19 April 2016

Why we need safe access zones outside Canberra's abortion clinics

| Steven Bailey
Join the conversation
97
act health moore street

Many years ago, as a student of the Australian National University, I’d often ride my bike past the ACT Health building in the city and wonder why the front was often tasselled with such a ghoulish gathering. Perhaps it was a mimed version of The Rocky Horror Picture Show… in slow motion?

Always in a rush, and with a propensity for doing my homework whilst in transit, it wasn’t until years later that I realised the true nature of this ghostly and macabre congregation. They were there to shame and intimidate women who were seeking an abortion

When I first saw the trembling hands holding crosses juxtaposed with images of mutilated foetuses, I was bemused. I asked myself how people with such life experience could be so willing to torment people much younger than themselves.

According to Medicare statistics released in 2009, approximately one third of elective pregnancy terminations were for women under the age of twenty, many of whom were minors.

As of last night, it looks like Fiona Patten MLC, with the support of the Victorian Labor Government, will be successful in passing her safe access zones legislation. This legislation will protect vulnerable women and medical professionals from intimidation, persecution, and unnecessary suffering caused by protesting religious extremists in Victoria.

The purpose of the legislation is to protect people in their time of need with a 150-metre buffer zone around the fertility clinic or medical facility.

For me, this was never a debate about freedom of speech. For instance, I don’t think we teach our children enough of the beauty of literature and music in secondary schools, but that doesn’t mean I should be allowed to shame teachers and students as they walk to school each day.

We wouldn’t allow people to be intimidated each time they walked to a hospital or a psychologist’s clinic, or to donate blood.

This isn’t an issue of freedom of speech and it isn’t even an issue about abortion. The issue is whether we think it is right to allow women and children to be persecuted and abused by religious extremists in a time when they surely need society’s love and support.

To argue against safe access zones, on the basis of freedom of speech, is to condone the persecution and abuse of women and children in their time of need.

Safe access zones are about a progressive and caring Australia protecting vulnerable women and children. As a member of the Australian Sex Party, it’s encouraging to see that ACT legislators are beginning to adopt our policies. One, understandably, wonders why these policies were not adopted years before now but rather in the lead up to the first election where the ASP will be a serious contender in 2016. But… imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Join the conversation

97
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

Lenient said :

your confused claptrap about “values” .

Haaaa haaa haaa haaaa haaa. I can’t possibly take credit for that. Those were written by the Howard government.

I’ll take notice of what you have to say (something about “dey terk our freederm ov speach”) when they start marching these kind hearted people off to room 101.

OpenYourMind12:20 am 12 Sep 15

I’m a bit late to this one, but FFS, this is not about freedom of expression, it’s about stopping harassment. Even if that harassment is silent prayer, it’s still harassment of people targeted because of the medical procedure they are going in for. To me, that behaviour is as vile and repulsive as protesting at someone’s funeral or finding out someone uses contraception and setting up a ‘silent’ protest outside their home.

Those ‘protesters’ should be ashamed of themselves and the sooner this law is in place, the better.

Besides, the Pope has said that women who have abortions are forgiven and shall not be excommunicated. Would he approve of this type of protest? He wants them cared for, not judged or harrassed.

Lenient said :

Asking these people to move on still allows them to excercise freedom of speech,.

er…I think somebody took 1984 to be an instruction manual….

Firstly, nobody is “asking” them to move on – their right to demonstrate in a public place is being curtailed through legislation.

Secondly, by threatening them with arrest, their ability to exercise any freedom of speech is indeed precisely what *is* being attacked.

Once again, the dishonest verbiage peddled by lefties is precisely why we have ended up with Tony Abbot as PM: your confused claptrap about “values” doesn’t reflect the reality of our society, it reflects the Left’s continued adherence to a part of the moribund socialist ideology of the 1930s and 40s (political correctness) that is absolutely aimed at undermining our freedoms.

Lenient said :

“free speech is OK so long as it’s done somewhere else”.
.

Too right.

Australian values include valuing freedom of speech. But also our values include respect for the equal worth, dignity and freedom of the individual, peacefulness and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces fair play, mutual respect, tolerance, compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good. Asking these people to move on still allows them to excercise freedom of speech, but without violating those other values.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to harm.

They can have their fair shake of sauce bottle but so can the people seeking the medical services they need. That is how Australia works.

Lenient said :

If these “peaceful protestors” are really protesting and not harrassing vulnerable people, they should do it outside the assembly or outside of politicians offices. The fact they are doing it outside a treeatment facility shows their true intentions..

Yes, it is obvious to tell their true intentions by protesting outside the clinic, that they believe humans are being killed inside.

I find it hard to understand why people don’t get that.

People do get that. They are not stupid, ill informed, uncaring or cruel. They know full well what it is and what happens.

The people who enter that building for that purpose are people who are in need of a legal medical service which is probably the hardest of all decisions to make.

And having made that decision they have to then go through the procedure and the recovery and none of that is easy.

So they have already been through the diagnosis, medical and other guidance on options, often talked ad nauseum with family, friends and others and battled within themselves as to the best outcome for them.

Once they are again attending the clinic they are forced to pass upsetting and graphic reminders of what they are doing from individuals who have no care or consideration of who these women are or why they are taking that path.

Yet these same individuals are sprouting love and compassion to fellow humans, what a joke.
These individuals have no thought or concern or care for the children, elderly and mentally ill who use the same premises for other reasons. They don’t consider the impact of their protest only that they get to offend, upset and disturb others in their quest to halt a procedure they don’t want.

So why are they so upset that they are asked to move? They are not telling them to stop. They are not telling them they are wrong or can’t continue. They are simply moving further away from the public access building that has multiple purposes and attendees.

Why don’t these protesters stand outside the hospitals? They have the same procedures done there?

Lenient said :

If these “peaceful protestors” are really protesting and not harrassing vulnerable people, they should do it outside the assembly or outside of politicians offices. The fact they are doing it outside a treeatment facility shows their true intentions..

Right, so “free speech is OK so long as it’s done somewhere else”.

This is why we have Tony Abbott as PM: our lefties are so deeply untrustworthy we’ll vote for complete morons whose nonsense we at least understand.

milkman said :

watto23 said :

I bet you they do complain and call the police. Churches and religions are very intolerable when its something they don’t believe in. They already interfere and try to stop legislation from changing regarding many issues, most recently SSM.

Big generalisation. There’s at least one mainstream Christian church in Canberra I know of that support SSM.

Agree its a generalisation, I don’t think its that big though as most opposition to that issue and the arguments put up use religion. However I’m well aware its not all, but you’d also be forgiven for thinking that, as the arguments I’ve seen use the ~60% of Australians on the last census as being Christian and therefore a silent majority opposes SSM.

I’d be very interested to see what a church did if a group decided to protest out the front of their church on any issue they disagree with. I suspect they wouldn’t like it and almost certain the people protesting out the front would be asked to move on. Next time I walk past I’m going to ask them, would they accept a pro-abortion silent protest out the front of their church. I’m curious, or maybe someone could try this 🙂

That is how I think of an issue like this regarding free speech. Its only an issue of free speech if they are happy to have the same thing happen to them. I suspect though its self righteouness and the belief they are right and everyone else is wrong. Same goes for shock jocks on the radio crying for free speech. Or pollies, except when the newspapers pick on them and they dig for reasons why its ok in one instance and not in the other.

If these “peaceful protestors” are really protesting and not harrassing vulnerable people, they should do it outside the assembly or outside of politicians offices. The fact they are doing it outside a treeatment facility shows their true intentions..

Yes, it is obvious to tell their true intentions by protesting outside the clinic, that they believe humans are being killed inside.

I find it hard to understand why people don’t get that.

That article indicates that the rate of abortions is approximately 20 per 1000 women (aged 15-44). That is 2%, not a third.

That is the rate for a year. If people only ever had one abortion each the rate would be around 48% of people over the period 15-44, this is obviously an upper bound and it would definitely be less than this. If it if is only the same people having an abortion, the it would be around 2%, again obviously the lower limit.

There are no really good data sources on number of people ever having an abortion, but surveys have reported in peer reviewed journals that this could be around 20%. 20% is absolutely plausible given the annual rate, as would be 30%.

If these “peaceful protestors” are really protesting and not harrassing vulnerable people, they should do it outside the assembly or outside of politicians offices. The fact they are doing it outside a treeatment facility shows their true intentions..

http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2011/06000/Changes_in_Abortion_Rates_Betweeen_2000_and_2008.14.aspx

Ok,
After a little bit of searching the best I found was this study from the USA for 2008. I have a suspicion this is where the figure has come from.

They’ve found the lifetime rate in the US was approx 3 out of ten although they’ve freely admitted there are limitations with the data that could cause overestimation. They are relying on the people seeking abortions admitting that they’ve had previous abortions to normalize for women who’d had multiple abortions. I think that’s very problematic but, it is what it is.

Interestingly in regards to Masquara’s comment about religious people, it seems that people who said they were religious (protestant, Catholic, or evangelical) had lower abortion rates than people who said they weren’t.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back11:07 am 10 Sep 15

Alexandra Craig said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Alexandra Craig said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Masquara said :

Raging Tempest said :

Masquara said :

About a third of Australian women will have an abortion. And the statistic is about the same for Catholic women.

Where do you get those stats from, given it has the same medicare code as a D&C, which is used after some miscarriages and a variety of other medical reasons?

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2005/182/9/estimating-australia-s-abortion-rates-1985-2003

That article indicates that the rate of abortions is approximately 20 per 1000 women (aged 15-44). That is 2%, not a third.

According to an article in the Times today, Sexual Health and Family Planning ACT have said that 1 in 3 women will get at least one abortion in their lives.

That would be this article?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/womens-groups-call-for-50metre-abortion-clinic-exclusion-zones-in-the-act-20150909-gjievq.html

I’d suggest some evidence would need to be be cited, especially in light of the ’20 in 1000′ figure from the other study referenced in this thread.

That study is significantly out of date though. The study only goes up to 2003. At some point after 2003 the drug RU486 was introduced which I think would probably have made abortions much more accessible for women.

I know anecdotal evidence doesn’t count but I know a fair few women that have had abortions – most of them in committed relationships, tertiary educated, great jobs with stable income etc. They just weren’t ready to have a child. And from what I’ve been told – they were all using contraception. They all had non-surgical abortions too.

It would be interesting to try to get some actual figures. RU486 would surely have made a difference. I’d still be very suprised if it was 1 in 3, though.

Mysteryman said :

Alexandra Craig said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Masquara said :

Raging Tempest said :

Masquara said :

About a third of Australian women will have an abortion. And the statistic is about the same for Catholic women.

Where do you get those stats from, given it has the same medicare code as a D&C, which is used after some miscarriages and a variety of other medical reasons?

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2005/182/9/estimating-australia-s-abortion-rates-1985-2003

That article indicates that the rate of abortions is approximately 20 per 1000 women (aged 15-44). That is 2%, not a third.

According to an article in the Times today, Sexual Health and Family Planning ACT have said that 1 in 3 women will get at least one abortion in their lives.

I find that very hard to believe. I’m happy to be proven wrong, but I think it’s more likely that they’ve taken the total number of abortions compared to the number of women and extrapolated that data to suggest that 1 in 3 women will have an abortion, when it’s more likely that some women will get multiple abortions, while a far great number will get none.

Yep, that’s what I think, as I said in my previous comment. Sounds suspiciously like a #truefact to me, when the data availble seems to be so incomplete.

Alexandra Craig9:47 am 10 Sep 15

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Alexandra Craig said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Masquara said :

Raging Tempest said :

Masquara said :

About a third of Australian women will have an abortion. And the statistic is about the same for Catholic women.

Where do you get those stats from, given it has the same medicare code as a D&C, which is used after some miscarriages and a variety of other medical reasons?

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2005/182/9/estimating-australia-s-abortion-rates-1985-2003

That article indicates that the rate of abortions is approximately 20 per 1000 women (aged 15-44). That is 2%, not a third.

According to an article in the Times today, Sexual Health and Family Planning ACT have said that 1 in 3 women will get at least one abortion in their lives.

That would be this article?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/womens-groups-call-for-50metre-abortion-clinic-exclusion-zones-in-the-act-20150909-gjievq.html

I’d suggest some evidence would need to be be cited, especially in light of the ’20 in 1000′ figure from the other study referenced in this thread.

That study is significantly out of date though. The study only goes up to 2003. At some point after 2003 the drug RU486 was introduced which I think would probably have made abortions much more accessible for women.

I know anecdotal evidence doesn’t count but I know a fair few women that have had abortions – most of them in committed relationships, tertiary educated, great jobs with stable income etc. They just weren’t ready to have a child. And from what I’ve been told – they were all using contraception. They all had non-surgical abortions too.

Alexandra Craig said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Masquara said :

Raging Tempest said :

Masquara said :

About a third of Australian women will have an abortion. And the statistic is about the same for Catholic women.

Where do you get those stats from, given it has the same medicare code as a D&C, which is used after some miscarriages and a variety of other medical reasons?

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2005/182/9/estimating-australia-s-abortion-rates-1985-2003

That article indicates that the rate of abortions is approximately 20 per 1000 women (aged 15-44). That is 2%, not a third.

According to an article in the Times today, Sexual Health and Family Planning ACT have said that 1 in 3 women will get at least one abortion in their lives.

I find that very hard to believe. I’m happy to be proven wrong, but I think it’s more likely that they’ve taken the total number of abortions compared to the number of women and extrapolated that data to suggest that 1 in 3 women will have an abortion, when it’s more likely that some women will get multiple abortions, while a far great number will get none.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back9:23 am 10 Sep 15

Alexandra Craig said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Masquara said :

Raging Tempest said :

Masquara said :

About a third of Australian women will have an abortion. And the statistic is about the same for Catholic women.

Where do you get those stats from, given it has the same medicare code as a D&C, which is used after some miscarriages and a variety of other medical reasons?

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2005/182/9/estimating-australia-s-abortion-rates-1985-2003

That article indicates that the rate of abortions is approximately 20 per 1000 women (aged 15-44). That is 2%, not a third.

According to an article in the Times today, Sexual Health and Family Planning ACT have said that 1 in 3 women will get at least one abortion in their lives.

That would be this article?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/womens-groups-call-for-50metre-abortion-clinic-exclusion-zones-in-the-act-20150909-gjievq.html

I’d suggest some evidence would need to be be cited, especially in light of the ’20 in 1000′ figure from the other study referenced in this thread.

Alexandra Craig8:38 am 10 Sep 15

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Masquara said :

Raging Tempest said :

Masquara said :

About a third of Australian women will have an abortion. And the statistic is about the same for Catholic women.

Where do you get those stats from, given it has the same medicare code as a D&C, which is used after some miscarriages and a variety of other medical reasons?

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2005/182/9/estimating-australia-s-abortion-rates-1985-2003

That article indicates that the rate of abortions is approximately 20 per 1000 women (aged 15-44). That is 2%, not a third.

According to an article in the Times today, Sexual Health and Family Planning ACT have said that 1 in 3 women will get at least one abortion in their lives.

Masquara said :

Raging Tempest said :

Masquara said :

About a third of Australian women will have an abortion. And the statistic is about the same for Catholic women.

Where do you get those stats from, given it has the same medicare code as a D&C, which is used after some miscarriages and a variety of other medical reasons?

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2005/182/9/estimating-australia-s-abortion-rates-1985-2003

Hmmm,
Doesn’t say anything about religious people and doesn’t support your assertion of a a third of Australian women having an abortion. With such poor data available, how would you ever control for women who’d had multiple abortions in their life?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Masquara said :

Raging Tempest said :

Masquara said :

About a third of Australian women will have an abortion. And the statistic is about the same for Catholic women.

Where do you get those stats from, given it has the same medicare code as a D&C, which is used after some miscarriages and a variety of other medical reasons?

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2005/182/9/estimating-australia-s-abortion-rates-1985-2003

That article indicates that the rate of abortions is approximately 20 per 1000 women (aged 15-44). That is 2%, not a third.

erm derp that statistic is per year.

No one is having their freedom of speech taken away. They are hopefully setting up an exclusion zone. The same as they do for protests at Parliament house or other areas, same as they do at concerts.
They can still show the public (young children, teenagers, general workers going to and from their jobs, tourists and the elderly) terrible, distressing and graphic pictures and hand out their propaganda and say their prayers. But not right in the entry of the building. They just have to be further away.

I am an enormous fan of the internet for the glimpse it offers of the deeply illogical world some of us inhabit…

fabforty said :

If some christians spent as much time being outraged by church sex-abuse than they do about abortion and same-sex marriage, perhaps the paedophile priests would not have been able to carry out their horrific practices for so long.

Because their outrage about abortion has stopped abortion from occurring.
No.
What *is* your argument there, exactly…?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back6:24 pm 09 Sep 15

Masquara said :

Raging Tempest said :

Masquara said :

About a third of Australian women will have an abortion. And the statistic is about the same for Catholic women.

Where do you get those stats from, given it has the same medicare code as a D&C, which is used after some miscarriages and a variety of other medical reasons?

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2005/182/9/estimating-australia-s-abortion-rates-1985-2003

That article indicates that the rate of abortions is approximately 20 per 1000 women (aged 15-44). That is 2%, not a third.

Raging Tempest said :

Masquara said :

About a third of Australian women will have an abortion. And the statistic is about the same for Catholic women.

Where do you get those stats from, given it has the same medicare code as a D&C, which is used after some miscarriages and a variety of other medical reasons?

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2005/182/9/estimating-australia-s-abortion-rates-1985-2003

gooterz said :

Maya123 said :

gooterz said :

Maya123 said :

gooterz said :

Are we worried that those people are vulnerable to what? Seeing the impact of what they’re doing.

Its the exact same issue as people who smoke. They have to look at pictures of deformed people every time they get a packet of cigs.

In this case its the government who is protesting that the impacts of smoking are bad. However not everyone that smokes has bad things happen to them and some people need to smoke for medical reasons.

Taking up smoking is a choice and so is getting pregnant.
ACT is fairly mad in the sense that you can be at 42+ weeks pregnant and get an abortion. No questions asked.
I think people should have the ability to protest that wherever. That isn’t a religious thing that’s just a logistics moral failure.

If a mother stops being able to kill her baby the moment that the baby is born, a baby that’s been able to survive for the past 20 weeks.

Question: Does it also mean then that if you cause someone to miscarry at full term its really not that serious as it wasn’t a real human?

“Taking up smoking is a choice and so is getting pregnant.”

Surely you’ve heard of rape, incest (especially of minors), pressure from the male partner to have unprotected sex, etc. So, everything is the female’s fault and she must be punished by losing ownership of her body and being forced to carry a baby full term. Even if she is a pregnant twelve year old. Or perhaps you don’t really believe the female should own her own body. Show some empathy. And if you then say there are exceptions (it’s possible you might actually believe there are no exceptions. Some people are so un-empathetic, they do. Not saying this is you.), how in that reasoning is the baby of a raped twelve year old worth less than the unwanted baby of a thirty year old? I am coming from where you appear to be coming from in my question, not what is right and just. And where was the male exhibiting the choice here, by taking protective measures so that no embryo is began? It seems it is only the female who must be held accountable.

“Its the exact same issue as people who smoke. They have to look at pictures of deformed people every time they get a packet of cigs.”

The photographs that these people are holding up might not even be accurate to the situation. This is a question, as I haven’t been there to see the photographs they hold up. Do they hold up photographs of the Embryonic stage, or only the more recognisable (Pretty from their point of view!) foetal stage. How about deformed foetuses. I bet they don’t hold them up.

Male children are also raped and cause pregnancies, the impact is they aren’t old enough to be responsible for the child yet have to pay child support.

Given its the woman right to her own body(except an unborn female) should she also have the right to kill the child once delivered? What age limit seems appropriate to you? 30 days after the birth (bit like a Kmart refund). The day before the birth (Kogans change of mind before delivery)

There is the other side of the coin too. Not all women whom have abortions actually end up happy. Many hate themselves for years afterwards.

Not even going to bother with your straw man exceptions, except that 9 months is far long to have the chance to decide.

Straw man arguments.
Please give an example of a male child being raped and a pregnancy resulting and then the child having to pay child maintenance.

And rape pregnancy isn’t a straw man argument?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

Interesting, but rather silly, as I doubt the boy got enough pocket money to support the baby, so is reality the boy didn’t have to pay anything, and in practical terms was not liable for child maintenance, at least for many years. Now, can you please give a more relevant Australian example.

Another question. What has this got to do with the abortion clinic? Please explain your rationale for mentioning this in the light of the discussion here.

“And rape pregnancy isn’t a straw man argument?”
Then you agree with terminating the pregnancy for rape victims.

Maya123 said :

gooterz said :

Maya123 said :

gooterz said :

Are we worried that those people are vulnerable to what? Seeing the impact of what they’re doing.

Its the exact same issue as people who smoke. They have to look at pictures of deformed people every time they get a packet of cigs.

In this case its the government who is protesting that the impacts of smoking are bad. However not everyone that smokes has bad things happen to them and some people need to smoke for medical reasons.

Taking up smoking is a choice and so is getting pregnant.
ACT is fairly mad in the sense that you can be at 42+ weeks pregnant and get an abortion. No questions asked.
I think people should have the ability to protest that wherever. That isn’t a religious thing that’s just a logistics moral failure.

If a mother stops being able to kill her baby the moment that the baby is born, a baby that’s been able to survive for the past 20 weeks.

Question: Does it also mean then that if you cause someone to miscarry at full term its really not that serious as it wasn’t a real human?

“Taking up smoking is a choice and so is getting pregnant.”

Surely you’ve heard of rape, incest (especially of minors), pressure from the male partner to have unprotected sex, etc. So, everything is the female’s fault and she must be punished by losing ownership of her body and being forced to carry a baby full term. Even if she is a pregnant twelve year old. Or perhaps you don’t really believe the female should own her own body. Show some empathy. And if you then say there are exceptions (it’s possible you might actually believe there are no exceptions. Some people are so un-empathetic, they do. Not saying this is you.), how in that reasoning is the baby of a raped twelve year old worth less than the unwanted baby of a thirty year old? I am coming from where you appear to be coming from in my question, not what is right and just. And where was the male exhibiting the choice here, by taking protective measures so that no embryo is began? It seems it is only the female who must be held accountable.

“Its the exact same issue as people who smoke. They have to look at pictures of deformed people every time they get a packet of cigs.”

The photographs that these people are holding up might not even be accurate to the situation. This is a question, as I haven’t been there to see the photographs they hold up. Do they hold up photographs of the Embryonic stage, or only the more recognisable (Pretty from their point of view!) foetal stage. How about deformed foetuses. I bet they don’t hold them up.

Male children are also raped and cause pregnancies, the impact is they aren’t old enough to be responsible for the child yet have to pay child support.

Given its the woman right to her own body(except an unborn female) should she also have the right to kill the child once delivered? What age limit seems appropriate to you? 30 days after the birth (bit like a Kmart refund). The day before the birth (Kogans change of mind before delivery)

There is the other side of the coin too. Not all women whom have abortions actually end up happy. Many hate themselves for years afterwards.

Not even going to bother with your straw man exceptions, except that 9 months is far long to have the chance to decide.

Straw man arguments.
Please give an example of a male child being raped and a pregnancy resulting and then the child having to pay child maintenance.

And rape pregnancy isn’t a straw man argument?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

Masquara said :

About a third of Australian women will have an abortion. And the statistic is about the same for Catholic women.

I find this hard to believe. Do you have a source?

watto23 said :

I bet you they do complain and call the police. Churches and religions are very intolerable when its something they don’t believe in. They already interfere and try to stop legislation from changing regarding many issues, most recently SSM.

Big generalisation. There’s at least one mainstream Christian church in Canberra I know of that support SSM.

Raging Tempest4:07 pm 08 Sep 15

Masquara said :

About a third of Australian women will have an abortion. And the statistic is about the same for Catholic women.

Where do you get those stats from, given it has the same medicare code as a D&C, which is used after some miscarriages and a variety of other medical reasons?

About a third of Australian women will have an abortion. And the statistic is about the same for Catholic women.

Southmouth said :

recyclewarrior said :

I use other services in that building and find the “god squad” presence offensive, just as I find a lot of the bible & christian teachings offensive. How would these people feel if people like me protested outside their churches holding up banners with offensive statements about sex abuse carried out by Christians within religious buildings & schools, the cover-ups that have been hidden for generations by good Christians, the damage & destroyed lives of thousands of children, or our opinions of their beliefs or belittling narrow Christian lifestyles. I wonder how comfortable they would feel. I bet they would be calling the police to have the protests & my right to free speech stopped.

I think you should give it a try. I doubt you’ll find anyone trying to pass legislation to prevent your right to free speech.

I bet you they do complain and call the police. Churches and religions are very intolerable when its something they don’t believe in. They already interfere and try to stop legislation from changing regarding many issues, most recently SSM.

recyclewarrior said :

I use other services in that building and find the “god squad” presence offensive, just as I find a lot of the bible & christian teachings offensive. How would these people feel if people like me protested outside their churches holding up banners with offensive statements about sex abuse carried out by Christians within religious buildings & schools, the cover-ups that have been hidden for generations by good Christians, the damage & destroyed lives of thousands of children, or our opinions of their beliefs or belittling narrow Christian lifestyles. I wonder how comfortable they would feel. I bet they would be calling the police to have the protests & my right to free speech stopped.

Exactly. If some christians spent as much time being outraged by church sex-abuse than they do about abortion and same-sex marriage, perhaps the paedophile priests would not have been able to carry out their horrific practices for so long.

recyclewarrior said :

I use other services in that building and find the “god squad” presence offensive, just as I find a lot of the bible & christian teachings offensive. How would these people feel if people like me protested outside their churches holding up banners with offensive statements about sex abuse carried out by Christians within religious buildings & schools, the cover-ups that have been hidden for generations by good Christians, the damage & destroyed lives of thousands of children, or our opinions of their beliefs or belittling narrow Christian lifestyles. I wonder how comfortable they would feel. I bet they would be calling the police to have the protests & my right to free speech stopped.

I think you should give it a try. I doubt you’ll find anyone trying to pass legislation to prevent your right to free speech.

pink little birdie9:37 am 08 Sep 15

tim_c said :

The OP seems to think there isn’t any intimidation and coercion once someone walks in the door of one of these establishments… that’s a bit like assuming that once you walk into a car dealership that no one will attempt to pressure you!

Contrary to the claims by many, such “protesters” are indeed giving people a choice (in fact, more choice than the ACT government is willing to permit). They do this by informing people there are actually other options, that there is support available, and that there are risks associated with abortion (and not just the almost certain death of the child). For anyone in such a vulnerable state and facing such a daunting decision, wouldn’t we want them to be appropriately informed before making an irreversible decision? Yet, the ACT government seeks to prevent such people from being informed, as if they already know what’s best for everyone, irrespective of their particular circumstances.

And how uncaring of “protestors” to actually inform people facing a difficult decision, or to try to suggest that someone refrains from taking a course of action that has led many to years of anguish and guilt?

You do realise that seeking an abortions isn’t like buying milk. You can’t just go in on whim and get it done. It requires a minimum of 2 GP appointments at least 24 hours apart and informations supplied that leans towards pro life/anti abortion. The government gives women information and support but ultimately respects the decision that the woman has made.
No I haven’t had an abortion.

recyclewarrior said :

I use other services in that building and find the “god squad” presence offensive, just as I find a lot of the bible & christian teachings offensive. How would these people feel if people like me protested outside their churches holding up banners with offensive statements about sex abuse carried out by Christians within religious buildings & schools, the cover-ups that have been hidden for generations by good Christians, the damage & destroyed lives of thousands of children, or our opinions of their beliefs or belittling narrow Christian lifestyles. I wonder how comfortable they would feel. I bet they would be calling the police to have the protests & my right to free speech stopped.

That is the whole point here. Your “feelings” or “offence” is meaningless to the debate at hand. It’s completely irrelevant.

If you support free speech then you have to support it for people that you disagree with. Christian people might not like you protesting outside of their churches but if they complained, they should be taken about as seriously as people complaining about this prayer squad.

ie. Not at all.

recyclewarrior1:45 am 08 Sep 15

I use other services in that building and find the “god squad” presence offensive, just as I find a lot of the bible & christian teachings offensive. How would these people feel if people like me protested outside their churches holding up banners with offensive statements about sex abuse carried out by Christians within religious buildings & schools, the cover-ups that have been hidden for generations by good Christians, the damage & destroyed lives of thousands of children, or our opinions of their beliefs or belittling narrow Christian lifestyles. I wonder how comfortable they would feel. I bet they would be calling the police to have the protests & my right to free speech stopped.

Raging Tempest said :

Have you guys ever known someone who has had an abortion? The doctors give you heaps of information on your options. It isn’t as simple as rocking up to a GP and booking a time. It is a legal medical service, with restrictions on when and how it takes place. Anyone who is against it for whatever reason, doesn’t need to use the service.
That aside, the civic building doesn’t just house an abortion clinic, it also has GP rooms, dentists and numerous other health services. The protest affects more than just the people going in for abortions.

“Have you guys ever known someone who has had an abortion?”

I have known one (now elderly) lady who admitted to me she had an abortion many years ago. I imagine in her era it was probably an illegal one. Doing some maths I am guessing it would have been in the late 1940s or 1950s. I was surprised when she told me as she is catholic from a very catholic country. She said to me that she doesn’t know what all the fuss is about, as she had no trouble with the procedure and never regretted it, as at the time she couldn’t afford to raise a child. She felt it was the right, responsible thing to do at the time.

Raging Tempest8:09 pm 07 Sep 15

Have you guys ever known someone who has had an abortion? The doctors give you heaps of information on your options. It isn’t as simple as rocking up to a GP and booking a time. It is a legal medical service, with restrictions on when and how it takes place. Anyone who is against it for whatever reason, doesn’t need to use the service.
That aside, the civic building doesn’t just house an abortion clinic, it also has GP rooms, dentists and numerous other health services. The protest affects more than just the people going in for abortions.

I have mixed feelings about this. I am 100 per cent pro choice .That said, I guess if a woman has absolutely no doubts about her decision to have an abortion, emotional and graphical appeals to her shouldn’t have any effect. Provided the demonstrators aren’t being intimidating, I can’t see a problem with their protest, even if nearby, even though I don’t agree with them. Seeing images of dead foetuses is just the reality, and if that’s a deal breaker perhaps the woman concerned shouldn’t be proceeding.

Grimm said :

Southmouth said :

Evilomlap said :

HenryBG said :

Ethically, abortion is absolutely unacceptable.

Why?

I’ll see your troll and raise you one of my own. When do you think an egg and a sperm become a human life?

When they pop out of the hole…
But, sometimes never. Look at these protesters. They make a great case for 90th trimester abortion to be legalised.

You don’t agree with their peaceful protest, so you want them killed? Sounds very progressive.

tim_c said :

The OP seems to think there isn’t any intimidation and coercion once someone walks in the door of one of these establishments… that’s a bit like assuming that once you walk into a car dealership that no one will attempt to pressure you!

Contrary to the claims by many, such “protesters” are indeed giving people a choice (in fact, more choice than the ACT government is willing to permit). They do this by informing people there are actually other options, that there is support available, and that there are risks associated with abortion (and not just the almost certain death of the child). For anyone in such a vulnerable state and facing such a daunting decision, wouldn’t we want them to be appropriately informed before making an irreversible decision? Yet, the ACT government seeks to prevent such people from being informed, as if they already know what’s best for everyone, irrespective of their particular circumstances.

And how uncaring of “protestors” to actually inform people facing a difficult decision, or to try to suggest that someone refrains from taking a course of action that has led many to years of anguish and guilt?

[and that there are risks associated with abortion]

It is much more risky for the woman to carry the child and give birth to it than have an abortion; about 14 times more dangerous according to one study.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-abortion-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

“RESULTS:

The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.
CONCLUSION:

Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.”

The OP seems to think there isn’t any intimidation and coercion once someone walks in the door of one of these establishments… that’s a bit like assuming that once you walk into a car dealership that no one will attempt to pressure you!

Contrary to the claims by many, such “protesters” are indeed giving people a choice (in fact, more choice than the ACT government is willing to permit). They do this by informing people there are actually other options, that there is support available, and that there are risks associated with abortion (and not just the almost certain death of the child). For anyone in such a vulnerable state and facing such a daunting decision, wouldn’t we want them to be appropriately informed before making an irreversible decision? Yet, the ACT government seeks to prevent such people from being informed, as if they already know what’s best for everyone, irrespective of their particular circumstances.

And how uncaring of “protestors” to actually inform people facing a difficult decision, or to try to suggest that someone refrains from taking a course of action that has led many to years of anguish and guilt?

Southmouth said :

Evilomlap said :

HenryBG said :

Ethically, abortion is absolutely unacceptable.

Why?

I’ll see your troll and raise you one of my own. When do you think an egg and a sperm become a human life?

When they pop out of the hole…
But, sometimes never. Look at these protesters. They make a great case for 90th trimester abortion to be legalised.

Evilomlap said :

HenryBG said :

Ethically, abortion is absolutely unacceptable.

Why?

I’ll see your troll and raise you one of my own. When do you think an egg and a sperm become a human life?

No one has even raised the issue of the unreliability of common contraceptives. None are 100% effective regardless of whether they are used correctly. This means there will always be accidental pregnancies. I can here the protester’s supporters already baying that “sex is a choice and if you choose to have sex you must accept the consequences”.

HenryBG said :

Ethically, abortion is absolutely unacceptable.

Why?

Maya123 said :

Southmouth said :

Google it and you’ll see the numbers are inaccurate but generally held to be 1% rape, 3% malformed, 8% under 18. So 80 or 90 percent are not those things

You didn’t mention male coercion to have sex without protection. The old, old thing about not wanting to wear a raincoat, or is there a different expression now? I would guess most unwanted pregnancies that don’t come into your statistics above come from this. If a male doesn’t want a female to abort, don’t place her into that position, and don’t cheer on the sexual conquests of your mates.
However, still the woman’s choice to choose. It isn’t a baby yet. It only has the potential to be a baby. So does an egg or a sperm too.

Do you think that there might also be some girls so disempowered that they feel they have no chioce but to have an abortion?

Evilomlap said :

Southmouth said :

Google it and you’ll see the numbers are inaccurate but generally held to be 1% rape, 3% malformed, 8% under 18. So 80 or 90 percent are not those things

So what’s your argument? That because according to Google, 80-90% of women accessing the service are NOT doing it because they are pregnant due to rape, or because their unborn babies are ‘malformed’, or because they are juveniles, that makes intimidating them as they enter A-okay?

Protestors should not be able to abuse or intimidate anyone and that should be reflected in the law for everyone everywhere. Demonising a particular group using dodgy numbers to make the issue more emotive is bad politics. Protestors should not have their right to protest determined by what they protest against or what public land they choose to do it on.

ChrisinTurner1:14 pm 06 Sep 15

I have never understood how anti-abortionists decide that a miscarriage does not require a proper burial, seeing they claim it is a person since conception.

HenryBG said :

Maya123 said :

However, still the woman’s choice to choose. It isn’t a baby yet.

A foetus is quite clearly alive, and DNA testing would prove it was 100% human.

Ethically, abortion is absolutely unacceptable.

A very small minority chooses to demonstrate outside premises where these unethical medical procedures are taking place, while the majority of us just look the other way.
In a democracy, you have to learn to deal with a bit of diversity of opinion.

And characterising a peaceful protest as “intimidation”, and lying about these religious nuts “hurling abuse” only underscores the dishonesty of your position.

“Ethically, abortion is absolutely unacceptable.”

Your opinion, not the opinion of surveys that say about 80% of people don’t agree with you. And fortunately for you as a man (presuming that Henry is a man) you have never, and would never, have been in that situation.

HenryBG said :

Alexandra Craig said :

What woman going in to get an abortion wants to see a photo or drawing of a dead foetus on a placard?

What is more unethical?
– paying a doctor to use a pair of scissors to chop up a live human foetus in the womb?
– printing out a picture of a dead foetus and showing it to people?

Some people want to ban abortion.
Some people want to ban freedom of speech.

Both groups are extremists, but it is the latter that is the biggest threat.

Well summed up.

I also work regularly in that area, and have never once seen the ‘protesters’ actually confront or hassle anyone.

Alexandra Craig7:00 pm 05 Sep 15

HenryBG said :

Alexandra Craig said :

What woman going in to get an abortion wants to see a photo or drawing of a dead foetus on a placard?

What is more unethical?
– paying a doctor to use a pair of scissors to chop up a live human foetus in the womb?
– printing out a picture of a dead foetus and showing it to people?

Some people want to ban abortion.
Some people want to ban freedom of speech.

Both groups are extremists, but it is the latter that is the biggest threat.

You know that plenty of abortions aren’t actually surgical, right?

Blen_Carmichael2:31 pm 05 Sep 15

I believe in free speech, but…

Wow, the judgment and lack of real knowledge showing through on these comments is scary.
There’s so many reasons that women seek abortion services and if we agree or not they should not have to run a gauntlet of protest to access services, no other patient has to. Would you protest outside cancer clinics against smokers accessing the service? No. Partly as you could not determine who is sick due to smoking or other reasons.

Same as you have no knowledge of why the woman is seeking abortion services. And nor should you and especially you should not judge them.

Arguments provided have ignored that even people who are careful and use protection can still get pregnant. Many comments are around people not being careful so is it different for those who are careful?

Women (and sadly girls) need this service for a multitude of reasons, some we may agree with and some we may not but they have the right to seek help without having to pass judgemental protesters.

And Gooterz sprouting ridiculous statements such as being able to get an abortion at 42 weeks without question is inflamming an already heated topic.

Alexandra Craig said :

What woman going in to get an abortion wants to see a photo or drawing of a dead foetus on a placard?

What is more unethical?
– paying a doctor to use a pair of scissors to chop up a live human foetus in the womb?
– printing out a picture of a dead foetus and showing it to people?

Some people want to ban abortion.
Some people want to ban freedom of speech.

Both groups are extremists, but it is the latter that is the biggest threat.

Maya123 said :

However, still the woman’s choice to choose. It isn’t a baby yet.

A foetus is quite clearly alive, and DNA testing would prove it was 100% human.

Ethically, abortion is absolutely unacceptable.

A very small minority chooses to demonstrate outside premises where these unethical medical procedures are taking place, while the majority of us just look the other way.
In a democracy, you have to learn to deal with a bit of diversity of opinion.

And characterising a peaceful protest as “intimidation”, and lying about these religious nuts “hurling abuse” only underscores the dishonesty of your position.

chewy14 said :

Ah, I love to see the usual supporters of protesting and freedom turn around and want to ban other people enjoying the same right to political expression that they enjoy.

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”.

Right on.

Characterising a very peaceful protest that comprises people praying and others displaying factual information as “intimidation, persecution, and unnecessary suffering” is dishonest and completely out of kilter with our democratic principles.

gooterz said :

Maya123 said :

gooterz said :

Are we worried that those people are vulnerable to what? Seeing the impact of what they’re doing.

Its the exact same issue as people who smoke. They have to look at pictures of deformed people every time they get a packet of cigs.

In this case its the government who is protesting that the impacts of smoking are bad. However not everyone that smokes has bad things happen to them and some people need to smoke for medical reasons.

Taking up smoking is a choice and so is getting pregnant.
ACT is fairly mad in the sense that you can be at 42+ weeks pregnant and get an abortion. No questions asked.
I think people should have the ability to protest that wherever. That isn’t a religious thing that’s just a logistics moral failure.

If a mother stops being able to kill her baby the moment that the baby is born, a baby that’s been able to survive for the past 20 weeks.

Question: Does it also mean then that if you cause someone to miscarry at full term its really not that serious as it wasn’t a real human?

“Taking up smoking is a choice and so is getting pregnant.”

Surely you’ve heard of rape, incest (especially of minors), pressure from the male partner to have unprotected sex, etc. So, everything is the female’s fault and she must be punished by losing ownership of her body and being forced to carry a baby full term. Even if she is a pregnant twelve year old. Or perhaps you don’t really believe the female should own her own body. Show some empathy. And if you then say there are exceptions (it’s possible you might actually believe there are no exceptions. Some people are so un-empathetic, they do. Not saying this is you.), how in that reasoning is the baby of a raped twelve year old worth less than the unwanted baby of a thirty year old? I am coming from where you appear to be coming from in my question, not what is right and just. And where was the male exhibiting the choice here, by taking protective measures so that no embryo is began? It seems it is only the female who must be held accountable.

“Its the exact same issue as people who smoke. They have to look at pictures of deformed people every time they get a packet of cigs.”

The photographs that these people are holding up might not even be accurate to the situation. This is a question, as I haven’t been there to see the photographs they hold up. Do they hold up photographs of the Embryonic stage, or only the more recognisable (Pretty from their point of view!) foetal stage. How about deformed foetuses. I bet they don’t hold them up.

Male children are also raped and cause pregnancies, the impact is they aren’t old enough to be responsible for the child yet have to pay child support.

Given its the woman right to her own body(except an unborn female) should she also have the right to kill the child once delivered? What age limit seems appropriate to you? 30 days after the birth (bit like a Kmart refund). The day before the birth (Kogans change of mind before delivery)

There is the other side of the coin too. Not all women whom have abortions actually end up happy. Many hate themselves for years afterwards.

Not even going to bother with your straw man exceptions, except that 9 months is far long to have the chance to decide.

Straw man arguments.
Please give an example of a male child being raped and a pregnancy resulting and then the child having to pay child maintenance.

Maya, i agree with you that at some time after sex, it becomes a baby. Few mothers would say that at 18 or 20 weeks when it kicks and rolls about, that it’s not a baby yet. The time that an individual believes this occurs will largely determine their view on abortion. If you think it’s not a baby til it’s born then i guess killing it at 30 weeks is fine

Maya123 said :

gooterz said :

Are we worried that those people are vulnerable to what? Seeing the impact of what they’re doing.

Its the exact same issue as people who smoke. They have to look at pictures of deformed people every time they get a packet of cigs.

In this case its the government who is protesting that the impacts of smoking are bad. However not everyone that smokes has bad things happen to them and some people need to smoke for medical reasons.

Taking up smoking is a choice and so is getting pregnant.
ACT is fairly mad in the sense that you can be at 42+ weeks pregnant and get an abortion. No questions asked.
I think people should have the ability to protest that wherever. That isn’t a religious thing that’s just a logistics moral failure.

If a mother stops being able to kill her baby the moment that the baby is born, a baby that’s been able to survive for the past 20 weeks.

Question: Does it also mean then that if you cause someone to miscarry at full term its really not that serious as it wasn’t a real human?

“Taking up smoking is a choice and so is getting pregnant.”

Surely you’ve heard of rape, incest (especially of minors), pressure from the male partner to have unprotected sex, etc. So, everything is the female’s fault and she must be punished by losing ownership of her body and being forced to carry a baby full term. Even if she is a pregnant twelve year old. Or perhaps you don’t really believe the female should own her own body. Show some empathy. And if you then say there are exceptions (it’s possible you might actually believe there are no exceptions. Some people are so un-empathetic, they do. Not saying this is you.), how in that reasoning is the baby of a raped twelve year old worth less than the unwanted baby of a thirty year old? I am coming from where you appear to be coming from in my question, not what is right and just. And where was the male exhibiting the choice here, by taking protective measures so that no embryo is began? It seems it is only the female who must be held accountable.

“Its the exact same issue as people who smoke. They have to look at pictures of deformed people every time they get a packet of cigs.”

The photographs that these people are holding up might not even be accurate to the situation. This is a question, as I haven’t been there to see the photographs they hold up. Do they hold up photographs of the Embryonic stage, or only the more recognisable (Pretty from their point of view!) foetal stage. How about deformed foetuses. I bet they don’t hold them up.

Male children are also raped and cause pregnancies, the impact is they aren’t old enough to be responsible for the child yet have to pay child support.

Given its the woman right to her own body(except an unborn female) should she also have the right to kill the child once delivered? What age limit seems appropriate to you? 30 days after the birth (bit like a Kmart refund). The day before the birth (Kogans change of mind before delivery)

There is the other side of the coin too. Not all women whom have abortions actually end up happy. Many hate themselves for years afterwards.

Not even going to bother with your straw man exceptions, except that 9 months is far long to have the chance to decide.

Maya123 said :

Southmouth said :

Google it and you’ll see the numbers are inaccurate but generally held to be 1% rape, 3% malformed, 8% under 18. So 80 or 90 percent are not those things

You didn’t mention male coercion to have sex without protection. The old, old thing about not wanting to wear a raincoat, or is there a different expression now? I would guess most unwanted pregnancies that don’t come into your statistics above come from this. If a male doesn’t want a female to abort, don’t place her into that position, and don’t cheer on the sexual conquests of your mates.
However, still the woman’s choice to choose. It isn’t a baby yet. It only has the potential to be a baby. So does an egg or a sperm too.

Are you really trying to suggest that the majority of unwanted pregnacies are because a male coerced (forced) a woman to have unprotected sex? Really?

I find that a disgustingly offensive opinion.

I’m wondering if I can get a politician to enact a law banning that kind of opinion in public?

No. No one should be intimidating anyone. Just want the discussion do include the numbers if it is going to touch on why the patients are there. Facts are good.

Southmouth said :

Google it and you’ll see the numbers are inaccurate but generally held to be 1% rape, 3% malformed, 8% under 18. So 80 or 90 percent are not those things

So what’s your argument? That because according to Google, 80-90% of women accessing the service are NOT doing it because they are pregnant due to rape, or because their unborn babies are ‘malformed’, or because they are juveniles, that makes intimidating them as they enter A-okay?

Southmouth said :

Google it and you’ll see the numbers are inaccurate but generally held to be 1% rape, 3% malformed, 8% under 18. So 80 or 90 percent are not those things

You didn’t mention male coercion to have sex without protection. The old, old thing about not wanting to wear a raincoat, or is there a different expression now? I would guess most unwanted pregnancies that don’t come into your statistics above come from this. If a male doesn’t want a female to abort, don’t place her into that position, and don’t cheer on the sexual conquests of your mates.
However, still the woman’s choice to choose. It isn’t a baby yet. It only has the potential to be a baby. So does an egg or a sperm too.

Google it and you’ll see the numbers are inaccurate but generally held to be 1% rape, 3% malformed, 8% under 18. So 80 or 90 percent are not those things

Did anyone go down there this morning to get a up-to-the-minute look?

gooterz said :

Are we worried that those people are vulnerable to what? Seeing the impact of what they’re doing.

Its the exact same issue as people who smoke. They have to look at pictures of deformed people every time they get a packet of cigs.

In this case its the government who is protesting that the impacts of smoking are bad. However not everyone that smokes has bad things happen to them and some people need to smoke for medical reasons.

Taking up smoking is a choice and so is getting pregnant.
ACT is fairly mad in the sense that you can be at 42+ weeks pregnant and get an abortion. No questions asked.
I think people should have the ability to protest that wherever. That isn’t a religious thing that’s just a logistics moral failure.

If a mother stops being able to kill her baby the moment that the baby is born, a baby that’s been able to survive for the past 20 weeks.

Question: Does it also mean then that if you cause someone to miscarry at full term its really not that serious as it wasn’t a real human?

“Taking up smoking is a choice and so is getting pregnant.”

Surely you’ve heard of rape, incest (especially of minors), pressure from the male partner to have unprotected sex, etc. So, everything is the female’s fault and she must be punished by losing ownership of her body and being forced to carry a baby full term. Even if she is a pregnant twelve year old. Or perhaps you don’t really believe the female should own her own body. Show some empathy. And if you then say there are exceptions (it’s possible you might actually believe there are no exceptions. Some people are so un-empathetic, they do. Not saying this is you.), how in that reasoning is the baby of a raped twelve year old worth less than the unwanted baby of a thirty year old? I am coming from where you appear to be coming from in my question, not what is right and just. And where was the male exhibiting the choice here, by taking protective measures so that no embryo is began? It seems it is only the female who must be held accountable.

“Its the exact same issue as people who smoke. They have to look at pictures of deformed people every time they get a packet of cigs.”

The photographs that these people are holding up might not even be accurate to the situation. This is a question, as I haven’t been there to see the photographs they hold up. Do they hold up photographs of the Embryonic stage, or only the more recognisable (Pretty from their point of view!) foetal stage. How about deformed foetuses. I bet they don’t hold them up.

Are we worried that those people are vulnerable to what? Seeing the impact of what they’re doing.

Its the exact same issue as people who smoke. They have to look at pictures of deformed people every time they get a packet of cigs.

In this case its the government who is protesting that the impacts of smoking are bad. However not everyone that smokes has bad things happen to them and some people need to smoke for medical reasons.

Taking up smoking is a choice and so is getting pregnant.
ACT is fairly mad in the sense that you can be at 42+ weeks pregnant and get an abortion. No questions asked.
I think people should have the ability to protest that wherever. That isn’t a religious thing that’s just a logistics moral failure.

If a mother stops being able to kill her baby the moment that the baby is born, a baby that’s been able to survive for the past 20 weeks.

Question: Does it also mean then that if you cause someone to miscarry at full term its really not that serious as it wasn’t a real human?

On more than one occasion I have taken my young son to this building for his hearing tests. I am offended and annoyed that these people are allowed to show such graphic material in a public place where you are not guaranteed to only come across those they are targeting.
I wonder if there would be as much acceptance of clinics being targeted who provide vasectomies?
Everyone is meant to be able to access medical assistance without having others make judgment, or to make people feel uncomfortable, harrassed or tormented. And simply protesting, showing graphic material, even peacefully, at the entrance to where the patients need to enter is wrong. There needs to be a seclusion zone. For all who use the building.

Ghettosmurf872:56 pm 03 Sep 15

Southmouth said :

Alexandra Craig said :

Southmouth said :

More Christian bashing by the Sex Party and random bigots……….Yawn

Nothing to do with religion in my views. Whether someone is Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Jehovah’s Witness/Hindu/Atheist – don’t hassle people outside an abortion clinic.

I completely agree. The thing to be concious of though is that the Sex Party is at it’s core anti christian so tends to draw out the bigots using these kind of extreme examples as bate.

I work with in a position that deals directly with a number of political parties. I would dispute your claim that at its core the Sex Party is anti-Christian. A number of its policies are diametrically opposed to the policies of the Christian parties out there, but that’s the point of allowing so many parties to exist. You get different views. Will the party attract anti-Christians? Sure. In much the same way that Christianity attracts anti-homosexuals. For the most part that is not the core purpose of either movement, but they do attract some of those sorts along the way too.

Worth avoiding broad brushes here, yes?

Alexandra Craig said :

Southmouth said :

More Christian bashing by the Sex Party and random bigots……….Yawn

Nothing to do with religion in my views. Whether someone is Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Jehovah’s Witness/Hindu/Atheist – don’t hassle people outside an abortion clinic.

I completely agree. The thing to be concious of though is that the Sex Party is at it’s core anti christian so tends to draw out the bigots using these kind of extreme examples as bate.

Alexandra Craig1:45 pm 03 Sep 15

Southmouth said :

More Christian bashing by the Sex Party and random bigots……….Yawn

Nothing to do with religion in my views. Whether someone is Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Jehovah’s Witness/Hindu/Atheist – don’t hassle people outside an abortion clinic.

Ghettosmurf871:44 pm 03 Sep 15

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

chewy14 said :

My main issue with this is the hypocrisy of others who think protesting their pet issues is perfectly acceptable but believe others shouldn’t be allowed to disagree or protest other issues.

+1. If we want to accept peaceful protest as a healthy part of our society, we need to accept it from everyone, even if we disagree with the opinions expressed. It’s not like the people in questions are doing anything more than mumbling some prayers and holding some signs.

Nothing wrong with protesting and preaching, but active harassment of patients should not occur. These people are vulnerable and are no doubt not in the best mental state. The consequences of harassment of these vulnerable patients is far greater than then the denial of someone’s right to be nasty.

While I make no claims about the clinic in Canberra, the claim that there is no evidence of abuse by protesters at these sorts of clinics is false. In Victoria there have been documented cases of abuse outside clinics, including the murder of a security guard at on clinic.

Info here: http://health.vic.gov.au/phwa/downloads/fertility_contol_clinic_attachment1.pdf

I’m sure a little more digging would locate other complaints and reports about incidents.

It is simply a balancing act, yes people can protest and try to promote their viewpoint. But this should not be allowed to tip over into harassment and abuse of vulnerable individuals. We don’t tolerate and support bullying in schools and the workplace and we know that bullying can lead to suicide in vulnerable people. We should not be advocating for that to occur at these clinics too.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back1:11 pm 03 Sep 15

chewy14 said :

My main issue with this is the hypocrisy of others who think protesting their pet issues is perfectly acceptable but believe others shouldn’t be allowed to disagree or protest other issues.

+1. If we want to accept peaceful protest as a healthy part of our society, we need to accept it from everyone, even if we disagree with the opinions expressed. It’s not like the people in questions are doing anything more than mumbling some prayers and holding some signs.

More Christian bashing by the Sex Party and random bigots……….Yawn

Grimm said :

chewy14 said :

Grimm said :

chewy14 said :

Grimm said :

chewy14 said :

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”. You simply don’t agree with their political opinion on abortion so you want to ban them from expressing it. If they are actively harrassing people, they should be stopped from doing so but if they are simply praying/chanting or holding signs then they are well within their rights and should be allowed to do so.

Hurling abuse at some poor woman probably already having a hard enough time with her decision, and quite likely to be in a fragile mental state is what they do, and it is absolutely abuse, harassment and intimidation. If all they did was hold signs and pray to their sky fairy, I doubt people would care so much.

Um,
have you ever seen their protests? They don’t hurl abuse at anyone, they simply say prayers.

If they were abusing people, I would agree with you.

Um, did you read my first post on the subject? I used to walk past them on a daily basis and watched several times as they abused people entering and exiting the building. This may have changed in the past couple of years, but it was the case when I was working on Moore St.

I read your first comment, you said you used to heckle them and suggested they should be tazed.

Correct?

You’ll forgive me if I know take your new claim that they abuse people with a large grain of salt?

I’ve walked past this protest regularly for many, many years. Not once have I ever seen them abuse or harrass anyone and it’s never been reported in the media that they have. Perhaps you have further evidence?

Surely if they were abusing people, Rattenbury would have used that as evidence for his proposed law?

Ah, I see, it didn’t ever happen if you didn’t see it?

I’m amazed anybody would doubt that these zealots would sometimes be abusive. They are willing to sit there all day with signs etc yet not speak a word to anybody? Sounds legit.

No, I asked for evidence that it had happened, a media report, anything. And if such evidence existed it would surely have been used by the proponents of this law but they haven’t suggested anything like that has occurred.

You freely admitted that you personally abused them but expect us to just take your word that they abused other people? I’ll pass on your objectivity thanks.

And who said anything about “speaking a word to anybody”? We are talking about abuse, if they discuss the issue with those who approach or interact with them, I dont see a problem.

My main issue with this is the hypocrisy of others who think protesting their pet issues is perfectly acceptable but believe others shouldn’t be allowed to disagree or protest other issues.

People who think breaking laws through “civil disobedience” is perfectly acceptable behaviour if it’s a “righteous” cause in their mind but dont like others standing around a public place with signs?

The mind boggles at the cognitive dissonance.

chewy14 said :

Grimm said :

chewy14 said :

Grimm said :

chewy14 said :

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”. You simply don’t agree with their political opinion on abortion so you want to ban them from expressing it. If they are actively harrassing people, they should be stopped from doing so but if they are simply praying/chanting or holding signs then they are well within their rights and should be allowed to do so.

Hurling abuse at some poor woman probably already having a hard enough time with her decision, and quite likely to be in a fragile mental state is what they do, and it is absolutely abuse, harassment and intimidation. If all they did was hold signs and pray to their sky fairy, I doubt people would care so much.

Um,
have you ever seen their protests? They don’t hurl abuse at anyone, they simply say prayers.

If they were abusing people, I would agree with you.

Um, did you read my first post on the subject? I used to walk past them on a daily basis and watched several times as they abused people entering and exiting the building. This may have changed in the past couple of years, but it was the case when I was working on Moore St.

I read your first comment, you said you used to heckle them and suggested they should be tazed.

Correct?

You’ll forgive me if I know take your new claim that they abuse people with a large grain of salt?

I’ve walked past this protest regularly for many, many years. Not once have I ever seen them abuse or harrass anyone and it’s never been reported in the media that they have. Perhaps you have further evidence?

Surely if they were abusing people, Rattenbury would have used that as evidence for his proposed law?

Ah, I see, it didn’t ever happen if you didn’t see it?

I’m amazed anybody would doubt that these zealots would sometimes be abusive. They are willing to sit there all day with signs etc yet not speak a word to anybody? Sounds legit.

Mysteryman said :

watto23 said :

Freedom of speech is a funny issue. We had a federal government complaining laws breached freedom of speech and wanting to change them, yet now cry foul that the newspapers are picking on them…..

The difference being that the Federal government, while they complained, didn’t try to legislate Fairfax away.

watto23 said :

People should be free to say what they want. However when that freedom infringes on the freedoms of others, then its really no longer just a freedom of speech issue any more. These people are standing out the front and while they aren’t intimidating to me, to someone who is trying to make a very tough decision it may very well be

Freedom from offense isn’t a right. And nor should it be. Your point about what may or may not be intimidating is an interesting one. Some people may be intimidated by a group of old people standing around with signs, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to be legislating based on feelings. That’s precisely why I’m opposed to things like section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act – I think it’s simply too far reaching to legislate based on a “feeling” of offense, or a “feeling” of intimidation (when there is no actual threat of harm).

Yes and that is a big issue these days. People feel their freedom of speech is far more important than whether they actually offend people. I’m not talking about being politically correct here either. I personally find political correctness has gone too far. Everyone thinks they are an expert and thus can criticise muslims, gays etc etc. Or better yet play the victim card, because they feel they are somehow worse off than a minority who is feeling discriminated against.

Back to the issue. We shouldn’t need to legislate these people away. It amazes me how people with religious faith can be so disrespectful of others. They are only praying there for one reason only. To stop or intimidate people to not get abortions. If they were considerate of these peoples choices which are currently legal in the ACT, they could do their prayers and vigils in another area with higher walking traffic and get their message out, hand out information without intimidating those who least need it. Just because you have a set or moral values you believe in strongly, it does not mean you have the right to tell others or indicate that their morals are wrong.

I have far far less issues with muslims than i do catholics and christians, yet you’d think according to the media it would be the other way around. I’m continually told that islam wants to ruin my Australian lifestyle, yet the religious groups we have now are trying to already do it.

So IMO a respectful person with strong views on abortion, would acknowledge that these women have made a choice and let them do so. They are free to have their point of view presented in other ways, without being in the face of people who have a tough choice to make. I bet a church would not tolerate a group of people out the front, with signs telling them god is made up and they are all sheep being controlled by the church or something in that vein. That is how I look at these things. If you would not tolerate it on your own turf, why should you have the right to go somewhere else and do it to others.

Alexandra Craig said :

Grimm said :

chewy14 said :

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”. You simply don’t agree with their political opinion on abortion so you want to ban them from expressing it. If they are actively harrassing people, they should be stopped from doing so but if they are simply praying/chanting or holding signs then they are well within their rights and should be allowed to do so.

Hurling abuse at some poor woman probably already having a hard enough time with her decision, and quite likely to be in a fragile mental state is what they do, and it is absolutely abuse, harassment and intimidation. If all they did was hold signs and pray to their sky fairy, I doubt people would care so much.

What woman going in to get an abortion wants to see a photo or drawing of a dead foetus on a placard? (This happened all the time at the place I used to walk past – not sure about Canberra) Women going into these clinics want privacy. If it was me, the last thing I would want would be to walk past a big group of people staring at me.

Evilomlap said :

That said, they must choose to conduct their protests there for a reason, when they could protest this issue pretty much anywhere. I’m guessing that reason is to intimidate the people accessing that service.

Intimidation can take many forms, it doesn’t necessarily have to be ‘hurling abuse’ at people.

Exactly.

“What woman going in to get an abortion wants to see a photo or drawing of a dead foetus on a placard?”

I’m guessing they likely show older and more formed foetus’ than most that are to be aborted. I bet they don’t hold up many, say, six week old foetus photographs. Or deformed foetus’.

I used to like to share my opinions with the god squad. Funny how they used to ignore my questions about pedophile priests.

The praying and signs were not as bad as the bright red model aborted fetus that they used to lay on the ground.

There’s a big difference between sharing your opinion and going out of your way to offend someone.

I wish they could just take some of Damo’s advice and for just one second try not being a f**ckwit!

Alexandra Craig2:30 pm 02 Sep 15

Grimm said :

chewy14 said :

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”. You simply don’t agree with their political opinion on abortion so you want to ban them from expressing it. If they are actively harrassing people, they should be stopped from doing so but if they are simply praying/chanting or holding signs then they are well within their rights and should be allowed to do so.

Hurling abuse at some poor woman probably already having a hard enough time with her decision, and quite likely to be in a fragile mental state is what they do, and it is absolutely abuse, harassment and intimidation. If all they did was hold signs and pray to their sky fairy, I doubt people would care so much.

What woman going in to get an abortion wants to see a photo or drawing of a dead foetus on a placard? (This happened all the time at the place I used to walk past – not sure about Canberra) Women going into these clinics want privacy. If it was me, the last thing I would want would be to walk past a big group of people staring at me.

Evilomlap said :

That said, they must choose to conduct their protests there for a reason, when they could protest this issue pretty much anywhere. I’m guessing that reason is to intimidate the people accessing that service.

Intimidation can take many forms, it doesn’t necessarily have to be ‘hurling abuse’ at people.

Exactly.

watto23 said :

Freedom of speech is a funny issue. We had a federal government complaining laws breached freedom of speech and wanting to change them, yet now cry foul that the newspapers are picking on them…..

The difference being that the Federal government, while they complained, didn’t try to legislate Fairfax away.

watto23 said :

People should be free to say what they want. However when that freedom infringes on the freedoms of others, then its really no longer just a freedom of speech issue any more. These people are standing out the front and while they aren’t intimidating to me, to someone who is trying to make a very tough decision it may very well be

Freedom from offense isn’t a right. And nor should it be. Your point about what may or may not be intimidating is an interesting one. Some people may be intimidated by a group of old people standing around with signs, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to be legislating based on feelings. That’s precisely why I’m opposed to things like section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act – I think it’s simply too far reaching to legislate based on a “feeling” of offense, or a “feeling” of intimidation (when there is no actual threat of harm).

Grimm said :

chewy14 said :

Grimm said :

chewy14 said :

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”. You simply don’t agree with their political opinion on abortion so you want to ban them from expressing it. If they are actively harrassing people, they should be stopped from doing so but if they are simply praying/chanting or holding signs then they are well within their rights and should be allowed to do so.

Hurling abuse at some poor woman probably already having a hard enough time with her decision, and quite likely to be in a fragile mental state is what they do, and it is absolutely abuse, harassment and intimidation. If all they did was hold signs and pray to their sky fairy, I doubt people would care so much.

Um,
have you ever seen their protests? They don’t hurl abuse at anyone, they simply say prayers.

If they were abusing people, I would agree with you.

Um, did you read my first post on the subject? I used to walk past them on a daily basis and watched several times as they abused people entering and exiting the building. This may have changed in the past couple of years, but it was the case when I was working on Moore St.

I read your first comment, you said you used to heckle them and suggested they should be tazed.

Correct?

You’ll forgive me if I know take your new claim that they abuse people with a large grain of salt?

I’ve walked past this protest regularly for many, many years. Not once have I ever seen them abuse or harrass anyone and it’s never been reported in the media that they have. Perhaps you have further evidence?

Surely if they were abusing people, Rattenbury would have used that as evidence for his proposed law?

chewy14 said :

Grimm said :

chewy14 said :

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”. You simply don’t agree with their political opinion on abortion so you want to ban them from expressing it. If they are actively harrassing people, they should be stopped from doing so but if they are simply praying/chanting or holding signs then they are well within their rights and should be allowed to do so.

Hurling abuse at some poor woman probably already having a hard enough time with her decision, and quite likely to be in a fragile mental state is what they do, and it is absolutely abuse, harassment and intimidation. If all they did was hold signs and pray to their sky fairy, I doubt people would care so much.

Um,
have you ever seen their protests? They don’t hurl abuse at anyone, they simply say prayers.

If they were abusing people, I would agree with you.

Um, did you read my first post on the subject? I used to walk past them on a daily basis and watched several times as they abused people entering and exiting the building. This may have changed in the past couple of years, but it was the case when I was working on Moore St.

Freedom of speech is a funny issue. We had a federal government complaining laws breached freedom of speech and wanting to change them, yet now cry foul that the newspapers are picking on them…..

People should be free to say what they want. However when that freedom infringes on the freedoms of others, then its really no longer just a freedom of speech issue any more. These people are standing out the front and while they aren’t intimidating to me, to someone who is trying to make a very tough decision it may very well be. They could conduct the same prayers in Garema place and get a far greater audience and also provide information, so that in the future if people are in that situation they’ll have received their information at a time that they were better able to comprehend it. Trying to convince people when they mentally are struggling with a decision doesn’t help them.

I’ve also heard interviews and to be honest the whole silent majority and people need to know murder occurs in that building are very weak arguments. I’m just thankful we don’t have a strong conservative anti abortion stance in Australia. Reading about the views of the Republican candidates for the US presidential election, many have opinions of abortion where even rape and incest are not considered valid reasons. If adoption was a far easier process then maybe, just maybe you could try to minimise abortions. But ask anyone trying to adopt how painful it is.

chewy14 said :

Ah, I love to see the usual supporters of protesting and freedom turn around and want to ban other people enjoying the same right to political expression that they enjoy.

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”. You simply don’t agree with their political opinion on abortion so you want to ban them from expressing it. If they are actively harrassing people, they should be stopped from doing so but if they are simply praying/chanting or holding signs then they are well within their rights and should be allowed to do so.

I personally support abortion rights for pragmatic and health reasons, but these people believe that human beings are being killed, the idea that they shouldn’t be able to protest in these locations is ridiculous.

I personally don’t agree with other protest movements that happen around this city and I’d love for them to be moved on and stopped from harrassing/impeding others going about their lawful business. But because I recognise their right to protest, I would never support any legal move to remove their rights.

If you want to solve this issue, why do they have abortion clinics in the first place? Surely they could incorporate this function within the hospital(s), in which case this issue would never arise becuase the people wouldn’t have to walk past these protesters or feel intimidated?

100% spot on. This is another case of “freedom of speech but only when I agree with the speech”. I doubt very much that there is any abuse being perpetrated by the people protesting in the city.

I agree these people are backwards, zealous, and complete nut jobs, but I can’t say I’ve ever seen them ‘hurl abuse’ at anyone. Then again I have never observed them for any length of time.

That said, they must choose to conduct their protests there for a reason, when they could protest this issue pretty much anywhere. I’m guessing that reason is to intimidate the people accessing that service.

Intimidation can take many forms, it doesn’t necessarily have to be ‘hurling abuse’ at people.

Alexandra Craig said :

These people (protestors) make me sick. It’s not freedom of speech, it’s abuse.

Where I worked in Surry Hills in Sydney meant I had to walk past one of these clinics every day. And every single time they used to stop me and carry on. It was infuriating for obvious reasons, but also – I wasn’t going in there? They knew who I was, I walked past every day. Though, maybe they were trying to covert me because I made it clear I did not support their views or their actions the first time I walked past.

I’d like to see safe zones brought in nation-wide and hefty fines for anyone who breaches the zone.

Grimm said :

chewy14 said :

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”. You simply don’t agree with their political opinion on abortion so you want to ban them from expressing it. If they are actively harrassing people, they should be stopped from doing so but if they are simply praying/chanting or holding signs then they are well within their rights and should be allowed to do so.

Hurling abuse at some poor woman probably already having a hard enough time with her decision, and quite likely to be in a fragile mental state is what they do, and it is absolutely abuse, harassment and intimidation. If all they did was hold signs and pray to their sky fairy, I doubt people would care so much.

The group outside the clinic in the City tend to be mostly a few older people and a priest who stand and pray, usually surrounded by signs saying “Pray for lives affected by abortion”. We’re lucky in Canberra, in that way.

If it ever progressed to verbal abuse or intimidation, the authorities would need to be called. That said, I don’t think that walking straight out of the clinic and into a group of people protesting and questioning your medical choices is a good thing for anyone.

Steven mentions this in his last paragraph but here is a link to anyone interested in what he’s referring to:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/shane-rattenbury-acknowledges-protester-past-as-he-tables-abortionprotest-bill-20150806-giswsf.html

Here_and_Now said :

chewy14 said :

Ah, I love to see the usual supporters of protesting and freedom turn around and want to ban other people enjoying the same right to political expression that they enjoy.

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”.

No, this is not about the rightist obsession with ‘freedom of speech’.

The praying and protesting people have actively harrassed people going into the building with their business, even those who were going for abortion-unrelated reasons. (Source: people who work there and have this happen.)

chewy14 said :

You simply don’t agree with their political opinion on abortion so you want to ban them from expressing it.

A bold and not necessarily accurate assumption.

chewy14 said :

If they are actively harrassing people, they should be stopped from doing so but if they are simply praying/chanting or holding signs then they are well within their rights and should be allowed to do so.

Exactly. Well said: thanks to the active harrassment they shall be required to carry out their business elsewhere.

If this was about shutting down protest of a cause people didn’t believe in, it wouldn’t be an exclusion zone, the law would be about stopping them altogether.

I’m sure you’ve got more evidence about this “active harrassment” than “someone who works there told me so”?

I’ve walked past this protest countless times over many years and never once seen them do anything like what you suggest. I’ve never seen a media report of them doing so and it’s not been mentioned in the proposal for this law.

So unless you’ve got more information, I’m glad that you agree with me that the proposed law is unnecessary.

Grimm said :

chewy14 said :

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”. You simply don’t agree with their political opinion on abortion so you want to ban them from expressing it. If they are actively harrassing people, they should be stopped from doing so but if they are simply praying/chanting or holding signs then they are well within their rights and should be allowed to do so.

Hurling abuse at some poor woman probably already having a hard enough time with her decision, and quite likely to be in a fragile mental state is what they do, and it is absolutely abuse, harassment and intimidation. If all they did was hold signs and pray to their sky fairy, I doubt people would care so much.

Um,
have you ever seen their protests? They don’t hurl abuse at anyone, they simply say prayers.

If they were abusing people, I would agree with you.

Here_and_Now12:07 pm 02 Sep 15

chewy14 said :

Ah, I love to see the usual supporters of protesting and freedom turn around and want to ban other people enjoying the same right to political expression that they enjoy.

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”.

No, this is not about the rightist obsession with ‘freedom of speech’.

The praying and protesting people have actively harrassed people going into the building with their business, even those who were going for abortion-unrelated reasons. (Source: people who work there and have this happen.)

chewy14 said :

You simply don’t agree with their political opinion on abortion so you want to ban them from expressing it.

A bold and not necessarily accurate assumption.

chewy14 said :

If they are actively harrassing people, they should be stopped from doing so but if they are simply praying/chanting or holding signs then they are well within their rights and should be allowed to do so.

Exactly. Well said: thanks to the active harrassment they shall be required to carry out their business elsewhere.

If this was about shutting down protest of a cause people didn’t believe in, it wouldn’t be an exclusion zone, the law would be about stopping them altogether.

chewy14 said :

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”. You simply don’t agree with their political opinion on abortion so you want to ban them from expressing it. If they are actively harrassing people, they should be stopped from doing so but if they are simply praying/chanting or holding signs then they are well within their rights and should be allowed to do so.

Hurling abuse at some poor woman probably already having a hard enough time with her decision, and quite likely to be in a fragile mental state is what they do, and it is absolutely abuse, harassment and intimidation. If all they did was hold signs and pray to their sky fairy, I doubt people would care so much.

Alexandra Craig said :

These people (protestors) make me sick. It’s not freedom of speech, it’s abuse.

Where I worked in Surry Hills in Sydney meant I had to walk past one of these clinics every day. And every single time they used to stop me and carry on. It was infuriating for obvious reasons, but also – I wasn’t going in there? They knew who I was, I walked past every day. Though, maybe they were trying to covert me because I made it clear I did not support their views or their actions the first time I walked past.

I’d like to see safe zones brought in nation-wide and hefty fines for anyone who breaches the zone.

+1. These people should impose their misguided morality on their families and their friends, not young, vulnerable people who they don’t even know.

Ah, I love to see the usual supporters of protesting and freedom turn around and want to ban other people enjoying the same right to political expression that they enjoy.

Of course this is ALL about freedom of speech and nothing to do with “abuse” or “intimidation”. You simply don’t agree with their political opinion on abortion so you want to ban them from expressing it. If they are actively harrassing people, they should be stopped from doing so but if they are simply praying/chanting or holding signs then they are well within their rights and should be allowed to do so.

I personally support abortion rights for pragmatic and health reasons, but these people believe that human beings are being killed, the idea that they shouldn’t be able to protest in these locations is ridiculous.

I personally don’t agree with other protest movements that happen around this city and I’d love for them to be moved on and stopped from harrassing/impeding others going about their lawful business. But because I recognise their right to protest, I would never support any legal move to remove their rights.

If you want to solve this issue, why do they have abortion clinics in the first place? Surely they could incorporate this function within the hospital(s), in which case this issue would never arise becuase the people wouldn’t have to walk past these protesters or feel intimidated?

Very christian attitude they usually have as well….

Alexandra Craig10:57 am 02 Sep 15

These people (protestors) make me sick. It’s not freedom of speech, it’s abuse.

Where I worked in Surry Hills in Sydney meant I had to walk past one of these clinics every day. And every single time they used to stop me and carry on. It was infuriating for obvious reasons, but also – I wasn’t going in there? They knew who I was, I walked past every day. Though, maybe they were trying to covert me because I made it clear I did not support their views or their actions the first time I walked past.

I’d like to see safe zones brought in nation-wide and hefty fines for anyone who breaches the zone.

I used to walk past that place on Moore St pretty much every day. The idiots were fun to heckle. They don’t have much of a sense of humour.

But I agree. These people are a nuisance and should definitely be moved on. Preferably with the aid of a night stick or tazer.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.