To think men have no right to stand outside abortion clinics and do this.

[QuestioningStuff]

Posted before about my pregnancy. I am having a termination today. This is not a decision I've made lightly.

I've arrived at the clinic and there is a middle aged man and his young teen son standing outside with camp chairs and flasks. Putting up awful pictures and signs. Trying to hand out leaflets.

I think women who do this are also scum but how on earth could a man think he has any right to do this? Turn up at a place where women are at their most scared and vulnerable and try to bully them?

It's really really upset me. I hate them so much right now.

I want to go and tell them exactly what I think of them but don't think that would be helpful at this time.

fizzy re my post at 9.57, do you still maintain that these 'protestors' do not harass?

It's a bad thing because it is intimidation, it is upsetting for women, who have a right to access abortion clinics privately and free from harassment.

The OP found it distressing - you say you have remained respectful at all times, but you're not being respectful to OP by turning this thread into a debate and making it all about you.

This is why people stand outside clinics. They feel very strongly that this is the right thing to do. It doesn't mean they are judging people who go in. And if they make one woman rethink and decide actually she does want to keep the baby, why is that such a bad thing?

Wtf? Do you think women who walk past these people on their way into an abortion think 'holy shit, I thought I was about to breathe out a little cherub faced angel, complete with wings, who was going to flitter off into heaven. Thank God for these people stood outside the clinic hurling insults at me with their graphic abortion leaflets to show me what it's really like. I shall change my mind immediately.'

It's intimidation. As a previous poster said, these people can't actually be arsed to help women and children, its much easier to sit on a camping chair with a flask and wave around a few leaflets to get their moral kicks.

These women are accessing a perfectly legal service. They should be able do that without intimidation. It's not rocket science.

These women are accessing a perfectly legal service. They should be able do that without intimidation. It's not rocket science.

Most things that people wish to protest about are legal. Animal experimentation is legal, American nuclear bases were legal, people defying a strike is legal. So should we outlaw demonstrations against these outside the place where the activity is taking place. Where would that have left the Greenham Common protest?

I am pro choice, but people have the right to protest against abortion peacefully and outside a clinic.

If abortion becomes illegal in the future, I want to be able to protest outside Catholic churches and anywhere else that supports that position.

"This is why people stand outside clinics. They feel very strongly that this is the right thing to do. It doesn't mean they are judging people who go in. And if they make one woman rethink and decide actually she does want to keep the baby, why is that such a bad thing?"

Because the circumstances which meant she was going for an abortion in the first place have not changed. And if she is bullied or emotionally blackmailed into changing her mind she is going to end up a couple of months down the line in the same shit circumstances but now with no choice.

"And if she is bullied or emotionally blackmailed into changing her mind she is going to end up a couple of months down the line in the same shit circumstances but now with no choice."

Exactly my thoughts. I don't think there's anything ethical about it, particularly if the woman is being "talked out of it" via lies about how they're likely to get "Post Abortion Syndrome" as in the literature discovered upthread.

Posters here cannot disprove either the good work done by decent people like those at GCN and impute bad motives.

But, fizzy, you have ignored the question as to how practicable their alleged support of illegal immigrants is, given that they (including trafficked women) are the only people with no access to benefits. For illegal immigrants they would be aiding and abetting illegality, and the most helpful assistance they can give to trafficked women is to refer them specialist support charities and social services; however, you seem to suggest that they don't do that.

In referring to the inquest verdict on Savita Halappanavar, you have also ignored the fact that this was the verdict of a lay jury and the findings of the HSE. You do seem a little selective in your responses.

TTWK, I'm not necessarily saying that protests outside clinics should be outlawed. I'm sasaying that these people should fucking cop on and channel their beliefs into something other than intimidating women at, what for many of them, is the most vulnerable time of their life.

A student friend of mine became pregnant by her long-term boyfriend. He charmlessly said that unless she got rid of the baby it would be the end of their relationship. She was Catholic and refused to have a termination, so she had to interrupt her university course to go through the pregnancy and have the baby, after which she gave her up for adoption. It certainly affected her studies as she got a lower result than expected. Subsequently they got married and had three more children.

Much later, the adopted child decided to trace her parents. She had had a very unhappy relationship with her adoptive parents, and when she discovered that her biological parents were married and she had full siblings who had not been placed for adoption, it triggered a massive reaction: she felt further rejected a 100 times over and essentially had a breakdown from which she has never really recovered. She has certainly said that doesn't feel that adoption was necessarily a better option than abortion.

"I am pro choice, but people have the right to protest against abortion peacefully and outside a clinic."

Actually, no. The right for people to access medical facilities without a bunch of hypocritical do-gooders heckling them is so completely and overwhelmingly more important it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that protests are not allowed. There are plenty of other places where we would not tolerate such behaviour.

Whatever people's views are on abortion the fact remains is that it is a legal option in this country. I don't agree with people standing outside clinics with posters and banners. These women have already made the decision to access this facility and should not be heckled by strangers. They must find another way to protest.

And my post about it not being rocket science was in response to fizzyrubbish 's attempts to try and get us to understand the protestors point of view and why they stand outside clinics.

But I don't need to be educated.about their views. I understand their views and I understand why they might be compelled to go and try and change someone's mind.

They are still wrong to do what they are doing though.

fizzy do you support the present abortion laws in the UK if you belive life begins at conception?

Please tell us?

Please could you also clarify your response to the original post and do you think it was ok for the op to be intimidated by a vigil silent or otherwise?

If people were heckling, shouting, intimidating then there would be arrests. There haven't been. You know BPAS keep cameras trained outside their clinics at all times. Why haven't they passed their films to the police if criminal behaviour or harassment has been occurring?

Apologies I haven't turned this thread into "all about me" but refuted some of the "you don't care about women & you think xyz" guff. No-one should assume others' motives.

Re GCN and illegals, I don't think Maria said they helped trafficked women. But even if they did it wouldn't be wrong. They believe in helping anyone who needs it.

They do help immigrants who aren't illegible for benefits & slip through the cracks AFAIK. If someone presents needing help they don't take a stance of washing their hands by passing on to official agencies or think "hmm are we aiding illegality by helping this pregnant woman who should have an abortion and then be deported!" There was 1 lady who was French and whom the SS were trying to forcibly and illegally repatriate so she wouldn't be on their books. As I said they don't withdraw help once the baby is born.

Referring to them as hypocrites is unnecessary hypervole along and extremely judgemental, that thing everyone hates. Or is it ok to juge these people's hearts because you don't like what they do. Why are they hypocrites? Hypocrisy means doing the opposite of what they preach. They'd only be hypocrites if they stood there while justifying abortions for themselves and their families but not for others.

There is so much projection going on here. Women are neither bullied or manipulated into keeping their babies, nothing stops them from going ahead with an abortion.

And if you're so keen to claim that women are being bullied and manipulated into keeping a baby, why deny that women going to an abortion clinic might also not be exercising her free choice?

Why is a woman who turns around from an abortion clinic or who changes her mind after speaking to a pro-lifer suddenly deemed incapable of knowing her own mind or having come to this decision herself.

Lots of women that GCN and Life etc do still proceed to have an abortion. Women do decline the help on offer or decide that abortion is the right thing for them. But why are they deemed too fragile not to be able to be exposed to a different pro-life POV, before deciding for sure?

Denim - in common with many I'd like to see some tightening up of abortion in the UK which is amongst the most liberal in Europe. I don't think you can have a ban after 45 years of very liberal policy. I'd like to see far fewer abortions and more support for women to give them a different viable option where at all possible.

It is regrettable and upsetting that the OP felt intimidated. But as someone above said, you can't ban protests because you disagree with them or because they make people feel uncomfortable.

We can question the prudence of them, but you can't ban something on the basis of how it makes people feel or because you don't like the cause.

Actually, no. The right for people to access medical facilities without a bunch of hypocritical do-gooders heckling them is so completely and overwhelmingly more important

I disagree. The right to protest peacefully is key to the very fabric of our society, and has been for hundreds of years. It is far more important right than any single issue that someone might protest about.

I'm not sure you realise just what this nation will be losing and the path we will go down when we outlaw peaceful protest.

"when we outlaw peaceful protest"

I'm just not sure this constitutes "peaceful protest" in the sense that I understand it. Protesting at the government about abortion legislation fits the bill. Directing a "protest" at an individual making a choice in an attempt to make her change her mind and do something I agree with more (as fizzy says is the object of the exercise) strikes me as something else entirely.

I think if that's "peaceful protest" then, eg, the Jehovah's Witnesses who hand out leaflets at my local train station trying to get people to join their religion are also "engaging in peaceful protest".

They can protest peacefully, just not outside clinics where they will intimidate those women accessing services there.

I will add that I don't like animal experimentation, but I don't think animal rights protesters should be allowed to intimidate people working in these labs either.

Let them all lobby parliament, not target individuals.

As soon as religion/church is involved it becomes less protest and more recruiting Imo.

and something that influences or affects a choice of a vulnerable person into something that's detrimental to them whatever they choose is not a peaceful protest.

"I'm not sure you realise just what this nation will be losing and the path we will go down when we outlaw peaceful protest."

Except that isn't what I'm saying, is it? I'm not suggesting all protests are prevented. Just that, sometimes, the right for people to protest should not be the most important consideration.

We already prevent protests from occurring in certain places - such as private homes - because we accept that sometimes the right to protest is deemed less important than other rights. So extending this to certain medical facilities is pretty reasonable. If pro-lifers want to protest, they should do it where it actually might make a difference to the law, and not by making a potentially difficult time even more difficult.

Additionally, there are already laws in place concerning harassment which includes measures to prevent distress. Seeing as a pro-lifer sitting outside an abortion clinic will inevitably cause distress to someone, I think that is reason enough for such pondlife to be automatically moved on.

Essentially, it comes down to whether you think people should have the right to be arseholes, or if you think people should have the right to access a legal medical procedure without said arseholes standing about the place.

Are you ok Questioning. How are you doing?

in common with many I'd like to see some tightening up of abortion in the UK which is amongst the most liberal in Europe. I don't think you can have a ban after 45 years of very liberal policy. I'd like to see far fewer abortions and more support for women to give them a different viable option where at all possible.

And what is a viable option if quite simply the woman does not want a baby or to be pregnant?

And the arguments regarding the right to protest against nuclear industry, war and animal testing is rather weak.

For a start people who protest against animal cruelty using pictures of mutilated animals are protesting against a company or corporation. The workers which go past them into work have made a choice and are being paid to do this work so will not be in a emotionally fragile state.

If you want to protest against war then you would do it outside a military compound or government office. Quite right. You would however be morally inept to think that this is the same as going to funeral of a solider and holding up pictures of children you have been killed in confilict.

And yes a woman may be in a emotionally fragile state when accessing a abortion even though it is 100% the right choice for her.
If i had to have my dog put down at a vet i would still be upset even though i knew it was the right choice