The pro life side feel that these mothers owe it to the unborn children to nurture them. My personal view is that people who value their bodies must make a good effort to use birth control as prevention is better than cure. This does not work for all women, especially in cases of abuse or r*pe. It’s a very emotive subject. As for the lady praying, let her pray. Let her protest as long as she breaks no laws. If she does, then she will see the consequences. She has been a crisis pregnancy volunteer for 20 years, support women who would rather not have abortions, but were often pressured into this by partners or for other reasons. The charges against her were dropped as her actions did not meet the full test for prosecution. She was not coercing or being intimidating to anyone. She has received an out of court settlement from West Midlands police, settling her civil claim for unlawful arrest. They're butchering nothing. Just removing a leech that could ruin their life. Absolutely no ones choice but the woman. Fucking butchering. That's a dudgi thing to say. " I apologise, it should have read nurturing, not butchering! but auto carrot has kicked in. Amazing how one word can change the whole context!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What have babies done to you this week? Surely the question should be what have foetuses done this week? I had a wank the other day and came on a tissue. I then threw away the tissue. Did I kill humans? The question you’re alluding to is at what point does life begin. Is it at the point where a zygote is created when a sperm. Penetrates an egg? Is it after 3, 6 months or after the child is born? Abortion is allowed up to 23 weeks. That’s more than half the term of a pregnancy. Babies born at this point can survive and go on to live normal lives. That is my point - so when should the cut off be set? I don’t know the answer to this. Sometimes it’s a trade off if the mother could be seriously harmed or serious birth defects detected. Many women who are pro choice argue that it’s their body, their choice. I think they forget the fact that their body is butchering a new body, that’s not theirs. The pro life side feel that these mothers owe it to the unborn children to nurture them. My personal view is that people who value their bodies must make a good effort to use birth control as prevention is better than cure. This does not work for all women, especially in cases of abuse or r*pe. It’s a very emotive subject. As for the lady praying, let her pray. Let her protest as long as she breaks no laws. If she does, then she will see the consequences. She has been a crisis pregnancy volunteer for 20 years, support women who would rather not have abortions, but were often pressured into this by partners or for other reasons. The charges against her were dropped as her actions did not meet the full test for prosecution. She was not coercing or being intimidating to anyone. She has received an out of court settlement from West Midlands police, settling her civil claim for unlawful arrest. They're butchering nothing. Just removing a leech that could ruin their life. Absolutely no ones choice but the woman. Fucking butchering. That's a dudgi thing to say. I apologise, it should have read nurturing, not butchering! but auto carrot has kicked in. Amazing how one word can change the whole context!!" Yes indeed... She wanted him to lick / kick her clit... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What have babies done to you this week? Surely the question should be what have foetuses done this week? I had a wank the other day and came on a tissue. I then threw away the tissue. Did I kill humans? The question you’re alluding to is at what point does life begin. Is it at the point where a zygote is created when a sperm. Penetrates an egg? Is it after 3, 6 months or after the child is born? Abortion is allowed up to 23 weeks. That’s more than half the term of a pregnancy. Babies born at this point can survive and go on to live normal lives. That is my point - so when should the cut off be set? I don’t know the answer to this. Sometimes it’s a trade off if the mother could be seriously harmed or serious birth defects detected. Many women who are pro choice argue that it’s their body, their choice. I think they forget the fact that their body is butchering a new body, that’s not theirs. The pro life side feel that these mothers owe it to the unborn children to nurture them. My personal view is that people who value their bodies must make a good effort to use birth control as prevention is better than cure. This does not work for all women, especially in cases of abuse or r*pe. It’s a very emotive subject. As for the lady praying, let her pray. Let her protest as long as she breaks no laws. If she does, then she will see the consequences. She has been a crisis pregnancy volunteer for 20 years, support women who would rather not have abortions, but were often pressured into this by partners or for other reasons. The charges against her were dropped as her actions did not meet the full test for prosecution. She was not coercing or being intimidating to anyone. She has received an out of court settlement from West Midlands police, settling her civil claim for unlawful arrest. They're butchering nothing. Just removing a leech that could ruin their life. Absolutely no ones choice but the woman. Fucking butchering. That's a dudgi thing to say. I apologise, it should have read nurturing, not butchering! but auto carrot has kicked in. Amazing how one word can change the whole context!! Yes indeed... She wanted him to lick / kick her clit... " Exactly! I’ve never cooked socks either! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. " Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. " Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. " The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. " The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in." I agree that there might be other reasons not to prosecute. Public interest is one reason that’s commonly used. What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic. How on earth is a police officer supposed to deal with that? How can the determine what someone is thinking? The thought police are coming! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in." I thought it was the independent cps who decided on who gets prosecuted.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. I thought it was the independent cps who decided on who gets prosecuted.? " Yes, I misspoke. I don't think it affects the rest of my statement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'Removing a leech' is probably the most disgusting description for this that I've ever heard, foul beyond belief, Mrs x That's what it is. Would not survive outside the woman's body. Yes, it’s a parasite " I'm not anti abortion, I believe a woman should have choice over her own body. I just think terminology like this is repulsive, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. I agree that there might be other reasons not to prosecute. Public interest is one reason that’s commonly used. What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic. How on earth is a police officer supposed to deal with that? How can the determine what someone is thinking? The thought police are coming!" I imagine it would be treated like every other offence that isn't immediately apparent - if it's not seen and it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't come to their attention. If it does, it might. I imagine this is aimed at intimidation tactics or trying to obstruct access. They can always - as we see here - have cases they think are below the standard for prosecution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'Removing a leech' is probably the most disgusting description for this that I've ever heard, foul beyond belief, Mrs x That's what it is. Would not survive outside the woman's body. Yes, it’s a parasite I'm not anti abortion, I believe a woman should have choice over her own body. I just think terminology like this is repulsive, Mrs x" And you are clearly entitled to your opinion and I wouldn’t try to stop you. But to explain my post, a foetus is literally parasitic on the mother. Sometimes that is welcome, and sometimes it isn’t | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'Removing a leech' is probably the most disgusting description for this that I've ever heard, foul beyond belief, Mrs x That's what it is. Would not survive outside the woman's body. Yes, it’s a parasite I'm not anti abortion, I believe a woman should have choice over her own body. I just think terminology like this is repulsive, Mrs x And you are clearly entitled to your opinion and I wouldn’t try to stop you. But to explain my post, a foetus is literally parasitic on the mother. Sometimes that is welcome, and sometimes it isn’t" I can appreciate that view. Some wont | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. I agree that there might be other reasons not to prosecute. Public interest is one reason that’s commonly used. What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic. How on earth is a police officer supposed to deal with that? How can the determine what someone is thinking? The thought police are coming! I imagine it would be treated like every other offence that isn't immediately apparent - if it's not seen and it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't come to their attention. If it does, it might. I imagine this is aimed at intimidation tactics or trying to obstruct access. They can always - as we see here - have cases they think are below the standard for prosecution." Imagine an officer trying to gather evidence about what a person was thinking though. Imagine thoughts being illegal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. I agree that there might be other reasons not to prosecute. Public interest is one reason that’s commonly used. What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic. How on earth is a police officer supposed to deal with that? How can the determine what someone is thinking? The thought police are coming! I imagine it would be treated like every other offence that isn't immediately apparent - if it's not seen and it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't come to their attention. If it does, it might. I imagine this is aimed at intimidation tactics or trying to obstruct access. They can always - as we see here - have cases they think are below the standard for prosecution. Imagine an officer trying to gather evidence about what a person was thinking though. Imagine thoughts being illegal. " An officer of the law ?. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. I agree that there might be other reasons not to prosecute. Public interest is one reason that’s commonly used. What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic. How on earth is a police officer supposed to deal with that? How can the determine what someone is thinking? The thought police are coming! I imagine it would be treated like every other offence that isn't immediately apparent - if it's not seen and it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't come to their attention. If it does, it might. I imagine this is aimed at intimidation tactics or trying to obstruct access. They can always - as we see here - have cases they think are below the standard for prosecution. Imagine an officer trying to gather evidence about what a person was thinking though. Imagine thoughts being illegal. " Why? What evidence is there that anything like that would ever happen? There are plenty of things that are illegal but are only prosecuted if they're extreme or seen. Thought crime is a fun wank, but it's detached from observable reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. I agree that there might be other reasons not to prosecute. Public interest is one reason that’s commonly used. What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic. How on earth is a police officer supposed to deal with that? How can the determine what someone is thinking? The thought police are coming! I imagine it would be treated like every other offence that isn't immediately apparent - if it's not seen and it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't come to their attention. If it does, it might. I imagine this is aimed at intimidation tactics or trying to obstruct access. They can always - as we see here - have cases they think are below the standard for prosecution. Imagine an officer trying to gather evidence about what a person was thinking though. Imagine thoughts being illegal. Why? What evidence is there that anything like that would ever happen? There are plenty of things that are illegal but are only prosecuted if they're extreme or seen. Thought crime is a fun wank, but it's detached from observable reality." The evidence is as you or someone else wrote above... " What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic." If its silent then who is able to say what they are thinking? Hence thought police comments.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. I agree that there might be other reasons not to prosecute. Public interest is one reason that’s commonly used. What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic. How on earth is a police officer supposed to deal with that? How can the determine what someone is thinking? The thought police are coming! I imagine it would be treated like every other offence that isn't immediately apparent - if it's not seen and it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't come to their attention. If it does, it might. I imagine this is aimed at intimidation tactics or trying to obstruct access. They can always - as we see here - have cases they think are below the standard for prosecution. Imagine an officer trying to gather evidence about what a person was thinking though. Imagine thoughts being illegal. Why? What evidence is there that anything like that would ever happen? There are plenty of things that are illegal but are only prosecuted if they're extreme or seen. Thought crime is a fun wank, but it's detached from observable reality. The evidence is as you or someone else wrote above... " What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic." If its silent then who is able to say what they are thinking? Hence thought police comments.. " Silent doesn't mean unobservable. It means not verbalised. I could silently masturbate in Tesco. It's still obvious I'm masturbating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. I agree that there might be other reasons not to prosecute. Public interest is one reason that’s commonly used. What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic. How on earth is a police officer supposed to deal with that? How can the determine what someone is thinking? The thought police are coming! I imagine it would be treated like every other offence that isn't immediately apparent - if it's not seen and it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't come to their attention. If it does, it might. I imagine this is aimed at intimidation tactics or trying to obstruct access. They can always - as we see here - have cases they think are below the standard for prosecution. Imagine an officer trying to gather evidence about what a person was thinking though. Imagine thoughts being illegal. Why? What evidence is there that anything like that would ever happen? There are plenty of things that are illegal but are only prosecuted if they're extreme or seen. Thought crime is a fun wank, but it's detached from observable reality. The evidence is as you or someone else wrote above... " What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic." If its silent then who is able to say what they are thinking? Hence thought police comments.. Silent doesn't mean unobservable. It means not verbalised. I could silently masturbate in Tesco. It's still obvious I'm masturbating." You madturbate in Tesco,? Please spare us the detail | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. I agree that there might be other reasons not to prosecute. Public interest is one reason that’s commonly used. What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic. How on earth is a police officer supposed to deal with that? How can the determine what someone is thinking? The thought police are coming! I imagine it would be treated like every other offence that isn't immediately apparent - if it's not seen and it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't come to their attention. If it does, it might. I imagine this is aimed at intimidation tactics or trying to obstruct access. They can always - as we see here - have cases they think are below the standard for prosecution. Imagine an officer trying to gather evidence about what a person was thinking though. Imagine thoughts being illegal. Why? What evidence is there that anything like that would ever happen? There are plenty of things that are illegal but are only prosecuted if they're extreme or seen. Thought crime is a fun wank, but it's detached from observable reality. The evidence is as you or someone else wrote above... " What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic." If its silent then who is able to say what they are thinking? Hence thought police comments.. Silent doesn't mean unobservable. It means not verbalised. I could silently masturbate in Tesco. It's still obvious I'm masturbating. You madturbate in Tesco,? Please spare us the detail" Do you know the difference between "could" and "do"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. I agree that there might be other reasons not to prosecute. Public interest is one reason that’s commonly used. What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic. How on earth is a police officer supposed to deal with that? How can the determine what someone is thinking? The thought police are coming! I imagine it would be treated like every other offence that isn't immediately apparent - if it's not seen and it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't come to their attention. If it does, it might. I imagine this is aimed at intimidation tactics or trying to obstruct access. They can always - as we see here - have cases they think are below the standard for prosecution. Imagine an officer trying to gather evidence about what a person was thinking though. Imagine thoughts being illegal. Why? What evidence is there that anything like that would ever happen? There are plenty of things that are illegal but are only prosecuted if they're extreme or seen. Thought crime is a fun wank, but it's detached from observable reality. The evidence is as you or someone else wrote above... " What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic." If its silent then who is able to say what they are thinking? Hence thought police comments.. Silent doesn't mean unobservable. It means not verbalised. I could silently masturbate in Tesco. It's still obvious I'm masturbating." You could and no it certainly wouldn't be obvious if you were being discreet. It could be obvious. Equally it could not be obvious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. I agree that there might be other reasons not to prosecute. Public interest is one reason that’s commonly used. What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic. How on earth is a police officer supposed to deal with that? How can the determine what someone is thinking? The thought police are coming! I imagine it would be treated like every other offence that isn't immediately apparent - if it's not seen and it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't come to their attention. If it does, it might. I imagine this is aimed at intimidation tactics or trying to obstruct access. They can always - as we see here - have cases they think are below the standard for prosecution. Imagine an officer trying to gather evidence about what a person was thinking though. Imagine thoughts being illegal. Why? What evidence is there that anything like that would ever happen? There are plenty of things that are illegal but are only prosecuted if they're extreme or seen. Thought crime is a fun wank, but it's detached from observable reality. The evidence is as you or someone else wrote above... " What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic." If its silent then who is able to say what they are thinking? Hence thought police comments.. Silent doesn't mean unobservable. It means not verbalised. I could silently masturbate in Tesco. It's still obvious I'm masturbating." How would you know someone was praying. Masturbating is a physical act, praying is not. That’s not one of your better similes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. I agree that there might be other reasons not to prosecute. Public interest is one reason that’s commonly used. What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic. How on earth is a police officer supposed to deal with that? How can the determine what someone is thinking? The thought police are coming! I imagine it would be treated like every other offence that isn't immediately apparent - if it's not seen and it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't come to their attention. If it does, it might. I imagine this is aimed at intimidation tactics or trying to obstruct access. They can always - as we see here - have cases they think are below the standard for prosecution. Imagine an officer trying to gather evidence about what a person was thinking though. Imagine thoughts being illegal. Why? What evidence is there that anything like that would ever happen? There are plenty of things that are illegal but are only prosecuted if they're extreme or seen. Thought crime is a fun wank, but it's detached from observable reality. The evidence is as you or someone else wrote above... " What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic." If its silent then who is able to say what they are thinking? Hence thought police comments.. Silent doesn't mean unobservable. It means not verbalised. I could silently masturbate in Tesco. It's still obvious I'm masturbating. How would you know someone was praying. Masturbating is a physical act, praying is not. That’s not one of your better similes. " Yes, I explained myself poorly. If I were masturbating in Tesco and it was obvious what I was doing, that would be a problem. If I were masturbating with a toy (love egg, whatever) and no one could see what I was doing, it would be unenforceable. Similarly, if someone is on their knees with hands clasped in prayer, it's obvious what they're doing. If they're just thinking, it's not. I'm sure that under certain circumstances, creating a spectacle of prayer could be intimidating, given the intersection of some religious groups and anti abortion activism/ terrorism. (Not all religious groups, and much more in America) The idea of "thought crime" is still nothing more than a fun wank for people with a victimhood kink. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am repulsed at some of the terms used here. To be honest it is disgusting. It seems anyone who has contrary view against abortion is vilified. So much for respecting difference. Tolerance in short supply here. Shame on those who have reduced human life to an inconvenience. I won't repeat the repulsive terms. And I guess I will be ridiculed for during my view too. " Yeah agreed. Shame. People don't even seem to have the self awareness to understand that. Suspect it's keyboard warrior itis | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She knew what she was doing, why didn't she go pray in a park or even better a church. Abortion for most people is the hardest decision they will ever have to make some have to make it on medical grounds they should be allowed to walk in without feeling that extra guilt by idiots. It's a joke that they payed out compensation to her. Agreed. She's entitled to her beliefs. She's entitled to protest. If there's a safe area designated, she's not entitled to do what she did within that area. Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. The cps looked at the case and decided it did not meet the minimum requirements for prosecution. Make of that what you will, but if what she was doing was unlawful, she’d have been prosecuted. The government don't prosecute all instances of law breaking. I grant that it was seen as not worth prosecuting. That doesn't mean she didn't break the law. It was an edge case, clearly. If I say "she should not have done this" I don't just mean according to the prosecution standards of the CPS. If I say I shouldn't have eaten a pint of Ben and Jerry's, it's not because I expect Greater Manchester Police to kick my door in. I agree that there might be other reasons not to prosecute. Public interest is one reason that’s commonly used. What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic. How on earth is a police officer supposed to deal with that? How can the determine what someone is thinking? The thought police are coming! I imagine it would be treated like every other offence that isn't immediately apparent - if it's not seen and it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't come to their attention. If it does, it might. I imagine this is aimed at intimidation tactics or trying to obstruct access. They can always - as we see here - have cases they think are below the standard for prosecution. Imagine an officer trying to gather evidence about what a person was thinking though. Imagine thoughts being illegal. Why? What evidence is there that anything like that would ever happen? There are plenty of things that are illegal but are only prosecuted if they're extreme or seen. Thought crime is a fun wank, but it's detached from observable reality. The evidence is as you or someone else wrote above... " What is interesting though is that the home office is considering banning silent prayer within 150 metres of a clinic." If its silent then who is able to say what they are thinking? Hence thought police comments.. Silent doesn't mean unobservable. It means not verbalised. I could silently masturbate in Tesco. It's still obvious I'm masturbating. How would you know someone was praying. Masturbating is a physical act, praying is not. That’s not one of your better similes. Yes, I explained myself poorly. If I were masturbating in Tesco and it was obvious what I was doing, that would be a problem. If I were masturbating with a toy (love egg, whatever) and no one could see what I was doing, it would be unenforceable. Similarly, if someone is on their knees with hands clasped in prayer, it's obvious what they're doing. If they're just thinking, it's not. I'm sure that under certain circumstances, creating a spectacle of prayer could be intimidating, given the intersection of some religious groups and anti abortion activism/ terrorism. (Not all religious groups, and much more in America) The idea of "thought crime" is still nothing more than a fun wank for people with a victimhood kink." So silent prayer up to 150 metres from a clinic will be ok as long as no clasped hands or rosary beads. Only overt silent prayer. I really will be interested to read the wording of the law on this when/if passed. If nothing else to see how they define silent prayer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. " This, it was the 2nd time she was arrested so she knew the score. Mrs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. This, it was the 2nd time she was arrested so she knew the score. Exactly!!! Mrs " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. This, it was the 2nd time she was arrested so she knew the score. Mrs " She deserved to be arrested then and ridiculous that she has received compensation too. She had no need to be there. Clearly just trying to push her religious views on others. Interfering cow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes she deserved arrested. Those anti choice scum need beaten off the streets. She was just stood there preying. Nothing else" Quite a different between preying and praying. If she was preying on the people entering the abortion clinic, I think that it was probably correct tgat she was arrested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes she deserved arrested. Those anti choice scum need beaten off the streets. She was just stood there preying. Nothing else Quite a different*** between preying and praying. If she was preying on the people entering the abortion clinic, I think that it was probably correct tgat she was arrested." *** difference | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. This, it was the 2nd time she was arrested so she knew the score. Mrs She deserved to be arrested then and ridiculous that she has received compensation too. She had no need to be there. Clearly just trying to push her religious views on others. Interfering cow." Explain how she was pushing her religious view on others. Did he say something? Explain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BCFC😂" SOTV | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. This, it was the 2nd time she was arrested so she knew the score. Mrs She deserved to be arrested then and ridiculous that she has received compensation too. She had no need to be there. Clearly just trying to push her religious views on others. Interfering cow. Explain how she was pushing her religious view on others. Did he say something? Explain" She could have prayed elsewhere. In one article I read, she would hand out pro-life leaflets to those attending the clinics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. This, it was the 2nd time she was arrested so she knew the score. Mrs She deserved to be arrested then and ridiculous that she has received compensation too. She had no need to be there. Clearly just trying to push her religious views on others. Interfering cow. Explain how she was pushing her religious view on others. Did he say something? Explain" I don't know the details. But if she was in the zone she shouldn't have been in, then she shouldn't have been in it. It's not "this is not an area you can loiter in unless you have religious beliefs that make you above the law, ignoring the Bible" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. This, it was the 2nd time she was arrested so she knew the score. Mrs She deserved to be arrested then and ridiculous that she has received compensation too. She had no need to be there. Clearly just trying to push her religious views on others. Interfering cow. Explain how she was pushing her religious view on others. Did he say something? Explain She could have prayed elsewhere. In one article I read, she would hand out pro-life leaflets to those attending the clinics." That's not answering what I asked. What did the woman say that she was pushing her religious views on others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. This, it was the 2nd time she was arrested so she knew the score. Mrs She deserved to be arrested then and ridiculous that she has received compensation too. She had no need to be there. Clearly just trying to push her religious views on others. Interfering cow. Explain how she was pushing her religious view on others. Did he say something? Explain She could have prayed elsewhere. In one article I read, she would hand out pro-life leaflets to those attending the clinics. That's not answering what I asked. What did the woman say that she was pushing her religious views on others." I wasn’t there… but giving leaflets out is pushing her view (in my opinion) and no one should have been in that area unless they were using the clinics facilities. It was right that she was moved and arrested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. This, it was the 2nd time she was arrested so she knew the score. Mrs She deserved to be arrested then and ridiculous that she has received compensation too. She had no need to be there. Clearly just trying to push her religious views on others. Interfering cow. Explain how she was pushing her religious view on others. Did he say something? Explain She could have prayed elsewhere. In one article I read, she would hand out pro-life leaflets to those attending the clinics. That's not answering what I asked. What did the woman say that she was pushing her religious views on others. I wasn’t there… but giving leaflets out is pushing her view (in my opinion) and no one should have been in that area unless they were using the clinics facilities. It was right that she was moved and arrested." I find the handing out of leaflets so weird. Under what rock do people assume we live? "I have seen two doctors to be approved for this, I have spoken to people I care about. I've thought carefully about this. But what's this? A picture of a foetus? A cross? Things I have clearly never seen in a country that is officially Christian, because I have been locked in a basement until this moment? Ah ha. John 3:16. The scales have fallen from my eyes, and I must accept this very particular kind of Christianity, which I was somehow unaware of despite its being plastered all over the media for my whole life!" It's pathetic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? " All freedoms are a series of compromises. All of them. She can have her religion all day long, and in many circumstances it will be protected. But not in that area. If hypothetical Bob (sorry to anyone called Bob) came at me with a weapon and the only way I could defend myself was to kill him, then he has likely forfeited his right to life - the most sacrosanct right of all (for persons under the law). What you're basically saying is because in some extremely specific circumstances, it's ok for me to kill Bob, therefore it's open season on murder. Which is clearly ridiculous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What was she praying for? " Fire and damnation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? All freedoms are a series of compromises. All of them. She can have her religion all day long, and in many circumstances it will be protected. But not in that area. If hypothetical Bob (sorry to anyone called Bob) came at me with a weapon and the only way I could defend myself was to kill him, then he has likely forfeited his right to life - the most sacrosanct right of all (for persons under the law). What you're basically saying is because in some extremely specific circumstances, it's ok for me to kill Bob, therefore it's open season on murder. Which is clearly ridiculous." Your view. Definitely not mine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? " It was a PSPO protected area. She shouldn’t have been there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What you're basically saying is because in some extremely specific circumstances, it's ok for me to kill Bob, therefore it's open season on murder. Which is clearly ridiculous." Can we have one day a year when it is open season on murder? - that's only one day out of 365, cant be too much to ask. Will it only be one person that we can do away with (I may have quite a lengthy list)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were anti abortion, I would spend my time volunteering in places other than where I'm clearly not welcome. I'd work on the causes of abortions that can be prevented: poverty, violence, etc. That woman I hypothetically harassed might not have that abortion if her kids had enough to eat, if she could escape her abuser, if she'd had sufficient education to get a more well paying job, etc. Hanging around outside abortion clinics is just being a nuisance." 👏🏼👏🏼 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? All freedoms are a series of compromises. All of them. She can have her religion all day long, and in many circumstances it will be protected. But not in that area. If hypothetical Bob (sorry to anyone called Bob) came at me with a weapon and the only way I could defend myself was to kill him, then he has likely forfeited his right to life - the most sacrosanct right of all (for persons under the law). What you're basically saying is because in some extremely specific circumstances, it's ok for me to kill Bob, therefore it's open season on murder. Which is clearly ridiculous. Your view. Definitely not mine" No it's not my view. You are decrying that there's a lack of freedom of religion. All freedoms are limited. She should do as Jesus recommends in Matthew and pray in a private room, rather than seeking her reward in the mortal realm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? It was a PSPO protected area. She shouldn’t have been there." Clearly the police didn't have a case and settled it. She was standing close by and in silent prayer. No case against her | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? It was a PSPO protected area. She shouldn’t have been there. Clearly the police didn't have a case and settled it. She was standing close by and in silent prayer. No case against her" Yes, in this specific instance. As I've noted earlier, not all illegal acts meet the threshold for prosecution, which seems to be what the lawsuit was about. She should still stay the fuck out of a protected area and stop being a nuisance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What you're basically saying is because in some extremely specific circumstances, it's ok for me to kill Bob, therefore it's open season on murder. Which is clearly ridiculous. Can we have one day a year when it is open season on murder? - that's only one day out of 365, cant be too much to ask. Will it only be one person that we can do away with (I may have quite a lengthy list)?" I prefer a world where we realise all rights have limitations and are a basis of compromise. But I suppose one day of hunting season is a reasonable exchange for getting to harass people seeking medical care or banning pork or something. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What you're basically saying is because in some extremely specific circumstances, it's ok for me to kill Bob, therefore it's open season on murder. Which is clearly ridiculous. Can we have one day a year when it is open season on murder? - that's only one day out of 365, cant be too much to ask. Will it only be one person that we can do away with (I may have quite a lengthy list)? I prefer a world where we realise all rights have limitations and are a basis of compromise. But I suppose one day of hunting season is a reasonable exchange for getting to harass people seeking medical care or banning pork or something." Not bothered about pork, but olives and lentils, that is a different matter  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What you're basically saying is because in some extremely specific circumstances, it's ok for me to kill Bob, therefore it's open season on murder. Which is clearly ridiculous. Can we have one day a year when it is open season on murder? - that's only one day out of 365, cant be too much to ask. Will it only be one person that we can do away with (I may have quite a lengthy list)? I prefer a world where we realise all rights have limitations and are a basis of compromise. But I suppose one day of hunting season is a reasonable exchange for getting to harass people seeking medical care or banning pork or something. Not bothered about pork, but olives and lentils, that is a different matter " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. " Sometimes civil cases are settled out of court as it's a simple business/financial decision. It's cheaper to pay off someone with 13k than to contest the decision, which would probably cost substantially more. No liability has been accepted. This is about money, nothing else. Gbat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. Sometimes civil cases are settled out of court as it's a simple business/financial decision. It's cheaper to pay off someone with 13k than to contest the decision, which would probably cost substantially more. No liability has been accepted. This is about money, nothing else. Gbat" I'm happy to concede that it might have been below the accepted threshold for arrest and prosecution. (I have little/no evidence as to what she did in particular) A lot of bad things are below that threshold. That doesn't vindicate the behaviour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? It was a PSPO protected area. She shouldn’t have been there. Clearly the police didn't have a case and settled it. She was standing close by and in silent prayer. No case against her" She may have been cleared of the charges but it still doesn’t mean she was right for being there. She was/is a nuisance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be allowed to loiter outside abortion clinics. Women deserve to access the facilities in private and without the worry of being hassled, approached or intimidated by pro-life people/groups. This, it was the 2nd time she was arrested so she knew the score. Mrs " Clearly.. She's now 13k better off. I imagine 3rd times going to be a charm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. Sometimes civil cases are settled out of court as it's a simple business/financial decision. It's cheaper to pay off someone with 13k than to contest the decision, which would probably cost substantially more. No liability has been accepted. This is about money, nothing else. Gbat I'm happy to concede that it might have been below the accepted threshold for arrest and prosecution. (I have little/no evidence as to what she did in particular) A lot of bad things are below that threshold. That doesn't vindicate the behaviour." That will be the behaviour you're judging but about which you little / no evidence as to what she did in particular.? I see. Not a Strong evidence based argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. Sometimes civil cases are settled out of court as it's a simple business/financial decision. It's cheaper to pay off someone with 13k than to contest the decision, which would probably cost substantially more. No liability has been accepted. This is about money, nothing else. Gbat" Maybe a bit more than that. Maybe she genuinely cares about unborn children and vulnerable mothers? Did she go there to earn money? I’m not so sure she did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? It was a PSPO protected area. She shouldn’t have been there. Clearly the police didn't have a case and settled it. She was standing close by and in silent prayer. No case against her Yes, in this specific instance. As I've noted earlier, not all illegal acts meet the threshold for prosecution, which seems to be what the lawsuit was about. She should still stay the fuck out of a protected area and stop being a nuisance." Just like all the other protesters? Like the suffragettes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Upon reflection though, west midland police thought otherwise and compensated her for wrongful arrest. Which might imply she was not breaking a law and was entitled to do what she was, where she was, when she was. Or otherwise she'd have been prosecuted not rewarded? Strange old world. Sometimes civil cases are settled out of court as it's a simple business/financial decision. It's cheaper to pay off someone with 13k than to contest the decision, which would probably cost substantially more. No liability has been accepted. This is about money, nothing else. Gbat I'm happy to concede that it might have been below the accepted threshold for arrest and prosecution. (I have little/no evidence as to what she did in particular) A lot of bad things are below that threshold. That doesn't vindicate the behaviour. That will be the behaviour you're judging but about which you little / no evidence as to what she did in particular.? I see. Not a Strong evidence based argument. " I'll give your reproach appropriate consideration | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? It was a PSPO protected area. She shouldn’t have been there. Clearly the police didn't have a case and settled it. She was standing close by and in silent prayer. No case against her Yes, in this specific instance. As I've noted earlier, not all illegal acts meet the threshold for prosecution, which seems to be what the lawsuit was about. She should still stay the fuck out of a protected area and stop being a nuisance. Just like all the other protesters? Like the suffragettes? " No, I believe that women getting rights in society and people trying to interfere in medical procedures are fundamentally different. A foetus/ baby/ child/ whatever you want to call it has as much right to my uterus as I have to your kidney. You can tell me to fuck off. I can tell him/her/it to fuck off. Skydaddy says otherwise only counts if there's mutual agreement on the existence and demands of Skydaddy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Abortion is hard enough a decision as it is without strangers staring at you judging. That said, if other faiths are allowed to pray publicly then that means nobody should be arrested for it. Also, folk who are anti-abortion aren't necessarily scum. It's not men who have to decide whether to terminate a gestating life inside them. It also should NEVER be something that is celebrated or encouraged, as its more sensible to avoid risks of damaging your body by having to have abortions in the first place." A huge proportion of the anti-abortion people would also like to ban the day-after pill and many still would like to prevent young people having access to condoms. To say nothing about the rabid misogynists who think that the USA states where abortion has been banned EVEN IN THE CASES OF R@PE and CHILDREN BEING R@PED BY RELATIVES (lets call inc€st for what it really is) are somehow doing the work of the Lord. NOBODY ever goes for an abortion as a casual decision, you don't get a two for one offer with a boob job thrown in. The abortion protestors get to walk away after an afternoon feeling good about how moral they are, go home for a nice meal, say their prayers and retire to their lovely warm beds. Meanwhile some of the women that they have managed to scare away from the clinic might have to go back to homes where they are being abused, where they might die in childbirth, where they may have an economic situation such that raising a child safely and happily is impossible, where resulting children may have desperately unhappy or violent childhoods. Still at least the abortion protestors will get a warm glow of righteous feeling that they are serving their Lord... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Abortion is hard enough a decision as it is without strangers staring at you judging. That said, if other faiths are allowed to pray publicly then that means nobody should be arrested for it. Also, folk who are anti-abortion aren't necessarily scum. It's not men who have to decide whether to terminate a gestating life inside them. It also should NEVER be something that is celebrated or encouraged, as its more sensible to avoid risks of damaging your body by having to have abortions in the first place. A huge proportion of the anti-abortion people would also like to ban the day-after pill and many still would like to prevent young people having access to condoms. To say nothing about the rabid misogynists who think that the USA states where abortion has been banned EVEN IN THE CASES OF R@PE and CHILDREN BEING R@PED BY RELATIVES (lets call inc€st for what it really is) are somehow doing the work of the Lord. NOBODY ever goes for an abortion as a casual decision, you don't get a two for one offer with a boob job thrown in. The abortion protestors get to walk away after an afternoon feeling good about how moral they are, go home for a nice meal, say their prayers and retire to their lovely warm beds. Meanwhile some of the women that they have managed to scare away from the clinic might have to go back to homes where they are being abused, where they might die in childbirth, where they may have an economic situation such that raising a child safely and happily is impossible, where resulting children may have desperately unhappy or violent childhoods. Still at least the abortion protestors will get a warm glow of righteous feeling that they are serving their Lord..." As I say, if I were against abortion, I'd work on things like domestic violence, child welfare, and making sure children have enough food to eat. (And sex education, if my beliefs were in line with letting people use contraception) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? It was a PSPO protected area. She shouldn’t have been there. Clearly the police didn't have a case and settled it. She was standing close by and in silent prayer. No case against her She may have been cleared of the charges but it still doesn’t mean she was right for being there. She was/is a nuisance. " Why? People have a legal right to protest or to express their views in a non-violent or confrontational way. She clearly feels strongly that life begins at the point of conception (as most Christians do) and felt that she needs to express her democratic right- or is this only acceptable if it's for the "correct" causes? As a Christian, she's clearly decided that public, silent prayer is most appropriate. It's really no different to vegans who hold vigils outside abbatoirs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? It was a PSPO protected area. She shouldn’t have been there. Clearly the police didn't have a case and settled it. She was standing close by and in silent prayer. No case against her She may have been cleared of the charges but it still doesn’t mean she was right for being there. She was/is a nuisance. Why? People have a legal right to protest or to express their views in a non-violent or confrontational way. She clearly feels strongly that life begins at the point of conception (as most Christians do) and felt that she needs to express her democratic right- or is this only acceptable if it's for the "correct" causes? As a Christian, she's clearly decided that public, silent prayer is most appropriate. It's really no different to vegans who hold vigils outside abbatoirs. " And if there were an exclusion zone around the abattoir, they should also stop being a nuisance and go elsewhere. I don't see that she does any good, apart from being a fun martyr for a minute - by pushing the limits of the law and harassing women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What have babies done to you this week? Surely the question should be what have foetuses done this week? I had a wank the other day and came on a tissue. I then threw away the tissue. Did I kill humans? " I believe the scriptures had something to say about Onan and his particular 'ism'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What have babies done to you this week? Surely the question should be what have foetuses done this week? I had a wank the other day and came on a tissue. I then threw away the tissue. Did I kill humans? I believe the scriptures had something to say about Onan and his particular 'ism'. " I believe it's the case - and I can't be bothered to look it up - that the Old Testament talks about the permissibility of abortion, and Jesus doesn't mention it. But I'm not sure why Christians would believe in that. It's not like it's the Bibl... oh wait. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No liability has been accepted. This is about money, nothing else. Gbat Maybe a bit more than that. Maybe she genuinely cares about unborn children and vulnerable mothers? Did she go there to earn money? I’m not so sure she did. " Sorry, I meant the decision by the police to pay her was financially based, not her decision to put pressure on women who are probably in a very emotionally vulnerable state. I'm sure she's got very strong feelings on this. I hope so, because to behave in such a reprehensible way on a whim would be bizarre. Gbat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? It was a PSPO protected area. She shouldn’t have been there. Clearly the police didn't have a case and settled it. She was standing close by and in silent prayer. No case against her She may have been cleared of the charges but it still doesn’t mean she was right for being there. She was/is a nuisance. Why? People have a legal right to protest or to express their views in a non-violent or confrontational way. She clearly feels strongly that life begins at the point of conception (as most Christians do) and felt that she needs to express her democratic right- or is this only acceptable if it's for the "correct" causes? As a Christian, she's clearly decided that public, silent prayer is most appropriate. It's really no different to vegans who hold vigils outside abbatoirs. And if there were an exclusion zone around the abattoir, they should also stop being a nuisance and go elsewhere. I don't see that she does any good, apart from being a fun martyr for a minute - by pushing the limits of the law and harassing women." Fully agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No liability has been accepted. This is about money, nothing else. Gbat Maybe a bit more than that. Maybe she genuinely cares about unborn children and vulnerable mothers? Did she go there to earn money? I’m not so sure she did. Sorry, I meant the decision by the police to pay her was financially based, not her decision to put pressure on women who are probably in a very emotionally vulnerable state. I'm sure she's got very strong feelings on this. I hope so, because to behave in such a reprehensible way on a whim would be bizarre. Gbat" I'm aware from friends that the government (and bodies funded that way) are more likely to seek to settle than try to engage in litigation, even where they could win. (Not universal. Not enough information here) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? It was a PSPO protected area. She shouldn’t have been there. Clearly the police didn't have a case and settled it. She was standing close by and in silent prayer. No case against her She may have been cleared of the charges but it still doesn’t mean she was right for being there. She was/is a nuisance. Why? People have a legal right to protest or to express their views in a non-violent or confrontational way. She clearly feels strongly that life begins at the point of conception (as most Christians do) and felt that she needs to express her democratic right- or is this only acceptable if it's for the "correct" causes? As a Christian, she's clearly decided that public, silent prayer is most appropriate. It's really no different to vegans who hold vigils outside abbatoirs. And if there were an exclusion zone around the abattoir, they should also stop being a nuisance and go elsewhere. I don't see that she does any good, apart from being a fun martyr for a minute - by pushing the limits of the law and harassing women." You wouldn't as you clearly don't share her beliefs and she doesn't share yours either but her conscience has obviously moved her to act peacefully. I'm not sure how a lady silently praying could ever be seen as menacing or harassing but maybe that's cos I'm not a woman and maybe cos I don't share popular views. I see it as freedom of speech. As for pushing limits of the law, certain protests and vigils went ahead (correctly) during lockdown when mass gathering were banned- should everyone stayed at home and said nothing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No liability has been accepted. This is about money, nothing else. Gbat Maybe a bit more than that. Maybe she genuinely cares about unborn children and vulnerable mothers? Did she go there to earn money? I’m not so sure she did. Sorry, I meant the decision by the police to pay her was financially based, not her decision to put pressure on women who are probably in a very emotionally vulnerable state. I'm sure she's got very strong feelings on this. I hope so, because to behave in such a reprehensible way on a whim would be bizarre. Gbat I'm aware from friends that the government (and bodies funded that way) are more likely to seek to settle than try to engage in litigation, even where they could win. (Not universal. Not enough information here)" This may be due to legal precedence that could be set by court decisions. I’m not entirely sure by this either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes it is. Exodus 20-13. " thou shalt not kill. Got it. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Hard pass there. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife etc... So any couples are to face eternity in damnation, as well as anyone who winks and fabs any couple... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrested for silent prayer near a clinic. Where's freedom of religion being expressed here? It was a PSPO protected area. She shouldn’t have been there. Clearly the police didn't have a case and settled it. She was standing close by and in silent prayer. No case against her She may have been cleared of the charges but it still doesn’t mean she was right for being there. She was/is a nuisance. Why? People have a legal right to protest or to express their views in a non-violent or confrontational way. She clearly feels strongly that life begins at the point of conception (as most Christians do) and felt that she needs to express her democratic right- or is this only acceptable if it's for the "correct" causes? As a Christian, she's clearly decided that public, silent prayer is most appropriate. It's really no different to vegans who hold vigils outside abbatoirs. And if there were an exclusion zone around the abattoir, they should also stop being a nuisance and go elsewhere. I don't see that she does any good, apart from being a fun martyr for a minute - by pushing the limits of the law and harassing women. You wouldn't as you clearly don't share her beliefs and she doesn't share yours either but her conscience has obviously moved her to act peacefully. I'm not sure how a lady silently praying could ever be seen as menacing or harassing but maybe that's cos I'm not a woman and maybe cos I don't share popular views. I see it as freedom of speech. As for pushing limits of the law, certain protests and vigils went ahead (correctly) during lockdown when mass gathering were banned- should everyone stayed at home and said nothing?" I don't know. At the time the risk of outdoors was regarded as negligible. I certainly stayed at home, because I regarded public health as more important. I'm yet to see evidence that picketing abortion clinics does any good at all. Feels like virtue signalling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes it is. Exodus 20-13. thou shalt not kill. Got it. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Hard pass there. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife etc... So any couples are to face eternity in damnation, as well as anyone who winks and fabs any couple... " I think I'd want way more context as to what they meant by kill. It's a fun wank to retrofit it onto your own beliefs, but nothing more serious than that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
