Woman arrested for silently praying near abortion clinic

[Evanivitch]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It wasn't constant. Because at the time of her arrest, she wasn't doing that, she was just silently praying. That's a fact that isn't in dispute.

Are you in favour of arresting someone for speeding when they weren't speeding, because they have a past record of speeding?

I wasn't aware you could arrest someone in a moving car. Do you have a video?

[Graveworm]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

andyeds1234 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

andyeds1234 said:

It has been explained umpteen times in this thread that the woman in question was arrested because she was constantly harassing vulnerable women.

It wasn't constant. Because at the time of her arrest, she wasn't doing that, she was just silently praying. That's a fact that isn't in dispute.

Are you in favour of arresting someone for speeding when they weren't speeding, because they have a past record of speeding?

If someone was banned from driving because of their record of putting other road users at risk, including speeding, then yes, they should expect to be arrested if they get behind the wheel.

Absolutely. In effect, they have an exclusion order on them for driving. An exclusion order could have been placed on this woman, based on her past actions, and no one would complain about her being arrested. But there was no exclusion order on her. She was free to go there. She just wasn't free to go there and think what she was thinking.

There was an exclusion order on anyone going there and doing what she was doing. Should they be able to proscribe that - I don't know but the House of Lords explicitly asked for private prayer to be excluded from what could be banned and it was rejected so we are where we are. They could have excluded everyone but people who had business there but the council decided to ban people who were doing things that had previously caused problems. She was arrested because she travelled miles to one of the few places where it was illegal, people complained, called the police and she would not move on when given the option.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 20th November 23:08

[andyA700]

Ari said:

sugerbear said:

Ari said:

Rufus Stone said:

Thread resurrection.

Police apologise.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12549117/...

Some common sense at last!

It was always insane to suggest that you could arrest people for what they were privately thinking, and staggering that people were prepared to defend it based on 'well, we don't like her sort so that's fine'.

The act of simply standing and watching people enter an establishment on a constant basis should be enough to get her arrested. It's weird. I assume you would be fine with a bunch of catholics standing outside your house, watching you coming and going without a word, day after day after day?

If she thinks praying to a sky fairy is going to make a difference she can do that anywhere she likes, yet she chooses to do it right next to a clinic. Total sky fairy loon.

Thank you for proving my point. If a Catholic decided to stand outside my house watching me coming and going without a word, day after day, is that illegal? No of course not. Could he/she be arrested for doing so? Absolutely not, if stood in a public place.

Plus, of course, your Total sky fairy loon. Precisely as I stated, 'well, we don't like her sort so that's fine'

Absolutely incredible.

I find it extraordinary that SB should publicly air views like this, which would have in the past been similar to those of Pol Pot, Stalin or the North Korean regime.

[andyA700]

andyeds1234 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

andyeds1234 said:

It has been explained umpteen times in this thread that the woman in question was arrested because she was constantly harassing vulnerable women.

It wasn't constant. Because at the time of her arrest, she wasn't doing that, she was just silently praying. That's a fact that isn't in dispute.

Are you in favour of arresting someone for speeding when they weren't speeding, because they have a past record of speeding?

If someone was banned from driving because of their record of putting other road users at risk, including speeding, then yes, they should expect to be arrested if they get behind the wheel.

Yet another example of you using a totally different scenario to attempt to justify your point.
Well, you just failed.

[Killboy]

What if someone was speeding, and claimed to be silently praying and not speeding?

[QJumper]

Evanivitch said:

Yes, the woman outside the abortion clinic is the director of an organisation that harasses women outside abortion clinics.

https://www.marchforlife.co.uk/2023/09/29/this-is-...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/08/an...

That's irrelevant though, as she wasn't harassing anyone, she was silently praying. Besides, using the above as an argument implies that you think it would be fine for her to stand there silently praying if she wasn't a member of such organisations.

I'm neither anti abortion, nor pro religion. I also believe that people should be free from threat when going about their legal business. I don't however feel that people have an inherent right to be shielded from any opposing views without very good grounds to do so, as it sets precedents that might be inappropriately expanded.

By that I mean at what point should we prevent people from being able to express an alternative opinion? Should people be prevented from protesting the death penalty outside a prison, or silently praying for the soul of the executed? Should people be prevented from protesting the inclusion of a trans athlete in a sporting event? These are also morally or socially ambiguous issues, where people might feel "harassed" when going about their legal business.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

What I find amazing in that Guardian article is the claim that prayer groups have saved 1,000 babies from abortion. That struck me as a good thing. If those women were wavering is it not good that they came down on the side of not terminating a human life? Is it not right that they should at least be challenged with an alternative option?

Obviously in some way they were not prepared for a baby at that time but I wonder how many, say 5 years on, are glad they carried on?

[Evanivitch]

QJumper said:

That's irrelevant though, as she wasn't harassing anyone, she was silently praying.

See my earlier post on context.

Standing outside a building or place of work can be intimidation if you have fair reason to think that person could harass or cause harm.

There's plenty of evidence that this woman would harass members of the public using this facility. It's entirely feasible for the police to take action to avoid a crime taking place where reasonable justification exists.

Just like I have no issue with this woman being arrested in this context, I also have no issue with no charges being placed. And I'm quite happy for this cycle to repeat.

[Evanivitch]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

What I find amazing in that Guardian article is the claim that prayer groups have saved 1,000 babies from abortion. That struck me as a good thing. If those women were wavering is it not good that they came down on the side of not terminating a human life? Is it not right that they should at least be challenged with an alternative option?

Obviously in some way they were not prepared for a baby at that time but I wonder how many, say 5 years on, are glad they carried on?

Or perhaps they intimidated people enough that they exceeded the legal limit for abortion...

[otolith]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

What I find amazing in that Guardian article is the claim that prayer groups have saved 1,000 babies from abortion. That struck me as a good thing. If those women were wavering is it not good that they came down on the side of not terminating a human life? Is it not right that they should at least be challenged with an alternative option?

Obviously in some way they were not prepared for a baby at that time but I wonder how many, say 5 years on, are glad they carried on?

That's nothing, look how many the Catholic Church has "saved" in the developing world by working to restrict access to contraception.

[Blue62]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

What I find amazing in that Guardian article is the claim that prayer groups have saved 1,000 babies from abortion. That struck me as a good thing. If those women were wavering is it not good that they came down on the side of not terminating a human life? Is it not right that they should at least be challenged with an alternative option?

Obviously in some way they were not prepared for a baby at that time but I wonder how many, say 5 years on, are glad they carried on?

I believe patients are required to state their reasons and given every opportunity to reconsider, that probably wouldn’t satisfy some but they’re exercising a choice, something they surely have every right to do. The Catholic Church campaigns against contraception and abortion, their missions in the developing world have surely exacerbated the problem of over population, it’s time we stopped defending this, it’s nuts.

[smn159]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

What I find amazing in that Guardian article is the claim that prayer groups have saved 1,000 babies from abortion. That struck me as a good thing. If those women were wavering is it not good that they came down on the side of not terminating a human life? Is it not right that they should at least be challenged with an alternative option?

Obviously in some way they were not prepared for a baby at that time but I wonder how many, say 5 years on, are glad they carried on?

I guess it depends whether you accept that intimidating people into making a choice that they otherwise wouldn't have made, with them accepting all of the consequences and you blithely moving on to the next one, is a good thing

Neither of us have any idea of the personal circumstances of the women involved or why they made the choice that they did, so I find it quite amazing that you can confidently say what they should do from the comfort of your armchair.

[otolith]

I wonder if those campaigners are offering any financial help to the women they talked into a life changing decision?

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Blue62 said:

I believe patients are required to state their reasons and given every opportunity to reconsider, that probably wouldn’t satisfy some but they’re exercising a choice, something they surely have every right to do. The Catholic Church campaigns against contraception and abortion, their missions in the developing world have surely exacerbated the problem of over population, it’s time we stopped defending this, it’s nuts.

I'm pretty sure this bit is telling. I don't see over population as a problem at all, and I think it's endlessly sad that significant numbers of women see a viable, healthy baby as a burden they would undergo surgery to avoid. I also think it's sad that they get into the situation of an unwanted pregnancy in the first place but then I'm a stodgy old conservative who believes sex should be treated as the important, intimate and productive act it can be, not a recreation activity which can be overcome wirh medicine.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

smn159 said:

I guess it depends whether you accept that intimidating people into making a choice that they otherwise wouldn't have made, with them accepting all of the consequences and you blithely moving on to the next one, is a good thing

Neither of us have any idea of the personal circumstances of the women involved or why they made the choice that they did, so I find it quite amazing that you can confidently say what they should do from the comfort of your armchair.

I presume there are at least as many circumstances as there are people. Is it inconceivable that some of them decide against an abortion and go on to make good mothers to happy children?

In fact the very fact they're considering an abortion suggests they take the matter very seriously, thus have a sense of responsibility and forward planning. They're not just popping them out hoping it will be OK.

There is a balance to be struck and I don't believe in waving mock feotuses about or shouting murderer, but I silent prayer and the offer of an alternative seems reasonable to me.

[Evanivitch]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

I'm pretty sure this bit is telling. I don't see over population as a problem at all, and I think it's endlessly sad that significant numbers of women see a viable, healthy baby as a burden they would undergo surgery to avoid. I also think it's sad that they get into the situation of an unwanted pregnancy in the first place but then I'm a stodgy old conservative who believes sex should be treated as the important, intimate and productive act it can be, not a recreation activity which can be overcome wirh medicine.

A stodgy old conservative that in the same breath doesn't think a baby would be a financial burden, whilst also not willing to provide the comprehensive financial support to raise said baby.

Conservatives are always walking contradictions on this topic. I wonder how many actually consider adoption?

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Evanivitch said:

A stodgy old conservative that in the same breath doesn't think a baby would be a financial burden, whilst also not willing to provide the comprehensive financial support to raise said baby.

Conservatives are always walking contradictions on this topic. I wonder how many actually consider adoption?

They cost a fortune, but having children is something I couldn't conceivably regret and no amount of fancy cars, houses or holidays would make up for not having them.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers but if they are offering an alternative which doesn't involve abortion then I think that's commendable.

[otolith]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

I don't see over population as a problem at all

Then why are you so anti-immigration?

[Evanivitch]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

They cost a fortune, but having children is something I couldn't conceivably regret and no amount of fancy cars, houses or holidays would make up for not having them.

You live on a different planet if your points of reference is cars, houses and holidays.

People are literally at financial dead ends. The cost of childcare is enormous, which makes the majority of work completely uneconomical for single mothers. The cost of rent in many areas is huge, and the ability to access state support is minimum.

The long term impacts both personal and on wider society for mother and child are huge, and the mother has that decision to make.

[QJumper]

Evanivitch said:

See my earlier post on context.

Standing outside a building or place of work can be intimidation if you have fair reason to think that person could harass or cause harm.

There's plenty of evidence that this woman would harass members of the public using this facility. It's entirely feasible for the police to take action to avoid a crime taking place where reasonable justification exists.

Just like I have no issue with this woman being arrested in this context, I also have no issue with no charges being placed. And I'm quite happy for this cycle to repeat.

I don't see any evidence of any harm or harassment in what she was doing.