Do you find these billboards offensive?

Malari

christmas2012 wrote: »

Sometimes abortion is the wrong decision for a girl,and it can be a decision you can have a lot of regret over,abortion is not for everyone,and i wouldnt advise anybody to do it casually,i know there are a lot of people who say they dont do it on a whim,when it could be what they are doing.
Abortion does end a developing life,say what you will but thats a life growing inside you,again im not anti abortion or pro abortion,ive had friends that have had abortions,but i still wouldnt advertise it as a good thing,i think the campaign we see can be a postive thing,it could make a girl think twice,instead of being talked into an abortion by lets say her boyfriend or ex boyfriend..

What you have posted is fair enough, although the campaign does not say this. It says "always" not sometimes, as you have said. It wouldn't bother me if it said "there may be a better solution" but it's a disgusting attitude portrayed on the posters.

Zulu

St.Spodo wrote: »

Stigmatising women, disinformation, emotional manipulation...all positive attributes.

Where am I guilty of the same?

St.Spodo

Zulu wrote: »

Where am I guilty of the same?

You're not; Youth Defence are.

prinz

St.Spodo wrote: »

You're not; Youth Defence are.

Could we dispense with the nonsense that it is actually this campaign and the wording in particular people have an issue with. I'd go all the way back to page one of the thread and..

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

With 100+ 'thanks'. Offended? Yes, so let's censor any anti-abortion position altogether... but hey stigmatise anybody from an anti-abortion viewpoint away, they're fair game.

philologos

Sharrow wrote: »

TDs need to know that there are pro choice people out there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bp3QecD82A

As long as people recognise and understand that there are a lot of people who wouldn't advocate the death of the innocent.

I recognise quite a few people in that video from my university days, and I have no doubt that they are all well meaning. However, the reality is that no matter how much the pro-choice lobby might say that it is about women controlling their own bodies, there is another life to be considered in the womb. That's why I'll never be pro-choice and it's why I'll continue to advocate a pro-life position.

I was just having a look at a video from a recent pro-choice rally in Belfast. One quote that stood out at me for it's dishonesty is:
"Pro-life is a lie, you don't care if women die". Actually, I do care. How dare you tell me and others what we do or don't care about? Ironically, that is the lie.
It's precisely because we do care about life and death that we're pro-life. It seems that for many in society that the right to life itself is inferior to the conjugal rights of individuals.
Another placard read: "For humans its abortion, for chickens its an omelette". Surely someone in biology class told them the difference between a fertilized and an unfertilized egg?
I just find that there is so much fiction involved in the pro-choice debate. Useless ad-hominems, and non-truths about what's true of the embryo or the foetus.
Admittedly, marches of the sort in the video do extremely little to convince me. Let's look at whats true, and let's discuss it. What good is shouting about it going to do?

For me, both parties (child and mother) have rights and liberties, and the difficult issue is coming to a compromise. Killing one party isn't that compromise from what I can tell.

St.Spodo

prinz wrote: »

Could we dispense with the nonsense that it is actually this campaign and the wording in particular people have an issue with. I'd go all the way back to page one of the thread and..



With 100+ 'thanks'. Offended? Yes, so let's censor any anti-abortion position altogether... but hey stigmatise anybody from an anti-abortion viewpoint away, they're fair game.

I would not want to see a fair, factually-sound, informative anti-abortion position censored. Youth Defence are spreading lies, which is why many people I've spoken to are enraged.

Malari

philologos wrote: »

It seems that for many in society that the right to life itself is inferior to the conjugal rights of individuals.
.....
For me, both parties (foetus and embryo) have rights and liberties, and the difficult issue is coming to a compromise. Killing one party isn't that compromise from what I can tell.

I don't see what the other compromise there is for women who have unwanted pregnancies. And yes, many feel that the right to not have women's bodies used as incubators IS more important than the right to life for an embryo.

prinz

St.Spodo wrote: »

I would not want to see a fair, factually-sound, informative anti-abortion position censored..

But even this could be attacked as being emotionally manipulative... because no matter how fairly or factually sound you put an anti-abortion position across the same accusations will fly back; upsetting for women who have had abortions, trying to manipulate, how dare you speak for other people, etc etc.

prinz

Malari wrote: »

And yes, many feel that the right to not have women's bodies used as incubators IS more important than the right to life for an embryo.

As a matter of interest now that we're comparing human bodies to equipment, what right has a man not to be used as an intracytoplasmic sperm injection?

philologos

Malari wrote: »

I don't see what the other compromise there is for women who have unwanted pregnancies. And yes, many feel that the right to not have women's bodies used as incubators IS more important than the right to life for an embryo.

The decision should be made much earlier, it is possible to prevent pregnancy. It is also possible to be in a situation where pregnancy can never arise (this is why I mention conjugal rights superseding the right to life). I made a typo in my previous post which is now corrected.

Killing is incredibly serious. Naturally people are going to object to it in some way or another?

Malari

prinz wrote: »

As a matter of interest now that we're comparing human bodies to equipment, what right has a man not to be used as an intracytoplasmic sperm injection?

What?! I don't understand the comparison or relvance?

philologos wrote: »

The decision should be made much earlier, it is possible to prevent pregnancy. It is also possible to be in a situation where pregnancy can never arise (this is why I mention conjugal rights superseding the right to life). I made a typo in my previous post which is now corrected.

Killing is incredibly serious. Naturally people are going to object to it in some way or another?

Well, preventing pregnancy is not always possible if sex occurs. It's possible to assure a very, very low chance of it occurring. Not having sex is unrealistic for everyone.

Yes, I get that some people will object to it. I do get that, I'm not going to argue that it's not really killing or anything because I don't think that makes any difference to someone who asserts that removing a fertilized egg is taking a life. But I do think that the conjugal rights as you put it are more important and that the right not to have an enforced pregnancy is more important.

Morag

I agree that an ounce of prevention is better then a pound of cure.

YD are an evangelical catholic organisation, they are anti contraception.

We should have drs who are up to speed with the advances in contraception and we should have free contraception up to the age of 25 and proper sexual health and contraceptive education in schools.

But even if we had all of that there would still be some tragic cases were due abortion is needed.

philologos

Malari wrote: »

Well, preventing pregnancy is not always possible if sex occurs. It's possible to assure a very, very low chance of it occurring. Not having sex is unrealistic for everyone.

Exactly. Which is my point. It seems peoples conjugal rights supersede the right to life in the assumption of those who advocate pro-choice. On the other hand, I'll never be able to agree. Life is something that needs to be defended at all costs.

Malari wrote: »

Yes, I get that some people will object to it. I do get that, I'm not going to argue that it's not really killing or anything because I don't think that makes any difference to someone who asserts that removing a fertilized egg is taking a life. But I do think that the conjugal rights as you put it are more important and that the right not to have an enforced pregnancy is more important.

So the right to have sex is more important than the right to life? What would you say to people like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg

That they should have never been born?

prinz

Malari wrote: »

What?! I don't understand the comparison or relvance?

Simple you say Woman X gets pregnant and she should have the right not to be an incubator.

Now let's say Man Y was involved in impregnating Woman X, but he has no interest in having a child whatsoever. What do you think his rights should be not to be reduced to the roll of a syringe?

It's fairly basic concept, and perfectly relevant. How vocal are you on supporting a man's right not to become a biological parent against his wishes?

prinz

Sharrow wrote: »

I agree that an ounce of prevention is better then a pound of cure...

Agreed.

Sharrow wrote: »

We should have drs who are up to speed with the advances in contraception...

Agreed.

Sharrow wrote: »

and we should have free contraception up to the age of 25...

There are virtually free contraceptive methods available to all. Unfortunately despite proven effectiveness if you try to suggest them you'l become a laughing stock and pariah. However..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6375261.stm

Sharrow wrote: »

..and proper sexual health and contraceptive education in schools..

Agreed. As long as they teach all methods equally and give the full facts such as side effects etc.

Malari

prinz wrote: »

Simple you say Woman X gets pregnant and she should have the right not to be an incubator.

Now let's say Man Y was involved in impregnating Woman X, but he has no interest in having a child whatsoever. What do you think his rights should be not to be reduced to the roll of a syringe?

It's fairly basic concept, and perfectly relevant. How vocal are you on supporting a man's right not to become a biological parent against his wishes?

Oh, forced abortion on a woman who wants to have a child? Of course I don't support that. Do you?

Malari

philologos wrote: »

Exactly. Which is my point. It seems peoples conjugal rights supersede the right to life in the assumption of those who advocate pro-choice. On the other hand, I'll never be able to agree. Life is something that needs to be defended at all costs.



So the right to have sex is more important than the right to life? What would you say to people like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg

That they should have never been born?

I can't view those videos right now. What is the jist?

Morag

Malari wrote: »

I can't view those videos right now. What is the jist?

She is a freak occurrence, her mother had a late term abortion and the procedure that was used back then was flawed resulting in her being born early instead of aborted and the medical professional present made the decision to intervene to keep her alive and she lived. She now tours telling how she is an abortion survivor.

prinz

Malari wrote: »

Oh, forced abortion on a woman who wants to have a child? Of course I don't support that. Do you?

No I don't, I just find it bemusing when the same people who make the most noise about women's rights seem to find it rather easy to strip men of their reproductive rights. I.E. an abortion of a child of a man who wants to have that child ......meh. I suppose I shouldn't be too suprised, I've often been told I shouldn't even have the right to vote on the issue.

Malari

prinz wrote: »

No I don't, I just find it bemusing when the same people who make the most noise about women's rights seem to find it rather easy to strip men of their reproductive rights. I.E. an abortion of a child of a man who wants to have that child ......meh. I suppose I shouldn't be too suprised, I've often been told I shouldn't even have the right to vote on the issue.

OK, but the "syringe" function ends when sex is over. A pregnancy doesn't affect the man's body.

Of course men should have the right to vote on the issue. But the corollary of a man not wanting the woman to have an abortion is a forced pregnancy, and I can't agree with that.

Malari

Sharrow wrote: »

She is a freak occurrence, her mother had a late term abortion and the procedure that was used back then was flawed resulting in her being born early instead of aborted and the medical professional present made the decision to intervene to keep her alive and she lived. She now tours telling how she is an abortion survivor.

OK thanks. Philologos, I'm not sure what this has to do with the rights to have sex.

aidan24326

Sharrow wrote: »

We should have drs who are up to speed with the advances in contraception and we should have free contraception up to the age of 25 and proper sexual health and contraceptive education in schools.

We should have had proper sex education in schools a long time ago, but it was more important that we pander to the catholic church and their poisonous attitude to sex and sexuality in general. Sex education (such as it was) in my school back in the early 90s was a farce, and probably isn't a whole lot better now I suspect.

prinz

Sharrow wrote: »

She is a freak occurrence...

She is a human being. For someone campaigning for empathy and understanding and acceptance and what not you don't show much of it to Ms Jessens.

Malari wrote: »

OK thanks. Philologos, I'm not sure what this has to do with the rights to have sex.

Would you walk up to her and say a 5 minute roll in the hay is more important than her life?

fasttalkerchat

Idiots but not offensive. I would like to see some pro-abortion adverts.

newport2

aidan24326 wrote: »

We should have had proper sex education in schools a long time ago, but it was more important that we pander to the catholic church and their poisonous attitude to sex and sexuality in general. Sex education (such as it was) in my school back in the early 90s was a farce, and probably isn't a whole lot better now I suspect.

I remember one of our teachers attempting to give a talk on sex in relation to AIDS. One of the class asked if you could catch it from oral sex, to which the teacher's response was "Only weirdos do that".

fasttalkerchat

newport2 wrote: »

I remember one of our teachers attempting to give a talk on sex in relation to AIDS. One of the class asked if you could catch it from oral sex, to which the teacher's response was "Only weirdos do that".

I was told by a teacher that you could get AIDS even if neither person was HIV positive. It just sort of happens...

Morag

prinz wrote: »

She is a human being. For someone campaigning for empathy and understanding and acceptance and what not you don't show much of it to Ms Jessens.

:rolleyes:

Seriously I never inferred she wasn't a human being or that I had no compassion for her.

prinz

Sharrow wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Seriously I never inferred she wasn't a human being or that I had no compassion for her.

Thanks for clearing that up, but the post I was responding to certainly read as if you were thinly disguising an element of contempt for the woman for speaking up about her circumstances.

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up, but the post I was responding to certainly read as if you were thinly disguising an element of contempt for the woman for speaking up about her circumstances.

I guess different people take different meanings from things, i didn't detect any such thing.

aidan24326

newport2 wrote: »

I remember one of our teachers attempting to give a talk on sex in relation to AIDS. One of the class asked if you could catch it from oral sex, to which the teacher's response was "Only weirdos do that".

The teacher giving us sex miseducation proclaimed oral sex to be 'a disgusting act'. Clearly some people in Ireland weren't having very interesting sex lives.

Shocking that that was the answer a teacher would give though, rather than providing the correct information about HIV and STIs in general.