
Woman charged with breaching exclusion zone near abortion clinic
She was arrested close to the BPAS Robert Clinic in Kings Norton
Various reports..however she was arrested in a PSPO area. The police cant prove whether she was praying or not.
They can do anything they want in their imaginary world.Praying? How can they talk to God and hear what He said/she said?
If there is NOGOD, It seems irrational for them to worry about talking to The LORD.They can do anything they want in their imaginary world.
I saw this.![]()
Woman charged with breaching exclusion zone near abortion clinic
She was arrested close to the BPAS Robert Clinic in Kings Nortonwww-birminghammail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org
Various reports..however she was arrested in a PSPO area. The police cant prove whether she was praying or not.
Ok so, she was standing there praying on her own, silently. What is your issue with that?I saw this.
I admit I am conflicted on this. The problem is that whatever rights we grant to pro-lifers, we also have to grant to abortion supporters.
For example: if pro-lifers have the right to stand outside an abortion mill, praying, or otherwise witnessing to the sanctify of life, even possibly persuading a woman against an abortion, then abortion supporters have the right to stand outside of churches and do the exact same thing for their cause. This means abortion supporters could stand outside of a church and try to persuade people that abortion is good. They could persuade people away from the faith. They could be a presence also.
I do not want abortion supporters outside my Church making a statement anymore than abortion supporters want me outside an abortion mill making a statement. For this reason I am conflicted about the right of pro-lifers to protest outside of abortion mills. I obviously support that---but the problem is that--abortion supporters have to have those exact same rights then.
Conversely, if we say that pro-lifers may not stand outside of abortion mills and protest peacefully, then--we can also say that abortion supporters do not have the right to stand outside of churches and protest peacefully.
So again, what is the answer? I don't know. I just know that I am conflicted.
Nothing. I was making a larger point. In this case, fine. Praying. The point, which, surprise, surprise you seem to have missed---is that whatever rights we grant to pro-lifers have to apply equally to abortion supporters. Not that I like this fact by the way....but we cannot grant one group of rights while not granting another group of people the same rights. Again--not that I like this.Ok so, she was standing there praying on her own, silently. What is your issue with that?
Larger point taken. Though I could suggest the inequality already happensNothing. I was making a larger point. In this case, fine. Praying. The point, which, surprise, surprise you seem to have missed---is that whatever rights we grant to pro-lifers have to apply equally to abortion supporters. Not that I like this fact by the way....but we cannot grant one group of rights while not granting another group of people the same rights. Again--not that I like this.
I would love to say pro-lifers have the right to protect at abortion mills to save lives--but not grant abortion supporters the right to protest at churches. But I can't be a hypocrite in my values.
Of course it does.Larger point taken. Though I could suggest the inequality already happens
A good pointI saw this.
I admit I am conflicted on this. The problem is that whatever rights we grant to pro-lifers, we also have to grant to abortion supporters.
For example: if pro-lifers have the right to stand outside an abortion mill, praying, or otherwise witnessing to the sanctify of life, even possibly persuading a woman against an abortion, then abortion supporters have the right to stand outside of churches and do the exact same thing for their cause. This means abortion supporters could stand outside of a church and try to persuade people that abortion is good. They could persuade people away from the faith. They could be a presence also.
I do not want abortion supporters outside my Church making a statement anymore than abortion supporters want me outside an abortion mill making a statement. For this reason I am conflicted about the right of pro-lifers to protest outside of abortion mills. I obviously support that---but the problem is that--abortion supporters have to have those exact same rights then.
Conversely, if we say that pro-lifers may not stand outside of abortion mills and protest peacefully, then--we can also say that abortion supporters do not have the right to stand outside of churches and protest peacefully.
So again, what is the answer? I don't know. I just know that I am conflicted.
Rubbish. The demonstrations outside such clinics are proscribed because they are deemed to be harassment by the victims. The godly intent of the perpetrators is of no consequence. If the missionary zeal of the demonstrators is perceived as abusive or threatening by the women targeted, that's enough for an offence to have been committed. Help and support can be offered in a great many ways without breaking the law. Not least by the health care professionals dealing with the case, who will give information about such support to all women considering abortion.It also depends what one means by protesting and demonstrating. The gatherings outside abortion centres are mostly about looking to support women with information sometimes unlikely to be available in the abortion centre, and sometimes definitely not available in the abortion centre.
However the thread and OP is about freedom of movement and expression and above all thought, which is clearly denied here once again
Not rubbish. Even the former ceo.of bpas agreed that there was extra helpful charity support available from the pro-life presence.Rubbish. The demonstrations outside such clinics are proscribed because they are deemed to be harassment by the victims. The godly intent of the perpetrators is of no consequence. If the missionary zeal of the demonstrators is perceived as abusive or threatening by the women targeted, that's enough for an offence to have been committed. Help and support can be offered in a great many ways without breaking the law. Not least by the health care professionals dealing with the case, who will give information about such support to all women considering abortion.
The woke left have shown in the USA that they simply wont stand or allow abortion laws they dont like.Rubbish. The demonstrations outside such clinics are proscribed because they are deemed to be harassment by the victims. The godly intent of the perpetrators is of no consequence. If the missionary zeal of the demonstrators is perceived as abusive or threatening by the women targeted, that's enough for an offence to have been committed. Help and support can be offered in a great many ways without breaking the law. Not least by the health care professionals dealing with the case, who will give information about such support to all women considering abortion.
For an offence to be committed, all that's required is for a victim to feel harassed. That others brush it off is not relevant.Not rubbish. Even the former ceo.of bpas agreed that there was extra helpful charity support available from the pro-life presence.
So.yes some think its harrasment and some dont.
The rest of your post is just your opinion and has nothing to do with the issue.
No such thing as the woke left.The woke left have shown in the USA that they simply wont stand or allow abortion laws they dont like.
The issue here Temujin is breaking of human rights of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.
According to the PSPO an offense has been comitted, namely praying. You are now suggesting it might have been. You are dreaming again.For an offence to be committed, all that's required is for a victim to feel harassed. That others brush it off is not relevant.
This is an opinion board. All opinions about this issue are as relevant as all others.
Woke left is a widely held ideology Temujin, explained with examples and by posters here and links to youtubes. The only people who deny it are woke ideologues, which only goes to prove its a feelings based ideology in denial of reality.No such thing as the woke left.
The issue here is that freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, just like all other freedoms and rights, have limits. You don't like the limits, which are placed there by law to protect the privacy and wellbeing of of other people, also a freedom and a right. Your right to freedom of expression ends when it interferes with my right to go about my personal business without being harassed. That applies to those whose personal business is attending a church just as much as to those attending an abortion clinic.