Discussion WWH if some people started to do what JSO did, but at pro-lifers’ spaces?

[TAW122]

Disclaimer: I do not condone nor endorse the actions and activities that JSO (Just Stop Oil) or any similar organizations do, which includes unethical, immoral, and/or illegal acts or anything that would otherwise violate laws of the jurisdiction(s) that one is in. This is a thread that is written for educational and philosophical purposes only.

In older threads in the past I discussed about waging war and raising hell, causing trouble, difficulties for pro-lifers, or using their own tactics against them (giving them a taste of their own medicine). Those threads were mainly written under the premise that logical reasoning, rationalizing and reasoning, and civil discussions have failed and proper channels, avenues of relief, and when the change just isn't going to happen. However, after finding about JSO (Just Stop Oil) protests and antics in public, it spurred me to write this thread for discussion purposes.

Here are some examples of what JSO protestors do in terms of disruption and chaos in public.

Wimbledon match


Car dealership


The streets


Once again, I don't endorse nor do I condone their actions and behaviors. This thread is mostly for discussion and educational purposes.

With that said, what would happen if suppose there are some militant pro-choicers, right to die people who did similar things to like pro-life rallies, pro-life organizations, or suicide prevention events? In other words, disrupted said events and venues, and just overall caused a lot of chaos and disruption (but no violence nor physical harm towards the people). Do you think such actions by some group of extreme, militant individuals would force the pro-lifers' to the table to discuss about the right to die? Would it result in at least less paternalistic treatment towards suicidal people, such as less intrusion on people who want to die, less intervention against suicidal people in general?

 

[The Burning Fool]

Without condoning or endorsing any acts of protest, I recognize the possibility that such actions tend to raise awareness and lead to more debate.

Human rights have been expanded throughout history by activists who fight to establish, uphold and exercise them. Oftentimes they do so by strategies or tactics that are labelled unethical by the majority, but that doesn't always determine their eventual failure or success in itself.

As long as one individual threatens or violates another's bodily autonomy and freedom of choice, conflict between them is inevitable. That's just the sad reality of life in my opinion.

 

[CompanyOpossum]

I don't think any of these things bring about productive conversations. Peta has been doing things like this for years. No ones going to consider the idea connected with the crazy people destroying public property.

 

[TAW122]

Without condoning or endorsing any acts of protest, I recognize the possibility that such actions tend to raise awareness and lead to more debate.

Human rights have been expanded throughout history by activists who fight to establish, uphold and exercise them. Oftentimes they do so by strategies or tactics that are labelled unethical by the majority, but that doesn't always determine their eventual failure or success in itself.

As long as one individual threatens or violates another's bodily autonomy and freedom of choice, conflict between them is inevitable. That's just the sad reality of life in my opinion.

The last sentence is true, it's just sad that no matter what, there are always going to be an oppressed group, however, the most important thing is for there to be awareness, dialogue, and (potentially) change in the right direction in order to minimize abuse and oppression. While I hope for a day where people don't have to vouch or go to extremes to get their point across, sadly, it is unlikely to see that in our lifetimes as the change that will come is not coming fast enough or sufficient enough. Only recently has more countries just begun to accept death with dignity (but only for terminal illnesses) and even then it could take decades before expansion to those who are not terminally ill, including those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness.

I don't think any of these things bring about productive conversations. Peta has been doing things like this for years. No ones going to consider the idea connected with the crazy people destroying public property.

I see, that's a valid point too. I do think that if anything, people who do those things they may at the minimum, get their opponents to come to the (discussion) table, and like @Enemargarita187 said, it may/not result in eventual success itself. There are many other factors and circumstances involved.