Tweeting an abortion

missbiggles1

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

A life is about to be snuffed out - why would I want to spread the word about that?

I wouldn't worry, abortion is very safe these days.

baby_lemonade

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

On an individual level, yes it is between patient and doctor. But whether it should be allowed or not and the rules surrounding that are for society to decide? So people should be able to campaign for the current rules to be more or less restrictive than they currently are, possibly in light of medical advances or changing understandings, or just because they disagree. I think that's important - it is after all how we got the current rules!

That is very true and I'd be perfectly happy for them to lobby parliament. But instead they choose to harass individual women on the street. That's bullying.

Rosemary7391

baby_lemonade wrote: »

That is very true and I'd be perfectly happy for them to lobby parliament. But instead they choose to harass individual women on the street. That's bullying.

I see - I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought they were just waving (possibly distasteful) placards, as folk are wont to do. Going after individuals absolutely isn't on.

Callie22

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

You've probably got a point.. although I'm really curious as to the reasons why someone would think protesting against abortion (peacefully, in a suitable place ie not right outside the clinic/hospital) is a hate crime or harassment. I've not come across that viewpoint before.

I can see how some people might view protestors as harassment, especially if it's something they have personal experience of and it's something that's in a space they use frequently. Years ago, I used to live near a town where there was a man there who would set up a stall in the town centre most weekends protesting abortion - the pictures he had on display were incredibly graphic and the posters he had were very emotive. He would be quite vocal towards people walking past - not aggressive, but very insistent. If you wanted to walk down that street you had no choice but to encounter him. It's a tricky one, but at what point does that become something that disturbs someone's peace? Were the images he chose to use a 'peaceful' way of protesting? I know there's an argument for freedom of speech, for representing the voices of those that they believe aren't heard, but as someone who's firmly pro-choice I struggle with the way it's generally done.

[Deleted User]

This wasn't really intended as a debate into the pros and cons of abortion just an appeal to anyone who would like to support this woman on what must be an awful day for her.

And as well as this woman the other nine or so on average who are making this same journey from Ireland to the UK today by air and ferry,making up the 3,500 women who do it every year.

I entirely understand that some people are opposed to abortion in which case please just ignore this thread and don't retweet.

Many thanks.

#twowomentravel

onomatopoeia99

baby_lemonade wrote: »

Roe vs Wade..

Could be reversed at any time..

This is not a US based forum, decisions in SCOTUS have no relevance here in the UK.

Abortions are legal here by virtue of primary legislation, not of a court decision. In the UK the legislature is supreme, not the courts, so the limit of what the courts in the UK could in theory do is to declare the Abortion act in conflict with some other legislation (if such a case could be made) and send it to parliament to sort out the conflict. What it can't do is strike down laws passed by parliament.

missbiggles1

Deleted_User wrote: »

This wasn't really intended as a debate into the pros and cons of abortion just an appeal to anyone who would like to support this woman on what must be an awful day for her.

I entirely understand that some people are opposed to abortion in which case please just ignore this thread and don't retweet.

Many thanks.

That's by no means necessarily the case - many woman would be really pleased to have solved their problem, even if it meant travelling to do so.

Personally, I don't find that comment of yours to be supportive at all.

baby_lemonade

Deleted_User wrote: »

This wasn't really intended as a debate into the pros and cons of abortion just an appeal to anyone who would like to support this woman on what must be an awful day for her.

And as well as this woman the other nine or so on average who are making this same journey from Ireland to the UK today by air and ferry,making up the 3,500 women who do it every year.

I entirely understand that some people are opposed to abortion in which case please just ignore this thread and don't retweet.

Many thanks.

#twowomentravel

I don't really do twitter, but I can imagine they're going to get trolled something awful (as well as some supporting tweets, of course)

Rosemary7391

Callie22 wrote: »

I can see how some people might view protestors as harassment, especially if it's something they have personal experience of and it's something that's in a space they use frequently. Years ago, I used to live near a town where there was a man there who would set up a stall in the town centre most weekends protesting abortion - the pictures he had on display were incredibly graphic and the posters he had were very emotive. He would be quite vocal towards people walking past - not aggressive, but very insistent. If you wanted to walk down that street you had no choice but to encounter him. It's a tricky one, but at what point does that become something that disturbs someone's peace? Were the images he chose to use a 'peaceful' way of protesting? I know there's an argument for freedom of speech, for representing the voices of those that they believe aren't heard, but as someone who's firmly pro-choice I struggle with the way it's generally done.

Our streets are full of people and noise wanting our attention, which does annoy me but it is important that different viewpoints can be heard. I can see it would be unpleasant to come across for some, but I don't think that can ever be harassment - it isn't targeted or sustained.

You're right though, it probably isn't a good idea to use very graphic images. And if they're there every weekend for an extended period of time you can question just how effective their campaign is. Maybe there should be a limit on how frequently one can campaign in the same place over a given issue? Fraught with difficulty though! I think I'd err on the side of letting them do it and run out of steam if their message isn't catching on, as the simplest approach that doesn't carry other unwanted potential comebacks with restricting freedom of speech.

Tom, appreciate you didn't want to start a debate, but equally with nothing to talk about the thread will die and fewer people will see it... swings and roundabouts! Seems civil enough so far though

unholyangel

baby_lemonade wrote: »

Roe vs Wade..

Could be reversed at any time..

No idea why you'd be quoting a US case/law.

The relevant case law for us in the UK is Paton v United Kingdom [1980], C v S [1988], Kelly v Kelly [1997] and Hone v Hansell [2001].

There's probably quite a few more but those are the most notable. Especially Paton v United Kingdom as it was an EU court ruling meaning its binding on lower courts in european countries.