I'm conflicted because there are parts of this bill that are awful and massively chilling to free speech, but also within it are provisions to make the areas directly outside abortion clinics free from harassment by anti-choice groups.
It is a smaller scale version of the cameron government that cut everything to the bone, but they legalised gay marriage (though needed labour votes to actually get it done) so they aren't the bad guys, right? (obviously that was separate bills but I think the point works on a larger scale too)
Right now though, we have these protections and if they repeal (which they should), I hope they leave those protections in place.
They've been gradually pushing fascist laws into place for years, this is just the latest in a long stream. I honestly don't understand why nobody seems more concerned about stuff like this.
As someone who lives within walking distance of an abortion clinic, I can say that it is a very serious issue and money is pouring in to anti-choice groups in the UK.
People are exhausted by a never-ending parade of scandals. The conservative government should have been out in 2019, but were saved by having a socialist, Corbyn led opposition party that did not resonate with any of their centrist Blairite voter base. Labour crumbled into infighting, and the Conservatives swept up another 48 seats.
Most people just want to keep their heads down and make it through this period of financial uncertainty, waiting out until the next general election so they can oust the Conservatives. Of course the Tories are going to try and sneak in as much abhorrent policy as they can in the time they have left.
Labour have been captured by the fringe outside of its own party, so I don't have much hopes for Labour over the Tories.
I hear this a lot from a lot of people in and around the Labour Party, but no one seems to agree on who is 'inside' and who is 'outside'. Which fringe are you referring to? The "Blairite" fringe or the "Corbynista" fringe.
Do you mean all time high? "Apathy" means a "lack of interest or concern"[1], so "all time low lack of interest or concern" would suggest political interest is at an all time high due to double negatives ("low lack").
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/inflation-cpi
The problem with the Tories is that they have imposed some of the highest levels of personal taxation ever seen. If the Conservatives are not a low tax party, then they lose their whole purpose and we get the Labour-lite Davos-man bunch of incompetents we have now.
How does the US try to export their bullshit to the UK?
But there's only so much Bieber and Rush you can listen to and I honestly can't even think of a Canadian television show.
So you can see that this frog has already been boiled.
And Canada has always had Canada-first set asides.
It would also be a mistake to assume any of this is what one might call natural cultural contamination.
Are you sure all of that is not just a consequence of economies of scale and using a common language?
It does not take a grand conspiracy to influence businesses to seek more profit by selling their near zero marginal cost media to other English speaking countries.
But I also would not characterize it as “trying to export their bullshit”.
It is UK residents deciding to spend their time and money on content made by/for Americans, so would it equivalently be described as “UK trying to import the US’s bullshit”?
Fairly new Fox News equivalent but with far less viewers
Are you sure it’s not voluntary consumption of our media by members of your own nation?
But don't be naive. If they are importing this whole mess, it must mean it works to some extend.
Of course, you do also get ridiculous police overreach where a woman was arrested for praying silently in her head outside an abortion clinic.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1268439/legal-abortion-t...
But there are still stories of women getting arrested and prosecuted for having abortions, eg https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/why-women-in-uk-face-...
They haven't been banned, they've been moved 100m down the road from outside the doors of the clinic.
A very fair, and reasonable compromise I feel.
There are some videos of "religious fanatics" standing alone, silently, outside abortion clinics, being moved on by police, on the suspicion that they are praying in their minds.
You can't really pick and choose which views are acceptable. Either you have the right to protest peacefully, guided by your own conscience, or you don't.
They are allowed to protest and have a protected right to do so; 100m down the road, where they cannot harass vulnerable women.
That's the law, and I hope it stays that way.
Do they also prevent pro-abortion fanatics from demonstrating outside churches and the offices of anti-abortion lawmakers?
[0] https://adf.uk/parliament-introduces-thought-crime/
[1] https://aleteia.org/2023/03/09/pray-get-arrested-repeat-uk-w...
[2] https://aleteia.org/2022/12/24/uk-woman-arrested-for-silent-...
ADF in particular are not nice people. In 2003 they even tried to recriminalise homosexuality in the US.[1]
Speaking as a local resident who has to put up with her group taking up space, disrupting locals and during the pandemic flanking the outside of the abortion clinic with their faces covered, I think they should move 100m up the road where their impact is limited but they can offer whatever "help" they want to people who seek it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defending_Freedom#Opp...
And if anti-abortionists can demonstrate elsewhere, which they can and do, it isn't much of an issue. It's not as if the pro-life camp is at risk of not having their views heard if they can't block the doors to abortion clinics and call women whores and killers right to their faces.
That is quite the movement of goalposts. "Outside an abortion clinic" is by definition a public space. Inside my house is not a public space. Demonstrating in a public space should be protected as free speech.
Now maybe try to address my actual point, which is that no rights are absolute and always need to be balanced in context against other rights and public safety.
>Demonstrating in a public space should be protected as free speech.
That, for me, is an absolute.
Demonstrating doesn't include blocking a highway or not allowing entrance to such clinic. Not even touching a client or worker. But staying there? Yes of course it should be protected.
If you scroll down to the bottom of the comments, downvoted into the grey, someone even linked an article pointing out that these protests included roadblocks that stopped ambulances getting through. Clearly public safety only matters sometimes. (And to be clear, this wasn't an incidental side effect of some protest where the sheer volume of protesters caused disruption. Building blockades and maintaining them for days/weeks was the protest action.)
Using the term "vulnerable young women" is trying to remove the agency from them, which is despicable.
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?
Or could it be that you're just projecting?
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? Did your earlier messages include anything on breathing or killing? There were no specifiers.
> I wouldn't like it if people shouted slogans in front of my house but they have a right to it.
Alright, awesome on you for consistency! I don't think they have the right, and I'm lucky to live somewhere that also wouldn't think so.
> If women are in a vulnerable, hormonal state maybe they shouldn't be the ones making these decisions.
Why are you trying to take agency away from women? Didn't you just say this kind of behavior is despicable?
It's absolutely bonkers that convenience murder trumps the terrors of motherhood.
Absolutely bonkers that the rights of a brainless clump of cells trumps the rights of half our population.
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.
Definitely not in the same way a human can! Or would you leave a person to bleed out after a car crash so you don't damage the tree more?
> It will become one though, unless someone murders it out of selfish convenience.
If we agree that the unborn fetus isn't yet a person, why are you talking about murder? Seems like it's all good to me.
We don't agree that an unborn fetus isn't yet a person. I was deconstructing your logic. I think a person is created the moment sex cells fuse. Sometimes I even think about the hypothetical potential of a person and what they'd want me to do, such that they could one day exist and tell me.
My use of the word 'murder' is for dramatic effect to emphasize my beliefs. I concede that it's an opinion counter to the current laws, and thus technically incorrect. Still gonna call it that though.
I would treat an animal I hit with my car very differently from a human, since I'd call an ambulance for a human, but would bring the animal into an animal clinic myself. Would you not call an ambulance for a human, or would you call an ambulance for an animal? Which one is it?
> I think a person is created the moment sex cells fuse.
Are you trying to do anything about IVF clinics? If I were to follow your standards, that would be way worse for me, since IVF clinics produce a big surplus of inseminated eggs. Every couple might kill multiple "babies" instead of just one.
> My use of the word 'murder' is for dramatic effect to emphasize my beliefs.
Could you try to refrain from doing so for our conversation? I'm going to take what you write literally since I assume you're writing in good faith, so misrepresenting your own positions is just going to hurt the discussion.
True, but at least they do so unintentionally and in the pursuit of creating life. It's still kinda bad, especially if the woman needs IVF because she put off her motherly duties for so long she can't concieve naturally.
A woman getting an abortion is doing so intentionally and in the pursuit of her own convenience. In my opinion that should be criminal negligence, so I call it murder. That's not a misrepresentation of my position, that's what I actually believe. I know current laws disagree. That doesn't affect my position. Laws have been so very very wrong before, too.
So we agree that things that aren't persons can be vulnerable, but we disagree on the degree of vulnerability. Is my understanding correct that in your opinion a human being with a functioning brain is by definition more vulnerable than any other kind of life? So you equate vulnerability with degree of consciousness, presumably due to its ability to comprehend pain and injustice?
That's not true, they do so fully intentionally. That's what should make it way worse than abortion: they create babies just to kill them! Why does it matter that it's in the pursuit of life? Or could it be that you dislike abortion for other reasons than you previously stated?
> A woman getting an abortion is doing so intentionally and in the pursuit of her own convenience.
And a woman getting IVF is doing so intentionally and in the pursuit of her own family wishes. Imagine if every family sacrificed dozens of children to receive their newborn. Why are you not fighting against this monstrous horror?
Nobody goes to an IVF clinic intent to kill babies. Everyone goes to an abortion clinic explicitly to kill babies. IVF could be attempted one life at a time. What you're describing is a cost-cutting measure, a technical implementation detail of the clinic, and who said I'm not fighting against it?
> Why does it matter that it's in the pursuit of life?
Killing in the pursuit of life is less worse than killing in the pursuit of death.
Everyone goes to an IVF clinic knowing they'll kill multiple babies in the process. How can this be acceptable to a single person?
> IVF could be attempted one life at a time. What you're describing is a cost-cutting measure, a technical implementation detail of the clinic, and who said I'm not fighting against it?
You didn't say anything against it so far. So based on your statements it would be okay to abort babies to save the mothers some money, right? After all you find IVF acceptable, where they kill babies to save money?
> Killing in the pursuit of life is less worse than killing in the pursuit of death.
Really? Does the law say that? Is it generally okay to kill people if you also create new people?
Knowledge =/= intent. And I bet most people going to IVF don't know the process involves killing viable babies, unless and until they are informed of it at the clinic. Regardless, it's definitely not the intention, but an unnecessary side-effect. If I had to peruse IVF, I'd take my business to an ethical clinic that doesn't do such cost-cutting, just like I buy ethical food even though it's more expensive. Factory meat is torture and murder for me as well.
> You didn't say anything against it so far.
Factually incorrect. Me, two days ago [1] in reply to you, about killing babies in IVF process: "It's still kinda bad".
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35882796
> Really? Does the law say that? Is it generally okay to kill people if you also create new people?
A very good and complex question with ethical dilemmas and conflicting precedent.
The simplest case is that of self-defense and defense of others. If suspect A is threatening to murder victim B, it's largely accepted that killing suspect A to preserve victim B's life is a necessary evil, especially if victim B is a pregnant woman.
According to the old unwritten Custom of the Sea it was accepted until 1884 that shipwreck survivors were forgiven for killing and eating each other to pervail. Mignonette The case of R v Dudley and Stephens (1884 14 QBD 273 DC) convicted two sailors to six months imprisonment for murdering and eating their unconscious crewmate to survive, which de facto set the practice antiquated and illegal.
Consider the maternal–fetal conflict of an unconscious woman in childbirth with complications lethal to both herself and the baby, doctors able to save one but not both (somewhat common trope in media). My understanding is that the husband gets to decide which of them dies by choosing who to save, and conventional wisdom says to save the baby at the mother's expense. My cursory search provided poor information so I don't know.
From a practical and moral standpoint I consider this an analogue of the trolley problem, and posit that yes, of course an act of killing is less worse if it additionally results in a new life (or saving of existing one(s)). That's the natural precedent for predation.
How does that matter? Have you ever encountered the concept of "negligence"? You're knowingly and willfully killing multiple babies.
> Regardless, it's definitely not the intention, but an unnecessary side-effect. If I had to peruse IVF, I'd take my business to an ethical clinic that doesn't do such cost-cutting, just like I buy ethical food even though it's more expensive.
And yet you're not trying to get those baby murderers classified as baby murderers, are you? You're okay with letting people choose whether they want to murder babies to save money. Why are you okay with it in this context, and not in the context of abortion?
> Factually incorrect. Me, two days ago [1] in reply to you, about killing babies in IVF process: "It's still kinda bad".
Okay, I'll give you that. You paid lip service. Good job!
> The simplest case is that of self-defense and defense of others. If suspect A is threatening to murder victim B, it's largely accepted that killing suspect A to preserve victim B's life is a necessary evil, especially if victim B is a pregnant woman.
Self-defense and defense of others doesn't factor in, because you're not defending anybody against anything. Nobody is in danger, you're just murdering babies because you desire something. Would you mind trying again with some kind of real analogue?
In some countries, your right to to access abortion trumps someone elses right to stand outside and make you feel bad about it. I'm OK with that. As are the majority of folks in the UK.
The laws already on the books made it possible to secure orders to make a group stop for example, congregating outside your clinic harassing patients, but this power is very limited, it's local (so if your local politicians aren't supportive, too bad, even if they aren't actively working against you chances are you'll never get it up the agenda far enough to actually get a legal order without their support) and it expires - and so you end up with a situation where lots of places would like to get an order, but few secure one, and then when they do local budget constraints make it hard to justify keeping it - after all the harassment is gone, and we could use that cash to do something else.
The ideal would be to live in a society where people didn't feel like screaming "murderer" at strangers and lying to as many people as possible was a reasonable social activity.
Search for UK abortion clinic news. No it's no where near as bad as what happens in the US but it has been getting worse.