I’m all for free speech and public protests / demonstrations. They’re fundamental for a healthy democracy and for an active political population. However, I have my limits.
It’s an inevitably that you know of the infamous anti-abortion group Abort67. Now before I continue, let me make my views on abortion clear before being accused of having a bias. For the sake of brevity I will just say this, I’m neither for or against. Abortion is a subject I find incredibly uncomfortable due to a past childhood trauma, so I tend to stay away from the subject as much as possible.
My first issue with the Abort67 group is simply this; their methods of public protest are vile and abhorrent. Showing horrifically graphic images in public is not okay. Abort67 do not realise the damage these images could cause, especially to children or those (such as myself) who have suffered traumatic incidents regarding birth. They argue that it’s to raise awareness of what goes on, but you would not expect to see people opposed to ISIS to publicly show graphic beheading images.
Their method of protest is also counterproductive. It makes those undecided on abortion or even those against abortion more likely to side with the pro-choice movement.
Now allow me to to move onto my second point. The Island’s business is not the business of Abort67. They are a UK protest group. We are not part of the UK. Although I have very strong views on the UK Government and it’s no secret I despise their government (and the very notion of government in general) I do not travel to the UK to protest. Protesting in public places against specific policies of that nation should be the responsibility of the citizens.
Finally, the group has made statements saying they’ll film the public using body cameras. Not only is this inciteful, provocative and a blatant scare tactics, but also a breach of the Island’s data protection laws. If protest groups from the Island are expected to comply with these laws, so too should a group from the UK.
The Sad Rad 
The IOM information commissioner is aware of the camera situation and have it in hand. abhorrent67 will have their day in court along with a healthy fine. From a personal perspective, they should all be bulldozed into the sea. Do you know where they are staying? Asking for a friend…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree wholeheartedly with you on this x
LikeLiked by 1 person
I discovered this blog post today, and also the following other blog post which was written by the pastor of St Augustine’s church in Douglas, which latter post refutes the former post far better than I can.
Smoking is evil; murdering babies is fine
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/rebel-priest-jules-gomes-smoking-evil-murdering-babies-fine/
It doesn’t take great intellect to know that abortion is wrong, being an avoidable childhood trauma itself, albeit one that the victims do not survive to complain about, eliciting sympathy. But, there again, it does not take great intellect to spot that there is an inconsistency in despising the very notion of government, whilst aspiring to see an organisation that aspires to the abolition of the abortion industry, to become “proscribed”. Proscribed, that is, (by whom?), merely for using the same shock tactics as succeeded in getting the slave trade abolished, tactics which the government uses to encouraged informed choices to give up smoking for that matter.
http://JohnAllman.UK
LikeLike
I do appreciate you taking time to write a comment on this and giving your thoughts on it. Like I stated I’m neither for or against abortion.
I do not appreciate the ableist approach of your argument, saying it doesn’t take great intellect to know abortion is wrong. That’s a matter of opinion just like anything. If everyone were to go down that route we’d have no proper debate.
As for “the inconsistency”, there is no inconsistency. I think ideally there should be no government. That doesn’t mean I can’t support or condemn moves made by governments.
As for the shock tactics there is no need for it at all. Comparing the matter of abortion to slavery is also ridiculous.
Now allow me to respond in the same manner as you.
It doesn’t take great intellect to see your comment is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Thank you for publishing my comment, and replying to it. My intention wasn’t ableist. Sorry for that impression. My intention was rather to deflect any criticism that the case against abortion is complicated enough to have any logical flaws in it.
The case against allowing abortion at all, is that it is a breach of the equality principle. That is so obvious as to create a case to answer. Those who try to answer that case typically appeal to an obscure doctrine of metaphysics.known as “ensoulment”. See:
The mumbo-jumbo of choice
https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/the-mumbo-jumbo-of-choice/
The thing that is wrong with abortion is the same as the thing that is wrong with slavery. Neither institution recognises the equal humanity of its victims. The comparison isn’t “ridiculous”. It is because the comparison is apt, that Abort 67 uses the same technique as abolitionists used to bring home the truth about slavery.
LikeLike
I’ll always approve comments as long as they are not racist or inciting anything and apologies if my earlier reply comes across as aggressive. I’d personally have to disagree with the tactics of Abort67, as said in the article I find it very harmful. It personally harms me due to my past experiences surrounding birth. I wouldn’t mind if it weren’t for the fact that these were in public places and instead online where a warning and disclaimer is given. Regarding whether abortion is okay or should be carried out I have no comment as previously stated.
LikeLike