Pro-Life at City Square

seanybiker

the_syco wrote: »

So if I showed people the horrific evils of what the Nazi scientists did to people during WW2, it'd be okay as it was "factually true" and will "educate the kids of the evils of history"?

Abortion can happen in future. History like that is hardly gonna happen again. Past and future tense are different things. Show them if you want though.

Flyin Irishman

seanybiker wrote: »

Abortion can happen in future. History like that is hardly gonna happen again. Past and future tense are different things. Show them if you want though.

LMAO!
Yeah! Kids these days have it too easy! If we're not careful hardly any of them will be permanently messed up....

spookwoman

If I had been in the area and seen that stand I would have been onto the police. Let people make their own choices on abortion and don't force beliefs on other people.

allthedoyles

allthedoyles wrote: »

Some of the images used are taken directly from 'google images' eg foetus picture in above photo .

Kids as young as five are now googling words to find information , and I have no doubt they can find this type of information too without been handed out leaflets .

seanybiker

spookwoman wrote: »

If I had been in the area and seen that stand I would have been onto the police. Let people make their own choices on abortion and don't force beliefs on other people.

Totally agree. I'm pro life but don't see the point of these protests or whatever you call them. I'm also atheist but can't stand the atheist forum on here. They bang on about no religion than people with religion bang on about being believers.

spookwoman

Just had a quick look at the atheist forum see what you mean. I could be termed at an atheist but I think Irreligion better describes me.

seanybiker

spookwoman wrote: »

Just had a quick look at the atheist forum see what you mean. I could be termed at an atheist but I think Irreligion better describes me.

Mad isn't it. Looking down on religious people.I would love to have faith. I don't so feck it.

Trotter

allthedoyles wrote: »

Kids as young as five are now googling words to find information , and I have no doubt they can find this type of information too without been handed out leaflets .

5 year olds that have unsupervised access to google is a whole other problem.

dayshah

spookwoman wrote: »

Just had a quick look at the atheist forum see what you mean. I could be termed at an atheist but I think Irreligion better describes me.

Maybe you are agnostic? Atheism is the belief that there is no god, but agnostics just say we can't really be sure either way.

I've no problem with atheists, but I do hate that Richard Dawkins fella. To me he's just like a fundamentalist preacher, but atheist.

angelfalling

seanybiker wrote: »

but they're not lying so its catch 22

But they are. Those images portray fetuses that have been aborted or miscarried well past the average abortion stage of 6-12 weeks gestation.

It's sick. As if women who have abortions are super proud of it. Do you really think women want to travel abroad to do a bit of shopping and get an abortion on the side? It's a hard decision and for these women a necessity in their lives.
If you really want to do something about women getting abortions, hand out condoms and birth control pills in school and have proper sex education from an early age. Teenagers have sex.

Plus, they can't just set up a canopy like that-- people in the market down the way pay to do that, ha!

dayshah

angelfalling wrote: »

But they are. Those images portray fetuses that have been aborted or miscarried well past the average abortion stage of 6-12 weeks gestation.

It's sick. As if women who have abortions are super proud of it. Do you really think women want to travel abroad to do a bit of shopping and get an abortion on the side? It's a hard decision and for these women a necessity in their lives.

Here is an accurate description of a fetus at 12 weeks. http://assets.babycenter.com/i/m/stages/popups/12/index.jpg
Its just a baby in womb picture so not disturbing, but people can get an idea at the stage of development at 12 weeks.
And for six weeks:
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-6-weeks

This pro-choice UK website says 87% of abortions occur within 6-12 weeks. What about the other 13%? Shouldn't they be banned?

For me the idea that people who show pictures of abortions are sick, but the people who do the abortions aren't just doesn't stack up. There is no genuine freedom of choice unless that choice is informed. I'm fully in favour of pictures of tumours on cigarette packets.

I haven't made up my mind about abortion. But I'm definitely opposed to late term abortions (unless the mother's life is in physical danger). In the UK you can get an abortion up to 24 weeks, while the record for a baby surviving outside the womb is under 22 weeks. At the very least I think the UK should reduce the term to 12 weeks (unless the mothers life is at serious risk).

I think people should have the full information on these things. Abortion isn't black and white, it has 9 months of grey. Technically the morning after pill can be an abortion, but most people don't object to that. I don't many people inform themselves of abortion, and the facts should be made available. If people (excluding children) are disturbed by the photos, then perhaps its that abortion is disturbing? However I do think that youth defence is very propagandistic, and I don't trust them. I think they harm their own cause.

I don't think these photos should be in view of children or that they should have that canopy.

Gadgie

the_syco wrote: »

So if I showed people the horrific evils of what the Nazi scientists did to people during WW2, it'd be okay as it was "factually true" and will "educate the kids of the evils of history"?

I was wondering how long it would take for Godwin's law to be invoked...

Hells Belle

I walked past these on Friday afternoon, I was with my 4 yr old son who pointed out the pictures to me "why is that baby's head on a stick" was what he said. I hadn't noticed until I was right on top of them. I nearly got sick and I got a bit upset when I got home. I did think of going back in with some paint and covering their pictures but that would have gotten them more attention.

Fair enough they have a right to protest but I have a right not to have these inaccurate pictures shoved in my little one's face. I'm glad the gardai moved them.

She Devil

I reported them!
I don't want to see pictures of what my little angels whom I miscarried would look like when they left me! These pictures are more than offensive to me, they had me in absolute convulsions all night!
If this was put on tv late at night I'd have been given a warning about it and I'd have chosen not to watch it!
I think "for once" the guards did their job, and protected others from being as upset as me!

I'm 100% pro choice!
And one of the pro choice protesters in Waterford the other day is famous for being at all different kind of protests, must be very opinionated eh! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

:mad::mad::mad:

RxQueen

Yer right to report them

thats there views I dont think it should be forced upon people out shopping... I find those pictures offence, cant begin to wonder what kids thought of them.

Boooourns

I'm all for free speech whether i agree with it or not but the images were too much. It's pretty easy to get your point across by providing the information and not by using scare tactics.

Finnbar01

I'm pro life, however, I consider youth defence to be too extreme and I definately question their motives. I mean, the best thing to do when explaining your point of view is to be clam and considerate.
Arms failing all over the place, mouthing off and using graphic pictures will turn people off. I get the impression that a lot of people in youth defence are 'showing' off. Deliberately coming across as confrontational and wanting to be seen as some sort of activists.

MitchKoobski

Who gives a fuck if you're pro-life or not? I don't think thats the problem here.

No one needs to be forced to see pictures like that in the middle of town on a saturday afternoon. That was too extreme. If they wanted to make people aware they could have easily had a few people handing out flyers, not throwing up a stand with all the pictures in plain view. Read the flyer/leaflet, then look up the stuff for yourself like anyone would. They have a right to protest, but not to shove it in peoples faces with pictures like that.

chelloveks

deisemum wrote: »

The gardai shouldn't have even given them 15 mins to take down their stall.

What I find really disgusting about this shower is how they normally have balloons to hand out to children and use them to attract children over to their stall exposing them to such graphic images. Children find these images upsetting and that's not right. They clearly do not give a damn about children and their welfare.

The majority of them are religious fanatics and could care less about the welfare of the mother or child....just looking to save their souls!

rasper

The only people that should be allowed to dictate the choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy are the people involved and their medical professionals, the church, state and the fundamentalists should stay out of it. Its time for Ireland to grow up and not just to ignore the problem because it is eventually sorted in the UK, society would be far facing the problem.
I do however support their right to protest, but not to intimidate.

ziedth

It just occured to me but what are they actually protesting? Like abortion is still Ilegal in Ireland AFAIK.

dayshah

rasper wrote: »

The only people that should be allowed to dictate the choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy are the people involved and their medical professionals, the church, state and the fundamentalists should stay out of it. Its time for Ireland to grow up and not just to ignore the problem because it is eventually sorted in the UK, society would be far facing the problem.

Sure then what the point in having laws at all? Either you think the unborn have rights or they don't. If they have rights, then the government should be involved.

I really think some of the 'grown up' attitudes in the UK are fairly messed up. For example, people can abort a baby after 24 weeks if it has down syndrome. Its a rare occurence, but I don't see why that should be legal. Why should a fetus/baby at the same stage of development have rights if its in an incubator, but no rights if its in a womb?

I really don't go for these black/white arguments from either side of the debate. Life (and death) is far more complicated.

ziedth wrote: »

It just occured to me but what are they actually protesting? Like abortion is still Ilegal in Ireland AFAIK.

Yes, but its still easy for Irish people to travel there. I think they would be far better off to try educate people about abortion, rather than use the approach they use.

If I see pictures of a mutilated baby I'm not inclined to go for a closer look, and say 'well, lads so tell us about this pro-life stuff' I'm inclined to turn away from a disturbing picture. Its not exactly encouraging me to read more, because I don't want to see those pictures.

allthedoyles

I don't think it was a protest - It looked to me like a promotional campaign to support the unborn and the right to life .

They will obviously go to protest at the Dail if An Taoiseach don't keep his promise . ( whatever that is )

I was offered a leaflet when passing , earlier before I took the photos , but I declined .

deisedave

ziedth wrote: »

It just occured to me but what are they actually protesting? Like abortion is still Ilegal in Ireland AFAIK.

They were just looking for attention;) They just wanted to shove there opinions down peoples throats:mad:

longshanks

Did they have miniature American flags?

drkpower

I wonder does the pro-life tactic of using shocking pictures attract more or repel more from their cause?

They seem to have very short-term-ist approach to the issues that concern them; the adoption of Article 40.3.3 (against substantial advice) and the consequences of that is evidence enough.

Whether it was right for AGS to remove them is another question; if they take the same approach to anti-war demonstrators using graphic photos, then it seems appropriate.

Finnbar01

ziedth wrote: »

It just occured to me but what are they actually protesting? Like abortion is still Ilegal in Ireland AFAIK.

I would label them attention seekers. They deliberately try and provoke a response from people. They could easily have had a stall there without those graphic pictures but no, they want to try and get some sort of response from folk. Their behaviour is immature to say the least. It's like, they welcome people getting confrontational with them. They like that and will interpetted it as being right. They remind me of people who think because they get so passionate or angry about a subject, they must be right so.

End of psychology lesson.

Irish_Elect_Eng

They were in Galway last week as well, same crew from their faces.

While I fully support the right to free speech,I believe that it comes with with the responsibility of how you exercise that right.

The graphic images being displayed for shock effect were not appropriate to the location and audience. Their aggressive approach,of setting up a gauntlet of huge posters and stalls to funnel people to choke point where they were blocking people trying to walk by and then pushing leaflets into their hands.

Some folks were visibly upset by their approach and understandably so.

AGS probably moved them on in response to complaints from the traders whose business they were impacting. Had they chosen a different location where people could chose to pass by with their children at a "safe distance" and one where they were not impacting businesses then I am not sure that they would have been moved on. There are some folks that take this approach and they are regulars on the streets, I wonder if they are moved on?

sparkling sea

I don't think they should have been allowed 15 minutes, I think they should have been shut down immediately. They promote a message is a way that may cause great pain and upset to the thousands and thousands of women in Ireland who have had abortions, probably made all the more upsetting because they would have had to leave the country to do so. The thousands and thousands of women this society turns a blind eye too.

There may also be men who find these images upsetting and who for what ever reason may have had little or know choice in the abortion decison making process, why should they have to endure the pain that may inflicted on them by the thoughtlessness of the pro life movement.

Further, people who have miscarried may find these images distressing, what about there rights - where is the balance; a group like pro life can choose to have little or no regard for the hurt their message may cause, especially when the choose to deliver the message in such an emotive way

We live in a democratic society which may place limits on some freedoms to allow for a fair and just society for all. You can be pro life, pro choice or even pro abortion but it doesn't mean you can go to what ever extent you feel necessary to get your message across.

dayshah

sparkling sea wrote: »

They promote a message is a way that may cause great pain and upset to the thousands and thousands of women in Ireland who have had abortions, probably made all the more upsetting because they would have had to leave the country to do so.

This is a line of argument I really don't get.

Pro-life says abortion is wrong and should be banned. Its a consistent argument, if a bit black/white.

Pro-choice says abortion isn't wrong/shouldn't be banned. But if its not wrong why do women feel guilty for having an abortion rather than put the baby up for adoption?