Pro-life activist arrested for praying silently near an abortion facility

a reply to: Maxmars

Both parties are guilty of something here... and neither want's to even acknowledge that fact.

I think it's a tribal instinct... It's funny though, we don't actually play for our team, we get played BY our team.

It takes some serious self-reflection to realize that,balls to step out and some steadfastness to not join the next best team.

a reply to: Terpene

Maybe that's why I don't have a problem with the order prohibiting protesting. All I am complaining about is the order being turned into a prohibition on religion and thought (as now both you and bastion have admitted... no idea why it took you so long).

Thinking about it, and assuming you're not making this up for the arguments sake, they are actually both anti choice...

OK, look, I don't make things up on here. I don't have to, and I have quite enough stress on me already without having to remember what I made up yesterday.

I will agree that the fringe elements on both sides are inherently anti-choice... which supports the argument that this whole debate is not about choice. It's pro-abortion and anti-abortion. I lean toward anti-abortion, with common sense exceptions. Death is not something to be celebrated or promoted.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Diffrent cultures would very much disagree, when it comes to celebrating death.
I think the responsibility to bring live to terms also comes with the responsibility to not do so.

I'm glad, I'm not in the position to have that responsibility weighing on me, and would hate to see anyone trying to pressure me when exercising my free will over my body however I deem fit, it shouldn't be of anyone else's concern...

a reply to: Terpene

would hate to see anyone trying to pressure me when exercising my free will over my body however I deem fit

"They" already do that... with a vaccine.

You are nowhere near as free as you think. But don't change what you think... might be illegal.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: texas thinker
This is prophecy.
Believers in Christ will be persecuted.
Those that stand strong in the face of such persecution shall be blessed.
Believe it.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: TheRedneck

Diffrent cultures would very much disagree, when it comes to celebrating death.
I think the responsibility to bring live to terms also comes with the responsibility to not do so.

I'm glad, I'm not in the position to have that responsibility weighing on me, and would hate to see anyone trying to pressure me when exercising my free will over my body however I deem fit, it shouldn't be of anyone else's concern...

Just adding some more food for thought on this one.

Charles is technically NOT yet king and his plan to restyle himself as defender of the FAITHS rather than the parliamentary sanctioned and legally obliged role of Defender of THE faith as head of the Anglican church which role the monarch of Great Britain has is actually one that will require an act of parliament to allow, along with the fact that he IS an adulterer and a self confessed one at that which would also require an act of parliament mean that technically while he is the acting regent is not yet the king, the coronation is an Anglican ceremony as well so a form of Christian ceremony that requires anointing and he is not fit to be anointed in this manner having technically already voided his right to the throne through adultery and his other transgressions.

Now I know that appears to have nothing to do with this thread but bear with me.

The Police and courts in the UK work under the principle of being arms of the monarchy, the CROWN courts and the HIGH court represent the monarch while lower courts such as Magistrates courts are only really able despite them today performing some criminal trials (trials which are then subject to the right of the convicted party OR the prosecuting party to be retried in a higher court) to perform a stand in role and deal with minor matters and civil law.

Likewise the police of the UK - well definitely England while Scotland may have some minor difference here ONLY gain there authority by being issued a Warrant Card, now what is a warrant card well it is actually a card that gives the police officer similar rights to a bailiff of the CROWN COURT (A crown court Bailiff still has more powers so long as they are acting in pursuit of the courts rulings), this Warrant card effectively states that the police officer is performing his duty under the AUTHORITY OF THE CROWN.

Now the Crown is head of the Church (Anglican or Church of England if you want) which is a branch of Christianity.

So this police officer arresting a woman for praying to Christ under the Authority of one whom is supposed to PROTECT the Church or more precisely the FAITH that faith being Christianity is also proof that this officer has acted ILLEGALLY and should be dismissed and have his warrant card removed.

Likewise the authority of the council which is BELOW that of a County or Magistrates court and that itself being below that of a Crown court which in turn takes it's authority from the CROWN albeit the last Monarch has died and the current head of state is not yet legally actually the head of state and nor is he the head yet of the Anglican church and is something he can NOT be if he refuses to swear to protect the faith of Christianity but dismisses it in favour of the unchristian FAITHS is further proof that the whole arrest is trumped up and illegal as well as being an abuse of power that technically the police officers involved actually do NOT have, at least until a new warrant card under a new monarch is sworn in.

Of course this would be ignored but under English Statute and the rules of parliament and the monarchy this is actually how it stands LEGALLY.

Even courts are currently breaking the law naming what was a Queen's council a King's Council when in fact we do not legally yet have a new King, what we have is someone whom is legally NOT entitled to the throne without an act of parliament and whom can NOT be anointed by the Anglican BISHOP's until he Commits to swear to protect THE FAITH i.e. Christianity and not THE Faith's, also he is it requires an act of parliament to legitimize him and a council of the Church to allow a CONFESSED adulterer to even be anointed as King of England.

As things stand currently he is not fit to rule.

But we know they will ignore this, either way the world is watching the persecution of a Christian woman whom was doing no wrong in what used to be one of the most decent country's in the world but sadly is now gone to pot.

Oh how I wish we still had men like Gordon, that old General would have wiped the floor with the brainless, faithless scum that have destroyed our nation like a cancer from within.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Quadrivium

We could also play that game the other way around ant call them pro and anti choice... But that wouldn't fly either would it now?

No, not really.
Pro-choice vs Anti-choice...
What is being chosen?
Abortion.
What is abortion?
The violent, premeditated killing of another human being for convenience, in 99% of cases.
Abortion has become a form of birth control.
It is not the "right to choose" people want, it is the right to another human beings life they desire.

a reply to: Quadrivium

So... you want to tell women they are not in charge of their body and you would know better? Or do you want to deny women the right to choose what to do with their body?

You think anyone else should have the authority inside a women's body except the women in question?

You'd want her inside to be regulated legally?

Women have been aborting for varios reason long before known history and all along to this very day... It's not new, and making it illegal and a taboo has never helped creating a healthy approach to sensible social topics.

a reply to: Terpene

So... you want to tell women they are not in charge of their body and you would know better? Or do you want to deny women the right to choose what to do with their body?

No, and I never claimed to “want to” do anything of the sort. They are in ABSOLUTE control of their bodies, in 99% of abortion cases, just as men are.
I speak out for the same reason I would if I were to walk into a public restroom to find a woman (or man) strangling their newborn, toddler, teen or senior family member.
The Zygote, embryo, fetus, new born, toddler, adolescent and adult are all stages of a human beings life cycle.
To kill any of these results in the termination of a human being’s life

You think anyone else should have the authority inside a women's body except the women in question?

I never said that either.
The body in her body is not her body.

You'd want her inside to be regulated legally?

Again, I never said this.

Women have been aborting for varios reason long before known history and all along to this very day... It's not new, and making it illegal and a taboo has never helped creating a healthy approach to sensible social topics.

Your point being….?
We have always done things, “we have always done”, until we learned better.
We now know that a human being’s life cycle begins at conception.
This is an uninterrupted, continuous cycle until the human being reaches adulthood.

a reply to: Quadrivium

The only thing that really changed is we have the tech to make it a safe and non-invasive procedure.

the body in her body is not her body.

Who's body is it? your kids are not yours?

You notice the crux, even though the being can be considered alive, it's still inside the body of the mother, making it about that live and granting it rights, regulates the inside of a women...

a reply to: Terpene

I find it very revealing that the arguments have taken the form of "right to my body" in a world where that is demonstrably untrue. I won't go into the "demonstrable" part because it distracts from the discussion... suffice to say this is not about bodily autonomy unless all that means is you can live the "Whatever, I do what I want!" life of a cartoon character.

This used to be about a women's right to bodily autonomy...

Because of religious and moral codes in 'common' society, it was impossible for her to engage any services to terminate a pregnancy without risking life and health... common civil discourse eventually wrested the stigma from the restriction to a criminal act to satisfy the need to end a pregnancy.

And let's not forget something that seems always to be absent from conversations like these. Abortion is not a "modern" thing. Women have undertaken the practice for centuries upon centuries. Initially it was so much a "women's" issue that it was as obscure as menstruation, insofar as men were concerned... especially 'rule-making' men.

"Short memory is a privilege of the oppressor."

Now that has all changed. Doctors are willing to accept money for the service with an ostensible (and perhaps believable) view towards specific safety for the pregnant woman.

Now, some women demand it as a public service, or their "rights" are being infringed upon. I'm not sure how that "right" was ever legally established, but since women have identified and claimed it there is no going forward without addressing it.

Faith, as a justification "against," fails to persuade. Faith is not universally shared. The difference between faithful and unfaithful manifests as simple presumption and intolerance.

Reason, as a justification "for" fails to persuade. Reason does not tolerate emotional ambivalence, it's a two-edged sword that cuts the wielder as much as the victim.

The end of the road for this might be...

"Your abortion is YOUR problem, don't demand that others facilitate it for you. We will allow the market to handle it, not a government of people who aren't directly involved with your decision. So sorry that we won't let you wear the privilege as a 'badge of honor' and we don't have to listen to virtue signaling because of your personal problems and the means you chose to deal with them."

AND/OR - alternatively

"Women who have no imminent medical need, nor overarching "victimhood" status can choose to abort their children, no matter the stage of development of that child, it is not up to your consideration. It is not YOUR problem. You may disagree... but the government will have no part of a 'personal choice' disagreement. Nothing in this situation will be criminalized, EVER. Let the market handle it. Do not expect the government to extend your morals to others, do not demand that a secular government become a policing agency to remedy your dissatisfaction."

In the end, nothing will change. Some women will want to end their pregnancies. The reason for it will be as varied as the number of people on the planet, no second-guessing is required. Pregnancy isn't some 'cellular process' that's just how it is described verbally. Ending a human pregnancy is ending a human life. Get over it, own it. That is precisely why the choice is so difficult for anyone who isn't in denial about reality.

My apologies for being indirect about the thread OP... I meant to discuss the why and how people could legislate codes of behavior about this matter... The prime dissent here first manifested itself as a anti-protest issue... and a freedom or religion issue... but the truth is very few seems to be able to separate their "position" on abortion from the action expressed first by silent prayer, and then by policing action... It is an argument disjointed by definition.

a reply to: Maxmars

"The market" DID handle it, by appealing to local institution and being granted a protection order. That doesn't typically occur without reasonable cause, in this case months of harassment and obstruction near the facility.

This woman was motivated to test the policies in place, not by accident, not by misunderstanding, but by visible and audible defiance of restrictions she KNEW were in place and regularly exhibits contempt for. What do you do with someone who exhibits contempt for protection orders and right to peaceful conduct in the market?

Next time, apply common sense wisdom and go to church.

a reply to: Terpene

The only thing that really changed is we have the tech to make it a safe and non-invasive procedure.

Not really, we now understand that from the very beginning the zygote is a separate human being.

In the past, it was considered “human life”, like a tumor or clump of cells.
We understand now that it is A human life, a unique individual human being.
A human being that guides and drives their individual development from the point of conception, until adulthood.

Who's body is it? your kids are not yours?

Huh?
My children are/were ‘mine” in the sense I was responsible for their wellbeing.
I did not/do not OWN them, they are not slaves for me to do with what I will.

You notice the crux, even though the being can be considered alive, it's still inside the body of the mother, making it about that live and granting it rights, regulates the inside of a women...

In 99% of abortion cases “the being” was freely and willfully created. A choice was made before “the being” came into being.
This HUMAN BEING should not pay with their life because two people made a poor choice.
Again, it is not the “right to choose” people want, they already have that. It is the right to decide which human beings live and which human beings die, they want.
It all boils down to personal responsibility, and if you are willing to kill another human being because you want a mulligan.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Maxmars

"The market" DID handle it, by appealing to local institution and being granted a protection order. That doesn't typically occur without reasonable cause, in this case months of harassment and obstruction near the facility.

Did "the market" ask the police to investigate a known protester who was just standing around?

Are you saying the 'code' placed by the ordinance was done in the name of "the market?" Or doesn't civil law take the form of a mandate from the community who empowers it?

Please don't twist the intent and meaning of my words when rebutting my arguments. My reference to the market was a direct implication that if women did not want easy abortion on demand, then the marketplace wouldn't feature scores of quick-stop abortion facilities. Otherwise, business is 'golden.' I never intended to use "the market" as a metaphor for "concerned citizens."

a reply to: TzarChasm

This woman was motivated to test the policies in place, not by accident, not by misunderstanding, but by visible and audible defiance of restrictions she KNEW were in place and regularly exhibits contempt for.

Short-term memory issues?

She did noting visible at the time of arrest except existing. She did nothing audible at the time of arrest; else why ask her if she was praying? There were no restrictions on her being in that area, only against her protesting in that area. This has all been established already in this thread.

That's three direct contradictions of the facts of the case in a row. She was questioned for simply existing in an area she had every right to be in; she was arrested for stating that she may have been silently praying; she was never in violation of the protective order.

Silent prayer, and thus Christianity, is no longer legal to practice in the UK. It is merely tolerated for the time being.

TheRedneck

Re: justthenews.com...

It's Ironic that those who are pro-abortion, can thank the "Right to Life" mindset for being alive in the first place.