Do you find these billboards offensive?

sbsquarepants

Ah, it's only a joke. If you don't find it funny, don't laugh.

OldNotWIse

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Ah, it's only a joke. If you don't find it funny, don't laugh.

As distinct from a porkie?

Funny that double standards, or is that old trick of saying something untrue and when confronted, retract it as a joke? tut tut

Bye bye

old hippy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Wow, joking about abortion now? That's just nasty :eek:
Definitely the lowest point of the thread.

You need to get out more, obviously.

sbsquarepants

OldNotWIse wrote: »

As distinct from a porkie?

Funny that double standards, or is that old trick of saying something untrue and when confronted, retract it as a joke? tut tut

Bye bye

Jesus lady, let it go.
I caught you lying.
You didn't find my joke funny.
If you somehow think those are the same, then you're right back in the running for most apt user name.

LisaLee

If anyone would like to lodge a complaint with JCDecaux then they can find a text body at this link, as the ASAI aren't able to deal with it.

Morag

Taken from the Action on X facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/actiononx2012

This is a great opportunity to let YOUR public representatives know that you SUPPORT a woman's right to choose. Tell them campaigns such as this *do not* speak for you, your family or your loved ones, and that you anticipate legislation on X as soon as the Dail reconvenes this September:

Find your representative here: http://www.kildarestreet.com/tds/

See a fantastic sample email from Sinead, below, who has given us this idea:

Hi Ivana,

I'm getting in touch about the Youth Defence billboard campaign currently underway; I'm sure you're familiar, as a recap, there are two posters being run, one with a photo of a young woman, and one with a photo of a foetus at 18+ weeks, both with the caption "Abortion tears her life apart". I consider this, in both instances, constitutes false advertising and misrepresentation of abortion in the vast majority of cases; 89% of abortions take place before 13 weeks (at embryo, not foetus stage http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_075697) and 95% of Irish women who have had an abortion consider that the outcome was the right thing to do (http://www.crisispregnancy.ie/pub/cou.pdf).

Essentially I feel that in such gross misrepresentations of the norm of abortion for Irish women Youth Defence is engaging in deeply misleading advertising and as the ASAI are saying on their website it's outside their remit, I'm asking you to consider applying to the High Court for an order prohibiting the publication of this campaign. Ireland is finally making a very limited amount of progress on abortion and it's too important an issue to allow factually incorrect materials to muddy the waters in such an emotive and manipulative way.

Thanks and regards,

Sinéad Redmond

Zulu

Well Ivana is certainly the correct misandrist to email.

Fizzlesque

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.

Aaaaggggghhhhhh.

Don't mind me, folks, I'm just letting off steam. :mad:

real_irishken

I remember in the past they used to show aborted babies. That kind of emotional blackmail made me sick.

In the end, it is up to both parents decision. But in the real world, that does not tend to be the case. It's the most difficult to take somebody's life and nobody else has the right to tell you what to do otherwise.

Morag

Zulu wrote: »

Well Ivana is certainly the correct misandrist to email.

It's a form letter to be sent to your own TD/Senator, Ivana is one of the elected reps of the person who wrote the samples letter, that's all.

Lollipops23

real_irishken wrote: »

I remember in the past they used to show aborted babies. That kind of emotional blackmail made me sick.

In the end, it is up to both parents decision. But in the real world, that does not tend to be the case. It's the most difficult to take somebody's life and nobody else has the right to tell you what to do otherwise.

This is the thing, I would never tell someone what they can and can't do- of someone doesn't want/agree with abortion that's fair enough.

It's the presumption on their part that it's ok for them to call the shots with MY body that gets me. They clearly haven't done their research or bothered their ignorant holes to speak to women who've been through abortion and come out the other side.


Bad enough women have to travel to the UK for terminations, now they're trying to take that away too.

Caliden

Sleepy wrote: »

Anti-abortion groups tend to offend me in general tbh...

And don't get me started on the utter moronity of the term "pro-lfe" :rolleyes:

The same anti-abortion groups tend to use shock images to get their message across by showing aborted fetuses for example.

Zulu

Lollipops23 wrote: »

This is the thing, I would never tell someone what they can and can't do.

Really? So you've no problem with how the bankers have acted in the early naughties? Or what about the politicians; Ray Burke was ok with you? Bertie, no bother??

How far does this extend? What about that chap that was caught with all the simulated child pornography - that's all cool & the gang is it?

Personally I've no problem telling people what they can and can't do. My nephews & nieces for example, I make a point of telling them whats not acceptable. My tenants, I tell them what they can & can't do. My employees & my employer, I tell them what they can and can't do. I do it all the time. ...and I suspect you do too.

Either that or your some push-over.

dav3

I haven't heard a single interview from someone in Youth Defense where they didn't sound like they are wired to the moon.
They really are just a bunch of bitter attention seekers and Ireland's very own version of the Westboro baptist church. Aggressive loons standing on street corners with offensive banners.
It looks like they found a sugar daddy in some far off land to fund their latest campaign, there is no chance of them being able to fund it themselves. It's also coming across as a last hurrah for them, as they know with each passing year they are becoming more and more irrelevant to this country as we move forward and leave the dark ages behind us.

prinz

dav3 wrote: »

It's also coming across as a last hurrah for them, as they know with each passing year they are becoming more and more irrelevant to this country as we move forward and leave the dark ages behind us.

As a matter of interest do you say the same about PETA, or the ISPCA?

Zulu

Wa-hey a whole post about nothing, greeaaat.

Zulu

Dammit Prinz my post was meant to go about yours!

Dwaegon

Someone's having fun!

Pantsface

One time I was in a now sadly defunct dirty little club in Dublin, where one lad, boasted about putting an e up his bum to come up quicker

It came up alright, and not in the way he was expecting, baby wipes anyone?

Zulu

...your point caller?

prinz

Dwaegon wrote: »

Someone's having fun!

You apparently. Pathetic attempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Youth_Defence&action=history

retroactive

Zulu wrote: »

I'm glad you brought that back up. The billboard isn't a lie, it's an opinion - remember, it's not a fact.
.

Freedom of speech is not a fundamental right but one that must contain proportionality, that is why we have hate speech laws and defamation. You cannot voice an opinion such as 'There is always a better option than abortion' then hide behind the cloak of free speech.

I have no problem with a group voicing an opinion but it crosses the line when a group tries to jam their morals into our faces through tactics such as coercion and shame, using emotional manipulation to speak out against abortion.

I believe in freedom of speech but it must be proportionate to other freedoms.

There has been ECJ rulings, Supreme Court rulings and a Referendum. Our collective consciousness as a society feels that abortion is correct in appropriate circumstances, thus invitiates the idea that 'There is always a better alternative.' Of course people are offended by such assertions it paints the picture of someone who had an abortion as a basket case racked by shame, who wants to be assaulted by that on their daily commute. How is not emotional manipulation.

It was once said of the religion that is is like a penis. It's fine to have one but I draw the line at sticking it down my childrens mouth. That is what Youth defence are doing - ramming their opinion down our throats on a mass scale using emotional manipulation.

Rant about the catholic church all you want but what i'm appalled with is the inertia of our legislature in not making proper provision for abortion dispite the X case turning 20 years old this year.

Esoteric_

I'm not offended by it, but I disagree with it.

I just wonder what the reaction would be if pro-choice billboards were put up. There'd probably be a huge uproar and all the 'pro-lifers' would be out in force, demanding that they be taken down.

PickledLime

I'm personally not offended by it (i'm pretty difficult to offend!), but 100% support the OP.

I'd consider myself 'pro-choice' and to me the poster is emotionally manipulative, and it does not state fact.

Bipolar Joe

Are there any groups in Ireland that are pro-choice? What would it take for a campaign for the other side to happen? If one is allowed, the other should be.

Potential-Monke

I don't pay attention to the ones that don't have the abortion pictures, but there's a law speciifically about them:

Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 wrote:

7.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to distribute or display any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both.

Thing to note is "insulting or abscene" and "being reckless". They are being reckless by putting up the aborted pictures, and a complaint to the Gardai will soon have them taken down.

SocSocPol

LyndaMcL wrote: »

I'm not offended by it, but I disagree with it.

I just wonder what the reaction would be if pro-choice billboards were put up. There'd probably be a huge uproar and all the 'pro-lifers' would be out in force, demanding that they be taken down.

Totally agree with you. It seems that these so called "pro-lifers" can do as they please as can be seen by their sickening sideshow held regularly outside the GPO.
Of course as soon as anyone mentions pro-choice these same loonies have a caniption!

philologos

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I don't pay attention to the ones that don't have the abortion pictures, but there's a law speciifically about them:

Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 wrote:

7.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to distribute or display any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both.

Thing to note is "insulting or abscene" and "being reckless". They are being reckless by putting up the aborted pictures, and a complaint to the Gardai will soon have them taken down.

This is why I support getting rid of the Sections 5 - 7 of the Public Order Act. It's also why there is a campaign in Britain to get rid of it in their law.

You shouldn't have a right not to be offended. It shouldn't be the State's job to protect sensibilities.

Do you feel the same way about the blasphemy law? I support getting rid of it because it limits free speech. You should have the sense to do the same here.

As for some earlier posts about men not finding it offensive. I know quite a few women who would advocate a pro-life view are you saying they are traitors?

prinz

retroactive wrote: »

I have no problem with a group voicing an opinion but it crosses the line when a group tries to jam their morals into our faces through tactics such as coercion and shame, using emotional manipulation to speak out against abortion. I believe in freedom of speech but it must be proportionate to other freedoms..

All sounds well and good, but the problem is no matter how a group voice an anti-abortion opinion, no matter the means they use to convey that message, no matter they care they take in communicating it etc, they will be accused of using these same tactics. I don't think I've ever come across an anti-abortion opinion from anyone that wasn't accused of using "coercion and shame, using emotional manipulation" including posters on this site. Of course when "emotional maniupulation" is used for the pro-choice side, the same complaints never seem to be raised by the same people. Odd.

sbsquarepants

All sounds well and good, but the problem is no matter how a group voice an anti-abortion opinion, no matter the means they use to convey that message, no matter they care they take in communicating it etc, they will be accused of using these same tactics

Most peoples problem is with the use of the word always, seeing as it is plainly factually innacurate (or a lie as I call such things) and unneccesarily damning. If they'd said possibly, or there could be a better choice, the majority of people wouldn't have a problem - but then i suspect that both they and you, know that only too well.
Provoking controversy is a sure fire way of getting your add noticed - seems to be working for them.