Abortion clinic safe access zones.

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
71,054
47,925
USA
#61
Well, the OP rule is also in another country, and applying the Australian constitution to the regulation would take a while, since I do not have access to a database of their case law (though I would imagine the constitution would be easy enough to find online).
True. But I wasn't arguing Australian law. I'm making a moral/ethical judgment, which is the only kind I'm qualified to make.
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
71,054
47,925
USA
#63
Spoken like a lawyer. Good job, consular!

You and I both know what's happening here....and it's one reason why many lawyers rate very low on the trust scale.
Why do you think that is?
Wow. He clarifies that he doesn't think what you insists he MUST think, and then you try to discredit him by referencing his profession. That's totally beside the point. If he's not being honest, show how. The way you point out a liar is by demonstrating his lies--not by making an ad hominem attack and insisting he must be lying.

Usually when we misinterpret someone else's words, we do it out of ignorance. I think you're doing it here out of convenience. If lawyers are such terrible scoundrels, why even interact with one? Either Ian's worthy talking to--in which he deserves the respect of a substantive reply--or he's a liar who can be trusted in nothing, in which case you would surely not respond to him.

So...you've put words in his mouth and when he won't swallow them, you push them down with a "you're a lawyer" plunger. Tell me--do you know what all lawyers think, no matter what they say?

BTW--I'm pretty sure what you're doing here is a lawyer's trick--a bad one. Thanks, Roy Cohn!
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
Dec 2018
4,194
2,482
the Heart of America
#64
Wow. He clarifies that he doesn't think what you insists he MUST think, and then you try to discredit him by referencing his profession. That's totally beside the point. If he's not being honest, show how. The way you point out a liar is by demonstrating his lies--not by making an ad hominem attack and insisting he must be lying.

Usually when we misinterpret someone else's words, we do it out of ignorance. I think you're doing it here out of convenience. If lawyers are such terrible scoundrels, why even interact with one? Either Ian's worthy talking to--in which he deserves the respect of a substantive reply--or he's a liar who can be trusted in nothing, in which case you would surely not respond to him.

So...you've put words in his mouth and when he won't swallow them, you push them down with a "you're a lawyer" plunger. Tell me--do you know what all lawyers think, no matter what they say?

BTW--I'm pretty sure what you're doing here is a lawyer's trick--a bad one. Thanks, Roy Cohn!
Sorry. I abandoned this thread at the request of the OP starter and simply replied to responses. Your post is off topic, as I was accused by the OP starter. I'll happily discuss this issue on a thread you start.

Still trying by best to comply with Leo's request. Please do not reply to my messages on this thread. I forget which ones people do not wish I participate and which ones they do.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
76,706
45,945
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#65
Spoken like a lawyer. Good job, consular!

You and I both know what's happening here....
Yes, we do. You are evading the issue by posing a fact pattern devoid of facts. Rasselas is right ... you are trying an old lawyer trick - badly, and one a judge would pick up on right away. Probably a jury, too. You are fighting so hard to avoid providing facts, in a blatant ignorance of the law, so you can try to force me to give you an answer you want. I refuse to give it to you (whatever it is).

If you ask a question about the relevant law in a scenario - i.e., a lawyer question - then you will get a lawyer answer. But it requires to you to provide facts, and you are refusing to do that.
 

HCProf

Council Hall
Sep 2014
28,847
18,308
USA
#66
Yes, we do. You are evading the issue by posing a fact pattern devoid of facts. Rasselas is right ... you are trying an old lawyer trick - badly, and one a judge would pick up on right away. Probably a jury, too. You are fighting so hard to avoid providing facts, in a blatant ignorance of the law, so you can try to force me to give you an answer you want. I refuse to give it to you (whatever it is).

If you ask a question about the relevant law in a scenario - i.e., a lawyer question - then you will get a lawyer answer. But it requires to you to provide facts, and you are refusing to do that.
Did you notice that nurses are at the top of the list for honesty? :)
 

HCProf

Council Hall
Sep 2014
28,847
18,308
USA
#67
I agree with all this, but given these arguments, I would still quibble with the required distance. One hundred fifty meters is quite a distance, particularly in the urban environments where most abortion clinics are founded. The ability to protest is also important. Protests are messages, and the meanings of messages depend on context. A 150-meter barrier could put protestors on another block, in front of a pizzeria, or a dry cleaners, or a dental office. I think a 50 meter zone would be more appropriate.

I'm a strong supporter of abortion rights and want to see people avail themselves of medical services without rancor, but I also think the right of others to protest is essential.
I understand what you are saying but I think the people who protest abortion clinics are vile kooks. They are calling the women horrible names and just harassing them as they wade through them to get into the clinic. People have a right to be free from direct harassment and being called a slut when they seek medical care.
 
Likes: Panzareta
Jul 2013
40,382
26,476
On a happy trail
#68
I understand what you are saying but I think the people who protest abortion clinics are vile kooks. They are calling the women horrible names and just harassing them as they wade through them to get into the clinic. People have a right to be free from direct harassment and being called a slut when they seek medical care.
And unable to avoid being proselytized to by what amounts to loiterers on public sidewalks.
 
Likes: HCProf

Similar Discussions