High court strikes Massachusetts abortion 'buffer zone'

Which is what you did. Next?

 

prove it .. next

 

The evidence has been provided. Next?

 

I would agree with the decision. There are no * next to Free Speech in our constituiton. If they were legitimally harrassing them, they can call the police and arrest them. Trying to disuade, no. No, no, no, no.

 

a few protestors wont ruin a woman's reputation.

What if the woman actually was having an abortion-would it still be slander?

 

How many times have you been told that falsely accusing someone of murder in public with no proof is slander.

How many times have you been told that every woman walking into PP is NOT necessarily there for an abortion, the majority AREN'T and it does NOT matter because abortion is NOT murder.


AND it only takes ONE lying jerk to ruin someone's reputation...why do you stupidly insist that the numbers matter???

 

Would it be slander if the woman was having an abortion?

- - - Updated - - -

Explain how 1 protestor could ruin a womans reputation.

 

Not all that interested in the social purpose of law. I do not view accusations as coercive under practically any circumstances. I'm only opposed to speech used as a means to some evil end. Sore feelings don't count, neither does the perception of you by others.

Decide what you want to do yourself, but personally I couldn't care less about any accusations.

People should be free to think whatever they want.

I don't think you have a right to an intact reputation. Nor do I think a bunch of radical pro-lifers are causing you demonstrable injury by protesting your choice to have an abortion. You have to show injury beyond hurt feelings.

Fair enough. I disagree.

Convincing someone to commit suicide is not necessarily coercive. For instance, maybe you've convinced someone to end their life on their own terms with voluntary euthanasia. Perhaps you said you don't like your girlfriend anymore and she immediately pulls out a gun and shoots herself in the head, screaming "you made me do this!". Maybe you protested outside an abortion clinic and a mother killed herself due to all the negative attention. In either case, I don't see anything wrong with your conduct.

 

He's from Earth though, as we all are. How is that even hard to guess???

 

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*) .. next

 

While the decision may be correct, do you consider screaming out murderer to any person who goes into a PP clinic as legitimately harassing them or not, given that the legal definition of slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation, and given that the only defense against slander is proof of the accusation.

Protesting the clinic itself is and should be legal, protesting the people who use the clinic is not and should not be legal especially as the protestors have absolutely no idea for the reasoning of the person being there, they are just assuming guilt through association even though only 3 out every 100 (on average) will be there for an abortion they tar all with the same brush.

 

It doesn't matter is it is 1,000 or 1

calling them a murderer would still be slander, abortion whether you like it or not is a legal procedure and PP clinics are legal businesses, where as murder is not legal, calling someone a murderer when you have no evidence to support that statement of fact is known as "per se" defamation, this is where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may constitute defamation per se:

Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude

The highlighted one is the important one in this issue.

 

Then in this case we will defiantly have to agree to disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

Third person who has told him/her this and yet according to them I am still evading the question .. never mind, it's just another of those hit and run pro-life posters with nothing really to say.

 

Note post 331 and 332....


I think the unbelievable stupidity shown by posters here on the subject of slander has to do with the fact that it hasn't happened to THEM and ,being typical Americans, don't care if it happens to someone else.

And/or, since it's only happening to women, especially those " sinful immoral women" who need mammograms , cancer screenings or Birth control, it just isn't important.

 

Explain how pro life protestors could ruin a woman's reputation by their choice of terminology.

Why should the woman sue? Because her little feelings were hurt by politically incorrect pro lifers. The legal reason for suing would be slander. Her personal reasons are "i cried because people are calling me names". Grow up. Name calling and "hurt feelings" "offended" is not a reason to sue somebody, unless the woman wants to get rich.

Take things into context. Pro lifers believe abortion is murder, and when they call women murderers, they do not literally mean the woman is committing an act which is legally considered murder, they are saying they simply believe it is morally equivalent to the act of murder. Abortion is not a crime. Only in the mind of pro lifers, they think it should be a crime. Pro lifers are not literally accusing a woman of committing a crime.

If you were intelligent enough,you would realize that. If you counterargue by saying "irrelevant", than that is pure evasion of my arguement, and it proves you arent confident in your own opinions.

Please give me actual evidence to support that pro life protesters calling a woman a "murderer" would cause people seeing the protesting to actually think the woman is committing a crime (abortion is not a crime).

 

Why do you think slander is against the law ?

 

Still no answer.

I'm not misrepresenting anyone, and especially not you. You are fine
with the supreme court not giving personhood to a baby, you say
fetus. It follows suit that you would have been fine with the
same court saying that blacks don't deserve personhood. Why
would you be fine with blacks not having personhood?

And if you hadn't cherry picked and answered the first
time we could move on.

 

Because you are not asking a question, you are making a statement. Do you not see the difference? Do you understand how punctuation works?

Question marks = questions.

Periods = statements.

Perhaps if you reword your statement into a question he could answer it, but so far all you are trying to do is make a fallacious argument of 'guilt by association'.

In other words, "Blacks were not considered people once! You don't consider the fetus a person! Therefore you are just as bad as slave holders and supporters of slavery!"

And that is all that you are doing here. Guilt by association which is a logical fallacy. But if you could read Fugazi already addressed your statement as well in a previous post. He believes that giving the fetus personhood would actually strengthen his argument as well as abortion laws, which I totally agree as no person, born or not may use another person's body or parts thereof for any purpose, including survival. A woman is not obligated to remain pregnant against her will and you only strengthen this fact by granting fetal personhood.

Does that make sense to you? If not I can elaborate further.

Also you should know that blacks at the time were considered 3/5ths of a person, so you would be factually incorrect with your fallacious argument to begin with.

And if you truly want to argue and compare abortion to slavery you could arguably say that a woman becomes a slave to the state by removing her rights to full medical authority over her own autonomy and forcing her to incubate and sustain the lives of other persons with her body against her will. So if you really want to go there then let's dance.

 

"While the decision may be correct, do you consider screaming out murderer to any person who goes into a PP clinic as legitimately harassing them or not, given that the legal definition of slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation, and given that the only defense against slander is proof of the accusation."

In the personal opinion of the protesters, they are murderers, to you, they're not. It's a matter of opinion what they are saying. It's like saying "Orange is an awesome color", to you they're lying because you don't like it, to them it's the truth. Or a girl saying "Germania has a super hot body", and somebody else disagreeing, calling them a liar.... well to them they're not lying.

Free speech works differently in America. Slander is legal, rightfully or not. People could tell total lies about you on a major broadcasting network, saying you raped children and stole money from a charity to starving kids in Africa. However, you can sue them for "defamation of character", if you could prove that this finically hurt you and you could prove they were lying. In America, slander is dealt more in the civillian courts.

Harrassment is a funny law. Some states require it be persistant unwanted contact, as it should be, others not. If I say something or things to somebody, and they don't tell me to stop, and they all of sudden call police and say, "He's harrassing me", it's BS. I had this happen once, the person never told me to stop. Some say harrassment falls under breach of peace.

One such law goes something like this in my state, "Taunts, insults or statements, that are likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response".
Okay, if I call someone stupid, and they put in me the hospital and break my childs legs, I can get charged for this crime. I provoked a violent or disorderly response. Wrongfully. It's never the fault of the victim, it's the fault of perperatraitor. It's victim blaming, people not wanting to take responsiblity. How do I know what will provoke something? It isn't it the person's fault. How is this harrassment anyway? Harrasment is a continuous thing, not a one time thing.

 

Personhood and rights are typically granted at birth for multiple reasons. I can imagine the number one reason being that you must first prove there is a person to begin with. You won't know a person exists inside a woman's body unless she actually tells you she is pregnant. She could keep it a secret throughout the entire pregnancy, she might miscarry early on and we'd never know, it would be flushed with the contents of pregnancy into a toilet, she might secretly abort by using herbal remedies. You'd never know a human being existed inside her unless she told you. It could be a secret she takes to her grave.

So personhood is typically granted at birth when we can see the physical person there. It's just easier this way really. I don't think the state has an interest in checking women's wombs on the regular to find out if there are any persons in them not to mention that would be a huge violation of her right to privacy. A woman's vagina and womb are the most intimate and private places on our bodies and quite frankly it's nobodies business what we have up in there and to probe us regularly to check for 'people' would be state-sanctioned rape.

When it comes to pregnancy the state leaves all of that up to the woman especially because it affects her and only her on a personal and medical level (unless she chooses to emotionally involve others). Another reason the state has no interest in forcing women to remain pregnant against their wills is because plenty of women are already choosing to have families and give birth. The population is still continually growing and there are no worries of a lack of replacement of people in relation to those who are dying off. In fact the population is growing much faster than we are dying so it may actually be in our best interests that a large amount of women choose abortion in order to control population growth and prevent the depletion of natural resources.

Now as a free country we try to maintain people's rights and freedoms without involving the state as best we can. So, as far as I can tell, based on what I have said above, the state has no interest in either promoting nor discouraging abortions.

Anyways, too long didn't read answer; blacks are persons because they are born, we can see them and you cannot prove a zygote/embryo/fetus even exists inside a woman without violating her rights first.

 

Yes, I do. Do you understand implying question? It's a common
form of writing. However, I stated it in a form of a question so he could
understand.

If you'd bother to read my posts you would know that I
consider the baby, you say fetus, a person and deserving
the same rights as anyone. In the case of the person you're
defending, he's been touting how the "law" must be adhered
to, i.e. the baby doesn't have personhood. Since that's his
stance he must be fine with the supreme court ruling that
blacks didn't have personhood.

I haven't made any such comparison.

 

This is more legal jargon that needs to be changed. As far as needing
evidence to see if a person is in the womb an ultra sound will clearly
provide the necessary evidence.

 

If there's a "person" in the womb then the woman whose womb it's in has every right to remove it. No person has a right to impose itself on another, it has no right to harm another.

 

Child support laws do that.

 

Tell me some examples of how women are not legally required to sustain the lives of others (besides abortion).