Marshall Sutherland

Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:55:59 -0400

dwatney@hub.farthinghalearms.com

I'm pro-choice, but thought-crime laws are offensive regardless of the cause they support. Violating free thought is more egregious than violating free speech.

#^She Was Arrested for Praying in Her Head

Citizens in the UK have been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for silently praying outside abortion clinics. Even organizing pro-life meetings in your own home may be a criminal offense.

show all 4 comments

Fri, 25 Oct 2024 02:39:30 -0400

phani00 (hubzilla)

phani002242@hub.phanisvara.com

yes: everyone should have the choice what to do with their bodies -- as long as it doesn't harm others. once a baby is conceived though, the mother's choice to terminate her pregnancy does inflict harm on the baby, fatally so.

to pick some arbitrary time from when the baby is a person -- 3 months, 2 weeks, 5 years -- doesn't make it any better. consequently, considering the parents' free choice what to do with their lives, they should be allowed to kill their kids until they can look after themselves, no?

if or not to have sex, protected or not, with all the risks involved, is or has to be a woman's free choice. any man taking that choice away (rape) should be killed or castrated if that's proven beyond reasonable doubt. but even then, if she gets pregnant, it's not the baby's fault.

both parents made the choice to have sex, so both have to be responsible to take care of the baby -- if they are fit to do so, psychologically and socially. if not, somebody else has to take care, "society," relatives, whoever.

that for the first 9 months the woman can't chose to walk away, as the man can, is a bloody injustice. depending on what you believe, blame the creator or nature's laws, with the same result: it won't change a thing.

Fri, 25 Oct 2024 05:30:50 -0400

phani00 (hubzilla)

phani002242@hub.phanisvara.com

@Marshall Sutherland sorry for going off-topic with my reply to @Waitman Gobble 's comment. couldn't ignore it because i have been thinking about the matter frequently myself.

re. the thought police in the UK, this seems ridiculous, but i'm not sure this law intends to police the actual thoughts in people's heads:

...could be an offence if they can be seen or heard within the Zone and are done intentionally or recklessly.

it's not the thoughts in the heads, but the way those thoughts are displayed in order to influence others who want to avail or provide abortion services.

i haven't see the actual law, but prosecution would have to prove the intentional and/or reckless nature of the activity. just standing at a corner and praying shouldn't be enough to make one an offender. what they do want to stop seems to be aggressive "preaching" by those who consider abortion evil.

Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:15:30 -0400

Marshall Sutherland

dwatney@hub.farthinghalearms.com

@phani00 (hubzilla) I admit that I have not looked into it beyond this article, so it may not be as egregious as it appears. The impression given is that some of these people were just standing around, eyes closed and asked "What are you doing?" Had they responded "I'm trying to remember what I forgot to put on my shopping list", that might have been the end of it, but they were honest and said they were praying. I prefer to be wrong about this, but given some of the anti-speech laws passed in Scotland recently, I fear I am not.