U.S. Supreme Court removes buffer zones from abortion clinic protestors

a reply to: beezzer

When did I say otherwise?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

When did I say otherwise?

Apologies.

I thought your previous post implied otherwise.

a reply to: beezzer

Nope. Even though I thought the demonstration I posted was in poor taste, celebrating and reenacting the murder of a doctor and his body guard, they do have the right. But, we need to remember the reason why the original 35 foot safety bubble was put in place in the first place; because of the murders of clinic workers.

I for one think most women going into said clinics could probably USE a good 45 seconds of accosting.

Maybe we should accost people going into churches then, or gun stores?

a reply to: windword

If poor taste were a requirement for denying Constitutional rights, then we'd never see Honey Boo Boo or the Kardashians.

a reply to: beezzer

Again, the purpose of the 35 foot safety bubble was to protect lives. I don't have to make you smell my breath to get my point across. And, we can turn the "Honey Boo Boo" channel. Women entering a clinic can't turn off in your face harassment and threats.

a reply to: windword

So you'd be for "free speech zones" then.

To each his/her own, I suppose.

a reply to: beezzer

No. But, I don't believe free speech IS the issue here. I think the free speech argument is just a ruse to get up close and personal, to physically intimidate and harass women trying to enter a clinic. Free speech isn't qualified by how much space is between me and my target. It's about who I can get to listen.

a reply to: windword

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Ergo, the ruling.

I personally hope that this ruling will set precedent for the end of free speech zones.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: windword

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Ergo, the ruling.

I personally hope that this ruling will set precedent for the end of free speech zones.

Oh please. If this was about Free Speech and upholding those rights they would remove all free speech zones. But like others are saying this isn't about Free Speech, this is about Legalized Harassment of what some Majority feels toward a certain group of society.

Regardless of whether you support Abortion or not also isn't the issue here. If you don't support it, fine, but that doesn't mean you get to harass other people over it which we all know is exactly what happens. If people were actually trying to Help or could protest without becoming violent that would be one thing. But they can't. History shows this. That's why the zones were made in the first place. I don't like the zones either. But I don't like people being allowed to legally harass others either.

a reply to: beezzer

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Big surprise! The Supreme Court agrees with me when it comes to their own 252 foot buffer zone though!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Big surprise! The Supreme Court agrees with me when it comes to their own 252 foot buffer zone though!

Exactly!!

Let's at the very least just be honest about what's happening here folks. This is Hypocrisy at it's most obvious. So let's all drop the BS about how Justice was served in this case. Justice is when Law is applied equally. If they remove all such zones of speech, then you may have a case, but until then it's an abuse of the system.

a reply to: mOjOm

Can you explain the unanimous decision then?

Just curious.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mOjOm

Can you explain the unanimous decision then?

Just curious.

Yah. They are unanimously a bunch of Hypocrites. I thought that was fairly obvious.

Understand, I don't agree with Zones any more than than you. I think they should be gone, all of them, that would at least be an honest effort to uphold Freedom of Speech, which is what they claim. If that's their claim, then they should do it, own it and stand by it. They didn't. They chose to lift it for one set of the population while leave it in place for others and themselves. That is BS.

a reply to: mOjOm

Right! It's only a violation of free speech when the protesters are held behind a line when attacking women seeking birth control, but not when it's them or soldiers' funerals.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Logarock

So do you want to go ahead and say that ending a child's life early is a good and compassionate thing

I can't speak for Peter, but I would say that it's preventing a child's life from beginning. Let's be honest and use the correct words.

zygote (day 1: conception)
blastocyst (about day 10 : implantation)
embryo (about day 14 : dramatic growth)
( about 10 weeks : features begin to look human)
baby ( from moment of birth until toddler stage )
newborn ( 0–1 month)
infant ( 1 month – 1 year)
toddler ( 1–3 years)
preschooler ( 4–6 years)
school-aged child ( 6–13 years)
adolescent ( 13–18)
youth
young adults
adult
middle age
senior

liberalslikechrist.org...

For petes sake must we see this again? Haven't we all seen this or something similar from the 70's even?

But hay its only the two ends of this list that can be "compassionately" terminated so who care anyway. Go push granny over a cliff, she's old, its compassionate for everyone involved. And the little "zygote" so it twitches when the suction hits...its like a plant just responding to stimuli.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Logarock
So do you want to go ahead and say that ending a child's life early is a good and compassionate thing based on what a burden it would be for all evolved?

I would say that ending a pregnancy is a good and compassionate thing if the woman doesn't want to have a child for whatever reason. There are enough unwanted, suffering and hungry children in this world.

Only 3% of total services are abortions. Man that makes it all so much better....such a low figure. Thank God for birth control. That figure could be so much higher. What a public service.

Absolutely agree 100%.

Just a note on your last post, in which you didn't answer my question. "Supporting traditional marriage" is code for wanting to deny rights to those with whom you disagree. Just like "pro-life" is code for the same thing. Why don't people claim their actual positions and call themselves "anti-gay" and "anti-choice"?

Well that title is going to be awarded to them whether they have it coming or not. And in case you have been living in a selective info world, folks that espouse heterosexual marriage are being persecuted by the new breed of mind Nazis that mask up behind tolerance and human rights. Talk about stinking bloody hypocrisy and new though orthodoxy.

a reply to: Logarock

Ok Mr. Compassion, let's remove Abortions. How many newborns will we find dumped in trash bins??? How many neglected and abused children will we then have and who's going to take care of them??? You gonna take them in to your home and feed them all and raise them???

What about the one's born to drug addicted parents who now pass that on to their wonderful little miracles who are born deformed or addicted to drugs or mentally damaged???

How is it compassionate to bring a child in to a world where they're neither wanted nor cared for even if they are born healthy???

Where's all that compassion once these poor, unwanted children are born??? They're left to fend for themselves in a world that treats them like yesterdays garbage. Or they're just another casualty of some third world drone strike. But even if they do make it to adult hood, at least we then have another Socially Damaged adult psychopath that we've created to deal with, which is always fun.

Sure, a couple here and there do come through ok in the end, but for every one of them how many do you think simply turn out as seriously damaged adults???

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Logarock
So do you want to go ahead and say that ending a child's life early is a good and compassionate thing based on what a burden it would be for all evolved?

I would say that ending a pregnancy is a good and compassionate thing if the woman doesn't want to have a child for whatever reason. There are enough unwanted, suffering and hungry children in this world.

Its not like closing a bank account or something. Its good AND compassionate is it? What a strange place, a strange mask for a cold blooded idealist to hide behind. The war of the compassionate. And there are no hungry children in this country, no famine, only the dragon of inconvenience and his demons of narcissism. The blood of progeny running down the sewer, suspended in jars of fluid like in an alien Nazi nightmare.

a reply to: Logarock

For petes sake must we see this again?

My sentiments exactly! Why does the anti-choice crowd want to take us back in time?