Militant Pro-Choicers in Ireland

lmaopml

I'd prefer to see how things worked out once the child was given a chance at life, and not treated as a tennis ball from conception between a so called 'deadbeat dad' and a so called 'terrified mother'...

It seems that is the biggest injustice whether a child is unborn or not - people speculate on their inherent value, both before and after the fact of birth from the would be parents perspective.

The King of Moo

laoch na mona wrote: »

obviously not rapists
but why should a deadbeat mother have rights and just because the man and woman are not together doesn't mean he isn't untitled to see the child

It's definitely imperfect, but again, it would be logistically impossible, so I think the best, if imperfect, situation, is to give the choice to the mother as ultimately she's the one who has to go through the pregnancy.

Ideally it would be nice to ensure that every potentially responsible, loving father were given a say, but it's too impractical to do so.

laoch na mona

The King of Moo wrote: »

It's definitely imperfect, but again, it would be logistically impossible, so I think the best, if imperfect, situation, is to give the choice to the mother as ultimately she's the one who has to go through the pregnancy.

Ideally it would be nice to ensure that every potentially responsible, loving father were given a say, but it's too impractical to do so.

how is it impractical

The King of Moo

laoch na mona wrote: »

how is it impractical

In terms of manpower and money it'd be very difficult to commit the resources to investigating every abortion case, or even every contested one.

Legally, it'd also be difficult to prove things like whether someone would be a fit parent or not, or if someone is being coerced into keeping the baby or getting an abortion.

Someone earlier also made a good point against the argument that abortion should only be allowed in rape cases. Between the time of the rape and conviction of the rapist, the pregnancy might have gone beyond the point at which an abortion is viable, or the child might have been born.
The issue of abortion in cases of alleged rape which can't be proven only complicates matters.

So for those reasons I believe that complete freedom of choice for the mother is the best answer.

LETHAL LADY

I am jumping in late to this debate but I have personal experience of complications a family member had with the joke that is the Irish system.

A family member (not myself) was pregnant with her first child. The first scan turned out ok but about 16 weeks into the pregnancy she started to suffer complications at home. Anyhow she was rushed to the hospital where they did a scan and from here on I am going to state my own ideas as to what happened.

Initially a nurse performed the scan and called the consultant in charge in to take a look at the scan. All the time my sister is obviously in a bit of a panic but taking into account of everything going on around her. My sister tells me by the look on the nurses face alone she knew things were not good.

Anyhow the consultant told my sister look everything is fine just go home and rest and we will see you on the 20th week.

Remember this is my sisters first child so she took comfort in what was said.

At the 20 week scan she was told that her child had no possibility of survival (Diagnosis Edwards Syndrome). She went on to go into labour at 7 months and her child was born dead.

So my own conclusion of this is that we are currently operating a system where all those involved hands are tied and tbh it is just ridiculous.

Aishae

Lethal lady- do you mean that despite the diagnosis that the feotus wouldnt survive to the birth stage, they forced her to give birth to it (abortions not being legal here)? That's barbaric

K-9

laoch na mona wrote: »

how is it impractical

If the father wants to keep the child and the mother doesn't want to carry through to term, it cause a few practical problems.

I agree with the view that men should have equal rights, the problem is the rights of individuals then conflict.

FinnLizzy

FinnLizzy wrote: »

I consider myself Pro-Choice, but only if it's a last resort (ie. rape, incest, risk of death) and I'm sure there are many like me.

Right, a lot of people keep on calling me out on this one. I AM pro-choice. I didn't phrase it properly.
These would be the factors I'd ponder over first if the abortion affected me. As for everyone else, they can dive into an abortion with gusto and a coat hanger.

lmaopml

K-9 wrote: »

If the father wants to keep the child and the mother doesn't want to carry through to term, it cause a few practical problems.

I agree with the view that men should have equal rights, the problem is the rights of individuals then conflict.

Yes, I agree. It doesn't help that 'would be' dads are regarded as deadbeat when they have no interest from conception - it can always be terminated etc. etc. - that's the shallow part, but ultimately the female makes the decision - biology.

It's rather queer that the child whether born or not - that their 'value' is circumstantial to the parent or parents - I don't know how you get around that...

They either are a life form or aren't...I don't know how to undo that. I just think they are worthy, same way as anybody else was born, and people didn't have a clue who they were going to turn out to be...

LETHAL LADY

Aishae wrote: »

Lethal lady- do you mean that despite the diagnosis that the feotus wouldnt survive to the birth stage, they forced her to give birth to it (abortions not being legal here)? That's barbaric

She was not forced but she did not have any options at that stage give or take a couple of weeks of utter shock and trauma.

old hippy

Newsite wrote: »

I didn't answer as there is only one God. The proof of Whom is all around us...


.... People hate the truth though.

There is not one grain of truth in your words.

It is, however, quite insulting to those of use who cope with the real world having to make tough and upsetting decisions.

Lauren1993

Does anyone ever wonder where they get the pro-life, pro-choice percentage figures from in Ireland?

I just wonder because, no one has ever asked me, or any of my friends.
Yet, i read a few months ago in a newspaper that 60% in Ireland are pro life....?

My granny has been asked, but not me ( a 19 year old who is arguably more affected by abortion policy) so where are these figures generated from?

I am pro-choice, as is most of the people (that i know personally) that are around my age

Pace2008

Lauren1993 wrote: »

Does anyone ever wonder where they get the pro-life, pro-choice percentage figures from in Ireland?

I just wonder because, no one has ever asked me, or any of my friends.
Yet, i read a few months ago in a newspaper that 60% in Ireland are pro life....?

My granny has been asked, but not me ( a 19 year old who is arguably more affected by abortion policy) so where are these figures generated from?

I am pro-choice, as is most of the people (that i know personally) that are around my age

They try to find a population sample that represents the population as a whole and extrapolate the figures from there.

robp

Militant pro-choicers have been known to murder pro-lifer campaigners. here They are no more virtuous than pro-lifers.


Less militant but aggressive progressive Irish pro-choicers accept money from American Billionaires like Chuck Feeney and George Soros to push for the abortion lobby. Chuck Feeney has done some great things for Limerick but in this case he is interfering in Irish law.

Honest opinion

Iang87 wrote: »

i dont understand why people are anti abortion personally. You dont like it dont get one. I dont like onions, i wont be eating one

Cool just make light of a serious issue yeh? eating onions is a personal prefrence that repurcusions only reach as far as you. Aborting a baby affects you and your partner never mind the baby you so casualy refer to terminating. :mad:

Lauren1993

Yes however, in some cases there is no "partner" and you've been raped. Why should a woman have to pay for the violation of her body, with her body?
What right do we have to say, that this woman must give birth to a child?
He has taken her right to choose away once, and now the general public does it again.

Does the foetus/unborn baby (whatever you want to refer to it as) really have the same rights as this woman? Does it have the right to life at the expense of it mothers?


I mean can you even imagine, (and i don't mean this in a stupid way), but if you were that foetus, would you not think that it would be better not to be born, for your mother not to feel this violation once again?

I mean, if your 12 year old was raped, what would you do?
Even if she had consensual sex and got pregnant, what would you do?
Sometimes when we are not directly affected by an issue, it is easy to take a pro life stance

Gbear

robp wrote: »

Militant pro-choicers have been known to murder pro-lifer campaigners. here They are no more virtuous than pro-lifers.

Sweet mother of f*ck. :rolleyes:

From your very own article:

Leaders of anti-abortion groups said they knew of no other instance in which a person protesting against abortion had been killed.

One nutter kills an anti-abortion fella and suddenly the pro-choice side are as bad as the other side.

policarp

Well it's obvious now that there are militant Anti-Choicers in Ireland as well. . .

DEFTLEFTHAND

We leave too much to the liberal chatterboxes. There's another way of running a country that would frighten the propaganda influenced plebs to the core.

strobe

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

We leave too much to the liberal chatterboxes. There's another way of running a country that would frighten the propaganda influenced plebs to the core.

And you will now outline the other way for the class?

DEFTLEFTHAND

strobe wrote: »

And you will now outline the other way for the class?

Dominance for the ruling, restricting free speech and silly agendas to do with equality and other such nonsense.

That's a brief synopsis, whether you like it or not these ideals still exist, not that I would agree with any but I still feel that the arguments are valid for discussion.

strobe

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Dominance for the ruling, restricting free speech and silly agendas to do with equality and other such nonsense.

That's a brief synopsis, whether you like it or not these ideals still exist, not that I would agree with any but I still feel that the arguments are valid for discussion.

Ah I think I follow you.

Your point is 'things ain't as bad as they could be so give it a rest'? Or there abouts?

DEFTLEFTHAND

strobe wrote: »

Ah I think I follow you.

Your point is 'things ain't as bad as they could be so give it a rest'? Or there abouts?

Exactly.

Lauren1993

Well that's a pretty ridiculous argument.

steddyeddy

Im pro choice. I dont consdier pro choicers militant but to be honest sometimes they come across as quite heartless. Refering to a feotus as a bunch of cells is something that I wouldnt be comfortable with (even though it is technically correct).

Shenshen

I wonder if it's a little similar to the militant religious/militant atheist situation.
To be considered a militant religious person, you need to wear funny clothes and kill people.
To be a militant atheist, you just need to keep pointing out that you find religion ridiculous.

So militant pro-choicers would be people who... Well, are pro-choice?

robp

Gbear wrote: »

Sweet mother of f*ck. :rolleyes:

From your very own article:


One nutter kills an anti-abortion fella and suddenly the pro-choice side are as bad as the other side.

Thats like arguing which is worse, the provisional IRA or the UVF. Their both wrong in an immeasurable way because of their tactics. Its silly to even ask which is worse, as it almost aplogises for the one perceived as less wrong.

BTW do you know how rare anti-abortion terrorism is? 8 cases in 50 years. There is plenty of other violence from prochoicers if your familiar with the situation in the US.

marshbaboon

To be perfectly honest, you need a licence to have a dog but you can fire out as many kids as you want, even if you're unable to support them emotionally, physically and financially.

There is no one out there that uses it as a method of contraception, which is what people seem to think. Not only is it a last resort but it is the last resort. If the choice came down to me, I'd like to know I had the option of choosing not bring another god damn person into the world, provide them with a substandard life for 18 years and then send them on their merry way as an unfulfilled human being.

If I had any idea what the hell was going on at the time of my birth, I'd probably have crawled back in.

Lauren1993

marshbaboon wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, you need a licence to have a dog but you can fire out as many kids as you want, even if you're unable to support them emotionally, physically and financially.

There is no one out there that uses it as a method of contraception, which is what people seem to think. Not only is it a last resort but it is the last resort. If the choice came down to me, I'd like to know I had the option of choosing not bring another god damn person into the world, provide them with a substandard life for 18 years and then send them on their merry way as an unfulfilled human being.

If I had any idea what the hell was going on at the time of my birth, I'd probably have crawled back in.

It's true, and there are so many children in the world waiting to be adopted, and too many people in the world altogether! Also, i don't understand how people can be pro - life and still agree with the morning after pill?

hattoncracker

I think the reasons why pro choicers are not seen as militant is because they don't force women to abort pregnancies..


An abortion affects the couple and the potential life, and no one else.. People who protest for choice are not trying to withhold something from people that feel they need it for whatever reason, but give a right to a choice.

marshbaboon

Lauren1993 wrote: »

It's true, and there are so many children in the world waiting to be adopted, and too many people in the world altogether! Also, i don't understand how people can be pro - life and still agree with the morning after pill?

Exactly. You can't just draw a convenient line that suits your personal beliefs, and then force that line on others. We need to look at improving the quality of life for the people already here, not make more.

The reason why we don't have militant pro-choicers is because they're (we're) not fundamentalists I think? I would never use force or violence to place my ideals on others, because I'm more intelligent than that.

Morag

Depends on what you mean by 'militant' as in being willing to go out and hand out leaftlets?
Choice Ireland do that on a regular bases and there were some pro choice activists wearing " I and Pro Choice, ask me why" T shirts and handing out leaflets at the Spire today for 3 hours.

There's also pro choice groups around the country planning actions and having meetings,
and then there was the demo of around 400 people outside the Dáil last month.

So yes there are Pro Choice Activism happening, keep any eye out and you will find one to take part in.

robp

marshbaboon wrote: »

Exactly. You can't just draw a convenient line that suits your personal beliefs, and then force that line on others. We need to look at improving the quality of life for the people already here, not make more.

The reason why we don't have militant pro-choicers is because they're (we're) not fundamentalists I think? I would never use force or violence to place my ideals on others, because I'm more intelligent than that.

Fundamentalism has nothing to with the pro-life movement. Its impressive how many atheists are involved considered how small a minority they are. You may have a noble approach to your political views but unfortunately not all Irish pro-choicers are like you. For instance in UCC a prolife society saw a coup d'etat by prochoicers who forced themselves onto the board. If that isn't force I really don't know what is. Choice Ireland are no better. In contrast I have never heard of force or violence committed by prolifers in this country.

old hippy

robp wrote: »

Fundamentalism has nothing to with the pro-life movement. Its impressive how many atheists are involved considered how small a minority they are. You may have a noble approach to your political views but unfortunately not all Irish pro-choicers are like you. For instance in UCC a prolife society saw a coup d'etat by prochoicers who forced themselves onto the board. If that isn't force I really don't know what is. Choice Ireland are no better. In contrast I have never heard of force or violence committed by prolifers in this country.

I remember in the 80s when UCD got condom machines installed in the campus bar, iirc. That lasted all of two weeks until the militant fundies there had them removed. UCD, dunno what it was like down in the sticks

CuriousG

Laisurg wrote: »

Nope, pro life nutjobs are like that mainly because they're religious headcases anyway not because of being pro life, sure they'd probably go gaybashing too if they could get any support for it :rolleyes:

I am very much pro-life, and I despise a lot of what Christianity stands for, and am part of no religion...Just saying.


Life is life and killing is killing. No matter what excuses, or how much you dress it up, it really is that simple.

Annasopra

robp wrote: »

I have never heard of force or violence committed by prolifers in this country.

Really?

The violent and forcefulness of YD are well known

http://struggle.ws/darg/appendix_18sept_yd.html

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/72902

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/youth-defence-unrepentant-as-eight-convicted-411765.html

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/a-smack-on-the-head-is-just-what-you-get-coir-youth-defence-and-the-catholic-right/

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055492130

http://www.ifpa.ie/About-Us/Christine-Donaghy

Morag

old hippy wrote: »

I remember in the 80s when UCD got condom machines installed in the campus bar, iirc. That lasted all of two weeks until the militant fundies there had them removed. UCD, dunno what it was like down in the sticks

Until may 1992 that it was illegal to sell condoms to someone with a prescription from their dr, that is why the vending machines kept being taken out of colleges and the Virgin Mega Store got fined for selling condoms in 1991.

NotForResale

I still don't understand how someone can call themselves pro-life when they make exceptions for cases such as rape , as if they believe its not a human life if its conceived in rape.

Or people who claim to be pro-choice only in circumstances such as rape, incest,or serious health concerns, that's not pro-choice that's limiting to choice to your own arbitrary rules based on the circumstances of conception.


Both of these kinds of people are just judgmental and don't belong to either the pro-life camp or the pro-choice camp.

eth0

I think a lot of people are signing up to the pro choice thing (although i hate that term, prefer the more honest and to the point 'pro death') just because they are against the catholic church and want to have a dig at them.

NotForResale

eth0 wrote: »

I think a lot of people are signing up to the pro choice thing (although i hate that term, prefer the more honest and to the point 'pro death') just because they are against the catholic church and want to have a dig at them.

pro-death would only apply if we made abortions mandatory,in which case the term pro-choice could not be applied. Are actually thinking this through before you write it?

Sala

@NotForResale I don't agree that people who limit situations where abortion is permissable are not pro-choice. There are alot of people who believe abortion shouldn't be freely available, but should be in certain circumstances. This would mean such people are neither pro-life nor pro-choice?

robp

mango salsa wrote: »

http://struggle.ws/darg/appendix_18sept_yd.html

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/72902

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/youth-defence-unrepentant-as-eight-convicted-411765.html

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/a-smack-on-the-head-is-just-what-you-get-coir-youth-defence-and-the-catholic-right/

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055492130

http://www.ifpa.ie/About-Us/Christine-Donaghy

With the exception of the Irish Independent all of those sources are either partisan, highly fringe groups and/or based on hearsay. The story from 1999 is the only action I found. They were convicted for acting in an 'over-the-top manner'. Their punishment was less than a litter fine! Fortunately that episode is no reflection on how YD works these days.

I make a point of respecting pro-choice people and their point of view. Yet, in return I am labeled by these zealots antichoice, fundamentalist, bigot and even fascist. WTF? Where is their respect and compassion that they preach so highly of?

Annasopra

robp wrote: »

With the exception of the Irish Independent all of those sources are either partisan, highly fringe groups and/or based on hearsay. The story from 1999 is the only action I found. They were convicted for acting in an 'cover-the-top manner'. Their punishment was less than a litter fine! Fortunately that is no reflection how YD works these days.

I make a point of respecting prochoice people and their point of view. Yet, in return I am labeled by these zealots antichoice, fundamentalist, bigot and even fascist. WTF? Where is their respect and their compassion that they preach so highly of?

It's well known and documented that YD have a history of violence. Saying that this is not true cause it's written by a fringe group doesn't change the facts. I personally know people who were beaten up by YD in the 90s

old hippy

eth0 wrote: »

I think a lot of people are signing up to the pro choice thing (although i hate that term, prefer the more honest and to the point 'pro death') just because they are against the catholic church and want to have a dig at them.

Of course, it's just a passing fad rather than people being trapped by archaic legislation :rolleyes::rolleyes:

dttq

"Militant" pro choicers? At least people who are pro-choice have the belief that people, whether they are for or against abortion have the right to choose. As a "militant' pro choicer, I consider it a perfect right for a woman to attain an abortion because of her life circumstances. I also consider it the right of people who are against abortion, whether for religious reasons or otherwise to avoid and refuse abortion on the basis of their beliefs. Such tolerance is not held by the other side, the pro-life side of the equation - who take a my way or the highway approach towards the abortion debate, and try their best to see that their beliefs and views are backed up by the laws of the state.

I have also never heard of "militant" pro choicers bombing churches or pro-life meeting centres, such as what you have with (oftentimes fanatical) pro life militants bombing abortion clinics, predominantly in the US.

NotForResale

Sala wrote: »

@NotForResale I don't agree that people who limit situations where abortion is permissable are not pro-choice. There are alot of people who believe abortion shouldn't be freely available, but should be in certain circumstances. This would mean such people are neither pro-life nor pro-choice?

Yes. I can see where you are going with this, i suppose since i would be against a partial birth abortion you are going to argue im also not pro-choice.

Though in comparison to someone who believes it should only be allowed if medically necessary, or in circumstances where they find the method of conception sufficiently abhorrent (rape or incest) i would view myself as pro-choice, as i believe choice should be allowed up until a certain point in the pregnancy for any reason, it's not my view that access should be restricted simply because some people disapprove of promiscuity or hold the belief the consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy.

This makes for good reading on the subject http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/02/how-to-spot/. This article was actually about non-prolife people that refer to themselves as "pro-life" but make exceptions for things such as rape but it seems to apply pretty well to their counterpart "pro-choice" individual that believes in allowing limited choice in similarly if not identical circumstances.

Galwayguy35

marshbaboon wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, you need a licence to have a dog but you can fire out as many kids as you want, even if you're unable to support them emotionally, physically and financially.

There is no one out there that uses it as a method of contraception, which is what people seem to think. Not only is it a last resort but it is the last resort. If the choice came down to me, I'd like to know I had the option of choosing not bring another god damn person into the world, provide them with a substandard life for 18 years and then send them on their merry way as an unfulfilled human being.

If I had any idea what the hell was going on at the time of my birth, I'd probably have crawled back in.

Well wear a condom and you won't have to worry about bringing another "god damn person" into the world.

krudler

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well wear a condom and you won't have to worry about bringing another "god damn person" into the world.

not 100% effective. neither is the pill.

Galwayguy35

krudler wrote: »

not 100% effective. neither is the pill.

Yeah condoms split, it's happened to me and other men I'm sure, she got the morning after pill and that was the problem solved.

krudler

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yeah condoms split, it's happened to me and other men I'm sure, she got the morning after pill and that was the problem solved.

YD are anti-morning after pill as well, as are a lot of pro-lifers.