Two women in NYC arrested for protesting outside an abortion clinic

They were standing up to the hypocrisy of people not being allowed to publicly protest or assemble, but abortions still going on.

And that is yet another irony of abortion.

 

In this country you have no rights until born. Most likely never going to change.

 

What is an "irony of abortion" ?

 

I've asked in the past the hypothetical of what if the fetus was temporarily taken out and then put back in.
In rare cases, this can sometimes happen during a neonatal surgery, where the surgeon performing the corrective neonatal procedure needs more access to the fetus, out in the open. It is of course still connected to her by the umbilical cord.

 

It isn't born yet.



What is an "irony of abortion" ?

 

When doing the procedure, does he cut the umbilical cord?

 

Is your argument if the umbilical cord is not cut, it still belongs to the woman??

 

That is correct; it's still getting it's oxygen and nutrients from the mother.

 

Is this baby part of the woman's body?

old thread about this topic

 

So why are you rehashing it?

Yes, if it's still connected to the woman obviously it's still part of her body.

You will have to accept the FACT that until one is BORN , unconnected to the woman's body , it is NOT a person in it's own right.

 

Why are you going off topic?

 

If someone wants to get an abortion or a haircut, and someone is willing to perform the procedure, no government interference should be tolerated. Timing is of the essence when it comes to abortion. The earlier, the better.

 

I wasn't the one who started the off-topic conversation.

 

Oh , so it's a case of "Mom, he did it first" …


Why do you persist in keeping it off topic?


I asked you an on topic question and got no reply:

What is an "irony of abortion" ?

 

The irony of abortion (or I should see one of them, rather) is that pro-life activists are in favor of infringing on the rights of women not to infringe on the rights of the one inside her.

Of course, these two pro-life protesters weren't actually infringing on anyone else's rights by protesting.
And not only that, but it appears they weren't even actually protesting in favor of taking away anyone else's rights; the two activists were protesting for women to make the choice not to get an abortion themselves.
There is a fundamental significant difference there.

So these demonstrators weren't allowed to stand around to get women to change their minds. That has been declared non-essential by the city. But a woman making up her mind has practically been declared essential. See the irony here? Women absolutely have to be allowed to make up their mind, even though that means being in social proximity, but other people are not allowed to approach these women to try to get them to change their life. And this enforced all in the name of "saving lives", even though that is exactly what these two women were attempting to do standing outside that building in public.

There's no way you can make a logical consistency out of that.
If I didn't know better, I'd say the woman's "choice" is being held up by the city as far more valuable than anything else, more valuable than lives, more valuable than the rights of protesters trying to get women to change their mind.

These pro-life activists were demonstrating against the absurdity of abortions going on while they themselves were not allowed to gather in public to protest against these abortions.

The risk posed by women going into a clinic filled with several people, and undergoing a procedure, has got to be something like ten times the risk posed by two women protesting right outside.

The women in the clinic get their "choice" but not the two women outside?

Not only that but these two demonstrators were roommates, so the whole idea that them standing together constituted a "public gathering" goes against the presumed intention of the law.

You ask what the irony is here, where does one even start?
This story is completely filled with ironies.

 

That pro-choicers are complaining about pro-lifers infringing on a woman's right to infringe upon the rights of another.

Who was infringing more on the rights of others in this situation? The women standing outside trying to get women to change their minds, or the women going into that abortion clinic?

But the city bans the former and gives the green light to the latter.

 

For the thousandth time, the one inside her has no rights and YOU have NEVER proven they do.

Yet you haven't even shown one …

The women getting abortions were having a LEGAL medical procedure, one that has a time limit on it, it is therefore considered essential.
It's common sense.


The protesters were doing something illegal...

 

As they should...and did....and the protesters violated that.

the women who got abortions were breaking no law ...

 

What does "legal" have to do with it?
Is that your circular argument again that abortion should be allowed because it is legal?
(and it should be legal because it should be allowed, thus making the logic circular)

If you think about it, what these protesters were doing also had a time limit, in a way...
If they failed to change these women's minds then, and save a life, it would be too late.

Guess that's not considered "essential". Even though no one's rights were being violated...

 

I never made that argument....imagination working overtime to hide the fact you have no argument?

 

If you never implied it, what is the point of repeatedly bringing up the fact that it is legal?

 

The protesters were doing something illegal, the woman getting abortions weren't...what they were doing is legal.

Abortion IS legal because it should be allowed.

Uh, isn't that obvious ????

Now quit making things up since they don't really hide the fact you have no argument...

 

First you claim you're not making the argument, and now you seem to be making it ????

This whole Abortion section is kind of about whether abortion should be legal.
So what's the point of bringing up "Abortion is legal because it should be allowed" unless you also mean "Abortion should be legal because it should be allowed" ?

 

Those are two different things.....English matters....but it's subtle for some.....and a great distraction from your non-existent points..


For the thousandth time, the one inside her has no rights and YOU have NEVER proven they do.

 

Now you seem to be blatantly changing the argument.

That's even worse debate etiquette than shifting the goal post.