Free speech does not allow the right to do harm. We can debate where exactly that line is, but in my book protesting right outside of a clinic is harassment.
Why does the protest have to be right in front? Isn't a march through the city just as, if not more, effective to get your voices heard? Of course you won't be able to terrify vulnerable young women, but it'd be great if we could all agree that's a good thing!
If you are mentally capable of doing something then you should be mentally capable of hearing that doing that is wrong - it'd be great if we could all agree that's a good thing, also.
Using the term "vulnerable young women" is trying to remove the agency from them, which is despicable.
> If you are mentally capable of doing something then you should be mentally capable of hearing that doing that is wrong - it'd be great if we could all agree that's a good thing, also.
Would you be okay if, for the rest of your life, protesters stood in front of your home and shouted "die for breathing, die for breathing"? Presumably not, right? Although you're mentally capable of breathing, which should mean you're mentally capable of hearing that doing that is wrong?
> Using the term "vulnerable young women" is trying to remove the agency from them, which is despicable.
Can you explain why? I don't see how any agency is removed from them. Pregnancy itself makes women more vulnerable, and someone going through a very hard decision will be impacted even more. Whose agency did I just try to remove?
By definition, breathing and killing are complete opposites.
I wouldn't like it if people shouted slogans in front of my house but they have a right to it.
If women are in a vulnerable, hormonal state maybe they shouldn't be the ones making these decisions. Either they can make the decision and go through the consequences, or they can't. There's no middle ground of doing something and then having people who disagree with what you did silenced.
So no thing that isn't a person (yet) can be vulnerable?
Pets can't be vulnerable? Trees can't be vulnerable? Buildings can't be vulnerable?
Perhaps the baby is extra vulnerable exactly because it isn't a person yet capable of defending itself. It will become one though, unless someone murders it out of selfish convenience.
No problem with abortion but protesting outside an abortion clinic isn't doing harm; not in the criminal sense at least unlike all the domestic abuse the MET have failed to prosecute.
A similar argument could be used for environmental protestors blocking a highway (the reason the bill was created) - they're interfering with someone else's right to travel.
Are the abortion protestors blocking access to the clinic? That's not the sentiment I got. They don't interfere with anyone's right to abortion, they are expressing their dissent about it (presumably on grounds of a child's right to be born).