Abort 67 "intimidating protests" outside Blackfriars/London clinic

[John Allman]

Homophobia is a legitimate, effective and desirable defence mechanism against homosexuality in the individual and in society.

That sentence occurred in a context, to which you did not link.

 

[Pickman's model]

That sentence occurred in a context, to which you did not link.

i am struggling to think of a context in which that might be acceptable

 

[Citizen66]

"Advertising" in the context of this forum means brands/products not political actions.

So don't feel restrained by that rule.

 

[butchersapron]

That sentence occurred in a context, to which you did not link.

The context was the crude attempt to provide some sort of rational appearing justification for the functional worth of homophobia. And you yourself offered the above quote as an accurate summation of that argument concerning that which you are so fascinated by.

 

[Athos]

Abort 67 isn't attempting to deliver a religious message. Abort 67 isn't a religious organisation. Abort 67 has no beliefs other than that killing humans isn't morally acceptable just because the humans killed are very young, and those who decided that they should be killed happened to have wombs.

Because Abort 67 has no religion, Abort 67 cannot be opposed using placards that make fun of any religion, as you propose.

Instead, you will need to engage with Abort 67's argument. Nobody here is engaging with Abort 67's *content*, its *message*, its *argument*. Instead, people are just expressing anger towards one particular type of direction action activist, without explaining what they are angry about.

Abort 67 displays posters showing what abortion does, to whom, outside retail outlets of the abortion industry. Why are these displays any more "intimidating" than the contents of a butcher's shop window? Think about THAT question, and you shall have begun to think about Abort 67's message, and will become able to think about how to refute it, other than by mindless name-calling of the personnel.

A butcher displays dead animals in his shop window, to *encourage* hungry people to buy, cook and eat bits of the dead animals, not to shock them into never eating meat again. What Abort 67 is doing, is *advertising* BPAS' service for them, free of charge. Arguably BPAS should be grateful, rather "intimidated" by free advertising of BPAS' product on the part of Abort 67. If not, then (here's the challenge) WHY NOT?

Apparently, a lot of people think that what Abort 67 does isn't the equivalent of displaying pieces of meat in a butcher's shop window. But what they do about this, is to heap fairly mindless, ad hominem abuse upon Abort 67 activists, without actually answering the $64,000 question: Why isn't it GOOD for BPAS' business, for somebody kindly to advertise its product for it, outside its shops, graphically? The same way that it is apparently GOOD for the butcher's business for him to advertise graphically his product.

Abort 67 is simply telling the public that what they see, on Abort 67's posters, is what those who buy abortions from BPAS are getting. Somebody needs to complete the sentence: "What Abort 67 does, is intimidating towards BPAS, because ..." In this entire thread, nobody has done that job properly. There is no "because". It is taken for granted that Abort 67 are wrong, not argued. Abort 67 will never go away if that is the poor quality of the opposition to their message. They will eventually win, if nobody refutes them.

If you went to surgery for cancer treatment, would you be pleased to see graphic pictures of excised, bloody tumors in your way in? Why not, it's only advertising the procedures they provide? Just because you don't want look at something doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it; would you like to watch your parents have sex?

When people are at their most vulnerable, because they have had to make a difficult decision, and are about to undergo a surgical procedure about which they might be nervous, they might well find it very upsetting to be confronted with gory images, even to the extent that they are intimidated.

But, as Butch rightly says, there's really no need to engage with you. You've already lost.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Is there a point in keeping him around?

 

[Pickman's model]

i wonder if we'll ever get an anti-abortion type here who can put even a semblence of an argument

 

[Citizen66]

There is a point in engaging if his actions harrass women. In what form that engagement manifests itself is what he should be intererested in discussing.

 

[Buckaroo]

Is there a point in keeping him around?

Yeah, he think's he has a point, let him argue it.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't know why you don't just use your Hypersonic Sound System on them John.

 

[Citizen66]

Okay. He's ill. He needs the hospital himself.

 

[Buckaroo]

I don't know why you don't just use your Hypersonic Sound System on them John.

"John Allman has been hearing voices in his head for years." Nuff said.

 

[Citizen66]

And i doubt anyone would be heartless enough to jeer him with placards as he is admitted.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ah fuck.

 

[toggle]

Transoriented people (as I am defining the term here) have a similar tale to tell. They have experienced (for example) same sex attraction, but have decided that they want in future to be people who are attracted to the opposite sex (or vice versa). They want other people to accept them as they are, complete with their desire to change, or that fact of their having already changed, their “sexual orientation” (so-to-speak). But, unlike transgendered people, they have changed their minds rather than their bodies, so that their behaviour resembles more that of their acquired sexual orientation than the sexual orientation with which they have formerly identified. Transoriented people often experience rejection on the part of people with strong, fixed beliefs too. Beliefs, in this case, that it isn’t possible for somebody who has in the past said that he has had a homosexual orientation really to change into somebody who now has a heterosexual orientation to all practical intents and purposes.

there you go, change your mind. stop being gay. and that makes you a victim of bigotry that is equivalent to that faced by transgendered people

 

[andysays]

(my emphasis)

Now fuck off you would be murderous homophobic cunt, you've lost your argument, on your own terms you have to give it up.

I'm assuming I'm not the would be murderous homophobic cunt you're referring to, even though that comment comes directly after a quote from me

 

[toggle]

Pitched against her own legal team, the mental patient, Mrs SB, had two psychiatrists, her mother, her father, her husband (presumably the baby’s father) and the NHS hospital in which she was sectioned, along with their various solicitors and barristers, all agreeing that she was “not thinking straight”.

she's not a woman. she' defined as a mental patient. stripped of identity beyond her illness.

 

[Citizen66]

He's banned now. Not sure why other than FM ruthlessly enforcing the don't be a dick rule.

 

[andysays]

There is a point in engaging if his actions harrass women. In what form that engagement manifests itself is what he should be intererested in discussing.

I don't know for sure whether his personal actions harrass women or not (most likely they do), but I have a feeling that he's not open to being persuaded to change his actions by anything that we say to him here anyway, so from that point of view there's really little need for any of us to engage.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It was never going to end well.

 

[toggle]

ccording to official Dept of Health statistics, during 2011, the percentage of legal abortions in England and Wales that were carried out because the mother had a mental health problem, was 97.9%. That's almost 49 out of every 50 legal abortions!



I think that that statistic legitimately makes abortion an issue of greater special concern to people with mental health issues than to almost any other demographic. It isn't just that the children of mentally ill mothers are slightly over-represented in the casualities of the abortion industry. Rather, it suggests that, without mentally ill people to keep up a constant supply of work, most abortion service suppliers would go out of business, and the lives of the babies concerned would be saved.



I've written about this topic elsewhere, and will provide a link to that blog post later on, if anybody expresses interest in hearing my suggestions as to why it might be that our community has turned out to be the abortionists' bread and butter.



But before I make any suggestions, what do people here think is the reason that the offspring of mentally ill mothers account for nearly all the unborn children who are falling prey to the British abortion industry nowadays?



The scientific research shows that abortion is actually worse for mental health than continuing unwanted or unintended pregnancies, so it's not even as if though all this killing was doing anybody any good. So why is our community being targeted, so obviously, in the abortion industry's marketing?

 

[andysays]

...

Where are you getting these quotes from? Maybe you've mentioned it upthread, but I'm playing catch-up ATM

 

[toggle]

http://www.suncornwall.com/apps/for...-because-of-mother-s-mental-illness?page=last

http://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/

 

[Citizen66]

I don't know for sure whether his personal actions harrass women or not (most likely they do), but I have a feeling that he's not open to being persuaded to change his actions by anything that we say to him here anyway, so from that point of view there's really little need for any of us to engage.

The implication was that the engagement might be via the boot, but a daft thing for me to say given it's unlikely I'd be the one doing it.

 

[andysays]

http://www.suncornwall.com/apps/for...-because-of-mother-s-mental-illness?page=last

http://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/

Looks like he's not just an anti abortion nutter, but a general all-purpose any-subject-you-like nutter

 

[toggle]

Looks like he's not just an anti abortion nutter, but a general all-purpose any-subject-you-like nutter

yep

 

[andysays]

The implication was that the engagement might be via the boot, but a daft thing for me to say given it's unlikely I'd be the one doing it.

When I encountered a couple of these protestors a few years ago, as mentioned up thread, I was tempted to engage with them in a rather forceful manner, but decided that in the circumstances it would probably cause more upset to my then-partner and myself and was probably counter-productive

 

[toggle]

There is a point in engaging if his actions harrass women. In what form that engagement manifests itself is what he should be intererested in discussing.

i have my doubts that he's engaging in a great many actual protests in London.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I've only just noticed this

Is there a date for not turning up to a counter protest to these cunts?

If so feel free to not PM me or whatever

 

[Citizen66]

i have my doubts that he's engaging in a great many actual protests in London.

Fair point. I sort of melded the op with the fact that he turned up and people started recognising his name as some indicator that he was involved in some way.