Do you find these billboards offensive?

OldNotWIse

Sharrow wrote: »

I would have more respect for them if they did always do that in a peaceful manner and if they respected those who don't agree with them.

It is hard to promote the other point of view when you have abuse screamed in your face.

I'd be interested to know how many people can report having "abuse screamed at" them. I've never seen these protesters carrying on like that.

OldNotWIse

Zulu wrote: »

I think you and I both know that applies to a small minority.

Minority extremists exist on both sides. Both are equally bad. To discredit the majority due to the minority is prejudice.

But convenient :rolleyes:

sbsquarepants

Zulu wrote: »

I admire them.

I don't agree with the pictures of dead babies, but to be fair to them, they are out there fighting for what they believe. In their eyes, children are being killed, and they are prepared to put their money where their mouths are; they're prepared to get out there and try and do something about it.

Fair dues for that at least.

Admiration would be very low down the list of emotions they inspire in me to be honest. They're just typical interfering bible bashers as far as i can see, black and white types with no comprehension of the problems that some people find themselves in. Sometimes through no fault of their own.
I mean, think of the additional suffering they caused to that poor girl who was raped that was the focus of one of their moral campaigns.
No, they don't get any admiration from me.

Zulu

Sadly, there's really is only one way to make an omelette.

But we can both agree that any additional suffering isn't ideal.

The Big Red Button

robp wrote: »

There is nothing whatsoever graphic about these posters. Its utterly ridiculous that one could find such mild advertising offensive. If someone's opinion offends you, your an intolerant person full stop.

If you read through the thread, you'll see that most people are arguing that the ads are stupid and dishonest, and reflect very badly on the people responsible for them. Not that they're offensive.

My own view on the ads:

I can see how they could potentially be upsetting for someone who has had an abortion in the past. Simply because it's not something you'd want to be reminded of as you go about your day-to-day business. It's unfair to impose on people like that.

I don't see how they would be in any way effective in discouraging someone from having an abortion. I mean, "abortion tears your life apart" wouldn't seem that big a deal when you already have something growing inside of you that's going to destroy your life as you know it anyways. Abortion is actually usually a selfless decision on the mother's part - they are actively preventing a child being born into an environment which is lacking the necessary support.

So, from my point of view, I'd rather the advertisements weren't there. But I suppose in a way they are a good thing, as they will only result in even less support for the "pro-life" brigade.

robp wrote: »

The fact that some pro-abortion groups are encouraging people to deface the billboards speaks volumes of the intolerance and underhand tactics that characterises the pro-abortion lobby.

Pro-abortion? What the hell is a pro-abortion group - can you name some of these groups that you refer to?

I'm very much pro-choice, but in an ideal world, there would be very very few abortions! I'm sure most others who are pro-choice would agree.

Abortions should be available in Ireland, with the appropriate support and aftercare available too. But it is still a very sad difficult decision for any woman to make.

While I believe the option should certainly be there, it doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion.

Zulu

chatterpillar wrote: »

Abortion is actually usually a selfless decision on the mother's part

Wow, I've heard it all now. I can't decide if that's delusion or arrogance!?!

Zulu

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'd be interested to know how many people can report having "abuse screamed at" them.

It's also interesting that all of the insults (so far) in this thread, have come from those opposed to the anti-abortion stance.

coffee_cake

Zulu wrote: »

Wow, I've heard it all now. I can't decide if that's delusion or arrogance!?!

Zulu wrote: »

It's also interesting that all of the insults (so far) in this thread, have come from those opposed to the anti-abortion stance.

indeed

OldNotWIse

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Admiration would be very low down the list of emotions they inspire in me to be honest. They're just typical interfering bible bashers as far as i can see, black and white types with no comprehension of the problems that some people find themselves in. Sometimes through no fault of their own.
I mean, think of the additional suffering they caused to that poor girl who was raped that was the focus of one of their moral campaigns.
No, they don't get any admiration from me.

Not everyone who is against abortion is a "bible basher" for gods sake. I really thought that oul' line was well worn at this stage...

This may surprise you but some people are against abortion because they think it is wrong, not because they are religious.

OldNotWIse

I note they have two different "there's always a better choice" posters - one with the "mother" and the other with the "child". Is it safe to say that the one saying "abortion tears her life apart" (referring to the foetus) is correct? Cue onslaught of "its only 50% correct as the foetus could be male"

OldNotWIse

Zulu wrote: »

It's also interesting that all of the insults (so far) in this thread, have come from those opposed to the anti-abortion stance.

True, I've been referred to as a freak, a bible basher, a "up my own arse type", part of a "shower" (laugh or cry at this one???), a dick...the list goes on
One wonders why the need to substantiate their views with insults and put downs....surely the views should carry themselves?

hooradiation

Well I guess that acting like you have the moral high ground is to be expected.

Zulu

bluewolf wrote: »

indeed

I was being literal with my use of language. I wasn't intentionally leveling an insult.

It's a little different than being labelled a bible bashing freak, a dick with "up my own arse type", but I accept it could be perceived as an insult and for that I'm happy to offer my sincerest apologies.

Lux23

jhegarty wrote: »

You don't do yourself , or your side of the argument any service with a post like that.

I feel sorry for you that you feel the need to call someone a freak because they have different views to you.

I have lots of friends who are pro life but they aren't members of Youth Defence. It's not their opinion that I have a problem with it's their tactics. Although they weren't handing out pictures of aborted/still born babies so I guess that's an improvement.

Frankly I half agree with the sentiment that there should be other options for some women, but it's just not very realistic.

Morag

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'd be interested to know how many people can report having "abuse screamed at" them. I've never seen these protesters carrying on like that.

I can, at the prochoice counter rally last summer, and other times when I have take part in public debates and discussions.

The Big Red Button

chatterpillar wrote: »

Abortion is actually usually a selfless decision on the mother's part - they are actively preventing a child being born into an environment which is lacking the necessary support.

I hope you don't mind me including the sentence you quoted in full here, rather than selectively quoting it.

Zulu wrote: »

Wow, I've heard it all now. I can't decide if that's delusion or arrogance!?!

I will admit that I'm talking from my own experience here, of several Irish women that I know or have heard about who have had abortions.

In all cases, they were simply not equipped to have a child. One girl I know got pregnant at the age of fourteen, and got an abortion. Another girl was 24, with little income and high debt (therefore high outgoings each month), and no family support, and no boyfriend. Another girl did not have the financial means to support a child, and was also suffering from depression - in her mind, it was abortion or suicide.

Personally I think it was far better in all three cases that no child was born, than if a child was born into such an environment.

These are just three examples of people I know who have gotten an abortion. I should also point out that all three women are now, several years later, very happy and successful, and do not regret the decision.

I'm obviously not saying that it's an entirely selfless decision. Obviously! In the context of my post above, if you read it in full, my point was not whether or not abortion is a selfless/selfish act. My point was that, if you're pregnant with an unplanned and unwanted child - the mother will often be of a mindset that her life has been torn apart, anyways, no matter what decision she makes! So, an ad saying "abortion tears her life apart" will not be effective, as the damage is essentially done by that stage.

Lux23

How many of those here who are pro-life (as in they think it should remain illegal no matter what) have actually had to deal with an unplanned pregnancy? Whether they be the father or mother.

BIG BAD JOHN

Fizzlesque wrote: »

To claim there's always a better answer isn't always true.

Yes, "usually" might have been a better word.

old hippy

There was a time when the billboards and the whole pro life movement would have annoyed me but life's too short & these days, I concentrate on the living, not the yet to be born and those who whip theirselves into a moral frenzy over a clump of cells.

Morag

Lux23 wrote: »

How many of those here who are pro-life (as in they think it should remain illegal no matter what) have actually had to deal with an unplanned pregnancy? Whether they be the father or mother.

Or a pregnancy were the fetus has a mortally fatal flaw or where the mother's life is at risk.

sbsquarepants

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Not everyone who is against abortion is a "bible basher" for gods sake. I really thought that oul' line was well worn at this stage...

This may surprise you but some people are against abortion because they think it is wrong, not because they are religious.

I'm not talking about everyone, i'm talking about a specific group. And they are bible bashers, very much so.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

True, I've been referred to as a freak, a bible basher, a "up my own arse type", part of a "shower" (laugh or cry at this one???), a dick...the list goes on
One wonders why the need to substantiate their views with insults and put downs....surely the views should carry themselves?

Who called you any of these things? I haven't noticed any such posts at all (They may well be there now, but i haven't noticed them)
Or are you a member of youth defence? (in which case, nice user name:D)

Zulu

chatterpillar wrote: »

In the context of my post above, if you read it in full, my point was not whether or not abortion is a selfless/selfish act. My point was that, if you're pregnant with an unplanned and unwanted child - the mother will often be of a mindset that her life has been torn apart, anyways, no matter what decision she makes!

That does not make the killing of the child a selfless act.

Sharrow wrote: »

Or a pregnancy were the fetus has a mortally fatal flaw or where the mother's life is at risk.

If I said my wife and I lost our first child under such circumstances, would that make my opinion worth more than my neighbour who didn't?

This poor logic has been previously addressed. You don't need to be the victim of a rape to know that rape is bad; you don't need to have been knocked down to know that cars are dangerous; you don't need to have been through a crisis pregnancy, or to have made hard choices to know if abortion is right or wrong. Suggesting otherwise is rather disrespectful.

sbsquarepants

Zulu wrote: »

That does not make the killing of the child a selfless act..

A child?
That's kind of emotive language in itself. A ball of cells is hardly a child.
What would your opinion be on, say the morning after pill? Would you class that as killing a child?

Zulu wrote: »

If I said my wife and I lost our first child under such circumstances, would that make my opinion worth more than my neighbour who didn't?
This poor logic has been previously addressed. You don't need to be the victim of a rape to know that rape is bad; you don't need to have been knocked down to know that cars are dangerous; you don't need to have been through a crisis pregnancy, or to have made hard choices to know if abortion is right or wrong. Suggesting otherwise is rather disrespectful.

What's poor about that logic?
You don't need to be a rape victim to know it's bad, but would you seriously claim that a rape victim wouldn't have a deeper understanding of exactly how bad it is?

Lux23

Zulu wrote: »

That does not make the killing of the child a selfless act.

If I said my wife and I lost our first child under such circumstances, would that make my opinion worth more than my neighbour who didn't?

This poor logic has been previously addressed. You don't need to be the victim of a rape to know that rape is bad; you don't need to have been knocked down to know that cars are dangerous; you don't need to have been through a crisis pregnancy, or to have made hard choices to know if abortion is right or wrong. Suggesting otherwise is rather disrespectful.

But the thing is abortion may be the wrong choice for you but that doesn't you had the right to decide that your feelings should apply to everyone else.

And truthfully if you're male your opinion to me as a woman is basically worthless as you could never truly understand what it's like to be pregnant and really not wanting to be pregnant.

robp

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not talking about everyone, i'm talking about a specific group. And they are bible bashers, very much so.

True, I've been referred to as a freak, a bible basher, a "up my own arse type", part of a "shower" (laugh or cry at this one???), a dick...the list goes on "

Who called you any of these things? I haven't noticed any such posts at all (They may well be there now, but i haven't noticed them)
Or are you a member of youth defence? (in which case, nice user name:D)

If you would care to read all of the thread you will see all of these slurs used. Don't worry though, it shows which side really has compassion.

Its a complete red herring to say that abortion is necessary for those with those with no support. There is always adoption. There is shortage of couples looking for babies to adopt.
Its also is a myth that procedures needed on medical grounds are absent in Ireland as Ireland has an exceptionally high level of maternal health. If you read PLoS ONE you will know that in jurisdictions where abortion is prohibited maternal health is often higher than average (I'm not stating abortion access lowers maternal health, but thats something for researchers to study). The point is that the billboards are in no way dishonest.

Zulu

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A child?

Indeed; child.(meaning of the English word child)

That's kind of emotive language in itself.

It's language & its accurate.

A ball of cells is hardly a child.

You and I are technically a "ball of cells" also. A child is as much a ball of cells as we are. All children are made of cells, but not all cells make children.

What would your opinion be on, say the morning after pill?

It's different.

Would you class that as killing a child?

No. No child exists the morning after.

What's poor about that logic?

It discounts (at worst) or belittles (at best) valid opinions - that's whats poor about it.

Zulu

Lux23 wrote: »

And truthfully if you're male your opinion to me as a woman is basically worthless ...

At least your honest. Ignorant (in the literal sense), but honest.

You'll excuse me if I don't waste anymore time responding to you. I've little interest conversing with someone who'd disregard anothers opinions simply due to their genitalia.

sbsquarepants

robp wrote: »

If you would care to read all of the thread you will see all of these slurs used. Don't worry though, it shows which side really has compassion..

If you would care to read my question, it was who called OldNotWise any of the slurs he mentioned. Do you know who it was?

robp wrote: »

Its a complete red herring to say that abortion is necessary for those with those with no support. There is always adoption. There is shortage of couples looking for babies to adopt.
Its also is a myth that procedures needed on medical grounds are absent in Ireland as Ireland has an exceptionally high level of maternal health. If you read PLoS ONE you will know that in jurisdictions where abortion is prohibited maternal health is often higher than average (I'm not stating abortion access lowers maternal health, but thats something for researchers to study). The point is that the billboards are in no way dishonest

There are exceptions to every rule.
What about a woman who was raped and simply doesn't want to carry the rapists child for example?
An extreme example, but one that happens nonetheless.
Also what is this PLoS ONE thing?

Zulu wrote: »

Indeed; child.(meaning of the English word child)
It's language & its accurate.
You and I are technically a "ball of cells" also. A child is as much a ball of cells as we are. All children are made of cells, but not all cells make children..

You like that dictionary don't you!

Zulu wrote: »

It's different.
No. No child exists the morning after..

When does it become a child?

Zulu wrote: »

It discounts (at worst) or belittles (at best) valid opinions - that's whats poor about it.

It does none of those things, it simply accepts that people with first hand personal experience, have first hand personal experience and places a value on that. If you've lived through something, you know what it's like better than someone who hasn't. It's very disingenuous to claim otherwise.
Experience counts for an awful lot.

OldNotWIse

Lux23 wrote: »

How many of those here who are pro-life (as in they think it should remain illegal no matter what) have actually had to deal with an unplanned pregnancy? Whether they be the father or mother.

Relevance? This is not some kind of special "members only" club where only certain people are afforded the right to an opinion.

OldNotWIse

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not talking about everyone, i'm talking about a specific group. And they are bible bashers, very much so.



Who called you any of these things? I haven't noticed any such posts at all (They may well be there now, but i haven't noticed them)
Or are you a member of youth defence? (in which case, nice user name:D)

So if you dont see the posts they dont exist? Is this like a tree falling in the forest? I remember the posts, if you decide not to believe me, thats your problem - they are there for you to find should you lose sleep over their credibility.

I am not a member of youth defence - why does it matter either way? And why did you try to draw some link between non-existance of said posts and YD membership? Are you trying to imply that YD members lie about being insulted or something?

Here's an idea for an adult discussion - if you've something to say, say it...otherwise shush