No, I don't think I'd be fine with that. 150-m away from abortion providers is a public space, so people there should be able to say whatever they want. You don't have a right for others not to look down on you for your behaviour, whether that is having an abortion or having a gay marriage. People should be free to judge you if they so want. You cannot dictate what they are to think about you.So this law, making it illegal to harass people within 150-metres of abortion providers, would meet with your approval?
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/women-avoid-prolife-protesters-for-the-first-time-in-decades-20160502-gok1gl.html — Banno
So would that legal agreement be that you would refrain from attempting to coerce those who seek abortions, and those who are willing to perform abortions? — Banno
I don't think anyone is seeking to physically coerce them. Changing the law isn't physically coercing them. — Agustino
No I'm not.But now you are condoning the coercion of those seeking an abortion... — Banno
:s That's not coercion! How is me saying something to you coercing you? Coercion means physically restraining them from getting to the abortion clinic.I gave an example of such coercion. You re-described it as "look(ing) down on you for your behaviour". — Banno
Yes, it's wrongly seen as a form of coercion.They are. They just cannot do it in front of the clinic, since that is seen as coercion. — Banno
In the span of 48 hours, Trump cut a deal with Democrats to keep the government funded and raise the nation’s borrowing authority, advanced talks with the senior Senate Democrat on a permanent debt ceiling solution and followed the advice of the top House Democrat, who urged him to use Twitter to ease the fears of young undocumented immigrants.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.