Pro lifers giving out sweets to children on Shop street

Night Falls

Fuinseog wrote: »

i don't Irish people like to be told what to do in general. blocking roads because there is another major cashcow for Galway, that the natives never benefit from, is not acceptable.

So it's a cashcow for Galway, but of no benefit to Galway?

Were you against the closure of roads around the docks during the Ocean Race?

ScumLord

dharma200 wrote: »

In your case, I think for someone who doesnt care about the protest and thinks protesting is for idiots, nor wants to be part of protesting and wants to just wait until asked
: the lady/man doth protest too much

Protesting is completely ineffective in this day and age. It is a pointless waste of time because it will be ignored and it's just a way to satisfy the mobs need to feel like their doing something while doing next to nothing.

OldNotWIse

dharma200 wrote: »

oldnotwise for someone that doesnt think debating or protesting either way makes a difference you seem to be doing both quite well here.

sunk to new lows is an opinion and doesnot say I think they have no right to protest.. I however disagree with the tactics they use, as is clearly stated in the title of this thread...

In your case, I think for someone who doesnt care about the protest and thinks protesting is for idiots, nor wants to be part of protesting and wants to just wait until asked
: the lady/man doth protest too much

Can you explain the part I have bolded please???

So what are you saying, that I am not allowed to partake in a discussion simply because of my belief that waving posters in people's faces will not change their minds?

My point (and I think this is very obvious) pertains to those trying to change other people's minds about abortion (that is, because you seem to have trouble understanding the thinking behind my posts) there is no point pro-lifers waving posters and shouting about murdering babies, as there is also no point in pro choicers parping on about womens rights (imo). This is why I do not wave posters or bibles or pictures of dead babies in other peoples faces. I am more than entitled to discuss this as I see fit on a thread.

When I say I see no point protesting against abortion, how exactly do you manage to wrangle, "I see no point in debating or discussing anything on boards" from it????

Fuseman

While the Roman Catholic Church promote the pro-life side of this debate, I don't think they support the tactics of Youth Defence.

christmas2012

Its easy to confuse abortion with womens rights,bc their marie stopes ad campaigns and other such abortion services advertise them as such,which is very ,very misleading to the young impressionable mind,they have been championing this because they want women in general to think abortion is synonymous with womens rights..

inisboffin

christmas2012 wrote: »

Its easy to confuse abortion with womens rights,bc their marie stopes ad campaigns and other such abortion services advertise them as such,which is very ,very misleading to the young impressionable mind,they have been championing this because they want women in general to think abortion is synonymous with womens rights..

I don't know of that many men who have had gone into hospital or a centre and have had an abortion. Based on this alone, I would say the issue of abortion does fall under the category of 'women's rights'.

previous user

Jelly babies?

christmas2012

abortion could be seen as a mans right as much as a womans then,but the marie stopes clinics and such like to argue its a womans perogative,its a womans right,as they like any clever marketeer realise the consumer is largely the female of the species..this is why they like to confuse the issue with womens rights,bc it tugs on the emotional heartstrings of women,once you mention womens rights,womens ears prick up and they tend to agree with whats been said after..thats the problem..

and abortion itself is a traumatic and painful experience,a lot of women feel physically and emotianally hurt by an abortion,some go on in later years to get pregnant and miscarry..those are facts that should be heard,its a pity youth defence didnt go into that..i believe women should be fully informed..

marshbaboon

ScumLord wrote: »

Protesting is completely ineffective in this day and age. It is a pointless waste of time because it will be ignored and it's just a way to satisfy the mobs need to feel like their doing something while doing next to nothing.

Unless money/violence is used you're completely right. Not that I condone either, it's just an observation.

MagicSean

inisboffin wrote: »

I don't know of that many men who have had gone into hospital or a centre and have had an abortion. Based on this alone, I would say the issue of abortion does fall under the category of 'women's rights'.

Maybe because you don't recognise the existence of life before birth. For those of us that do it is not an issue of womens rights but an issue of the right to life.

Tipsygypsy

christmas2012 wrote: »

and abortion itself is a traumatic and painful experience,a lot of women feel physically and emotianally hurt by an abortion,some go on in later years to get pregnant and miscarry..those are facts that should be heard,its a pity youth defence didnt go into that..i believe women should be fully informed..

Im sorry, are you suggesting that some women go on to miscarry because they have previously had an abortion?

ScumLord

marshbaboon wrote: »

Unless money/violence is used you're completely right. Not that I condone either, it's just an observation.

How would money and violence change the effectiveness of a protest?

Helix

dharma200 wrote: »

do they not think of the little babies while subjecting them to the dangers of the 3d scan images they seem to like so much

most of them are cgi

inisboffin

MagicSean wrote: »

Maybe because you don't recognise the existence of life before birth. For those of us that do it is not an issue of womens rights but an issue of the right to life.

We obviously have different views on this. The medical procedure happens to a woman's body, not a man's - that's the point I was making. Whether or not it falls under another category also is not something I was even going into - I just feel that it *definitely* falls under the category of women's rights.

Both men and women can get breast cancer for example, but campaigning options for screening is something that often is found under the umbrella of women's rights and this does not preclude others discussing it.

OldNotWIse

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

Im sorry, are you suggesting that some women go on to miscarry because they have previously had an abortion?

Havent there been some links found? Correct me if I am wrong (and not being smart!) - I genuinely thought this was the case???

Bipolar Joe

Welp, managed to make it to page six before I wanted to invent a USB device that allowed me to punch people on the other end of the Internet connection. Anyone managed to beat it that hasn't been posting from the beginning?

OldNotWIse

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Welp, managed to make it to page six before I wanted to invent a USB device that allowed me to punch people on the other end of the Internet connection. Anyone managed to beat it that hasn't been posting from the beginning?

Physical violence tends to create more problems, not solve them...

Genghiz Cohen

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Physical violence tends to create more problems, not solve them...

You obviously haven't been using enough violence then.

Bipolar Joe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Physical violence tends to create more problems, not solve them...

But it feels so damn good.

On topic, Giving out sweets to kids is a nice little tactic to gain favour. How do explain to a child that they can't take candy from the guy who wants children to be born?

I'd love a proper counter rally, but unfortunately the screeching masses of the pro-choice tend to let themselves get riled up. For what it's worth, I'd stand with them.

OldNotWIse

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You obviously haven't been using enough violence then.

For people who dare to hold different views? Waste of energy. I tend to keep my violence for the important things in life

Bipolar Joe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

For people who dare to hold different views? Waste of energy. I tend to keep my violence for the important things in life

It's not the different views that annoy me. I'm well able to accept that some people think Lady Gaga is a lyrical genius and that the puppets that come out of televised talent shows are obviously the best thing ever (Until next season, at least). What I can't accept is the idea that just because someone has a different sexual orientation, or is pregnant and without means to care for the child for whatever reason, be it monetary, sociological, psychological or they just don't want a kid, is somehow worth less than those that aren't that way inclined. It's a BS stance based on fear, bigotry and a lack of common decency.

Every argument against is based in religion, which means you co-opted someone else's ideals either before or without doing your own critical thinking, and / or can be easily counter-argued with an opposite or pure fucking logic. I'd like to think of myself as a relatively OK human being. I screw up, do bad things some times, but I got one thing going for me; I point blank refuse to interfere with someone's happiness if it's not to the detriment of anyone else. I want to have kids, I want to be married and have a white picket fence and a dog with a people name, it's not on me to say anyone else can't.

Here's a fun little game. Take every thing talked about in this thread and switch it. You're straight, but only homosexuals are allowed marry, have sex, bring up kids, what not. You want that, too. Do you accept it because that's what The Good Book says, or do you fight for your civil liberties?

The Bible says a lot of really hateful things, either take them all or leave them all, you don't get to pick and choose which brand of decency you subscribe to.

dharma200

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Can you explain the part I have bolded please???

So what are you saying, that I am not allowed to partake in a discussion simply because of my belief that waving posters in people's faces will not change their minds?

My point (and I think this is very obvious) pertains to those trying to change other people's minds about abortion (that is, because you seem to have trouble understanding the thinking behind my posts) there is no point pro-lifers waving posters and shouting about murdering babies, as there is also no point in pro choicers parping on about womens rights (imo). This is why I do not wave posters or bibles or pictures of dead babies in other peoples faces. I am more than entitled to discuss this as I see fit on a thread.

When I say I see no point protesting against abortion, how exactly do you manage to wrangle, "I see no point in debating or discussing anything on boards" from it????

I have no trouble understanding anyting.

You are stating really there is no point in any of it atall, other than the point that you have beleifs, they will not be swayed by either side. You have your beleifs on this, and will not be swayed. You can debate away on tis but it would seem to me fairly pointless. You see no point in protesting against abortion because you have firm unswayable beleifs and you are waiting to be asked to vote.

I cannot see then, if you think it is all pointless and you mind is firmly made up, no one is asking you to protest. This thread on the other hand is about the methods used by pro lifers on shop street. Handing out sweets to children. Please stop putting words in my mouth, I am not asking you to not partake in anything, or partake, or be apathetic.

You state again and again you have your beleifs and will not be swayed. Thats great.

Tipsygypsy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Havent there been some links found? Correct me if I am wrong (and not being smart!) - I genuinely thought this was the case???

If that is what Christmas2012 is suggesting then I would ask him/her to provide a link to back up that claim.

See either of the following, both of which dispute it.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2937238

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2225607

Mind you, I have heard it from the 'pro-life' argument before. And this is why it is so important that there be a campaign for the 'pro-choice' side, because people will present their 'facts', and if they go undisputed the general population (the ones who aren't too fussed either way) will assume them to be truth. And alot of the 'facts' are not facts at all.

I also want to say, in response to Chunky Lover 54

I'm not religious (and therefore I have no pro-catholic church sympathies) but
your'e exaggerating. I cannot recall one instance in my life living and growing up in Ireland (I'm 30) that I had any religious group "impose" their ideas on me.).

I am the only 5 years older than you. I was taught in religion class that abortion is wrong, that divorce is wrong, that homosexuality is wrong, that french kissing is a sin - never mind what unmarried sex was. I did a project on abortion in 2nd or 3rd year (age maybe 14?), it was not to be an unbiased assessment of the situation, and it had to contain all those horrific images that Youth Defence used to have on Shop Street every once in a while and it certainly could not look at issues of rape or medical necesity. I also had to watch a movie , I think it was called 'The silent scream' as did many many many of my friends in all different schools, feel free to google that one and tell me if thats how you think the issue of abotion should be tackled in schools.
I grew up in an Ireland where condoms were damn hard to get your hands on. I was once refused the morning after pill once based on the Doctors religious beliefs.

So I guess what Im saying is that I can recall several instances in my life living and growing up in Ireland that I had any religious group "impose" their ideas on me - and I could happily mention many many more, but right now I have to make dinner for my kids.

dharma200

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Havent there been some links found? Correct me if I am wrong (and not being smart!) - I genuinely thought this was the case???

I would suggest posting some links(if any can be found). It would be very interesting. Please be careful that the links are from impartial sources.. good luck with that

christmas2012

Im sorry, are you suggesting that some women go on to miscarry because they have previously had an abortion?

some women do,abortion should come with a health warning,its not a 100% safe procedure to go through,also there is risk of infection the list goes on and on..

but the women at the marie stopes clinic wont tell you that will they?

dharma200

christmas2012 wrote: »

some women do,abortion should come with a health warning,its not a 100% safe procedure to go through,also there is risk of infection the list goes on and on..

but the women at the marie stopes clinic wont tell you that will they?

and childbirth is? What about in instances where the mothers life is at risk if the pregnancy is carried on? what do you suggest then....

Ofcourse all information is given to women befors the procedure is carried out.. that is unless the women are forced into back street alleys out of sheer desperation....

christmas2012

where are the back alley abortion clinics tell me?i havent heard of any women going to them,most of them take the plane or boat over to the UK..

dharma200

exactly.. so exactly what is it marie stopes is supposedly not telling women then?

Which health providers in the UK are not informing the women seeking terminations the facts?

I would presume not allowing woman access to the full fact and then performing a medical procedure could provide a mine field of litigation.....

In 2011, there were 6151 abortions for non-residents carried out in hospitals and clinics in England and Wales (this was the lowest total in any year since 1969). 16% of these non-residents were from Northern Ireland and 67% from the Irish Republic.

These women were informed of the facts before the procedure was carried out, What you are saying is that because women are not informed they should not have access?

Does that mean that women are incapable of informing themselves? Are all the thousands of women seeking terminations each year so ill informed they should be denied the procedure? Really?

christmas2012

A lot of women that go for terminations dont seek information and marie stopes clinics dont exactly advertise the risks of the procedure,you dont see it on their ads,if they want to see that information,of course they can always do a quick google search on abortion method,and see for themselves as they sift through the rubbish and ads for pro abortion clinics etc..

dharma200

christmas2012 wrote: »

A lot of women that go for terminations dont seek information and marie stopes clinics dont exactly advertise the risks of the procedure,you dont see it on their ads,if they want to see that information,of course they can always do a quick google search on abortion method,and see for themselves as they sift through the rubbish and ads for pro abortion clinics etc..

or sift through the blatant propoganda by the pro life groups etc.

Alot of women that seek abortions dont seek information? right??... links????

humanji

christmas2012 wrote: »

some women do,abortion should come with a health warning,its not a 100% safe procedure to go through,also there is risk of infection the list goes on and on..

but the women at the marie stopes clinic wont tell you that will they?

Eh, yeah they do. They even have it on their website.

christmas2012

do they have risk of infection on their website?

Tipsygypsy

christmas2012 wrote: »

and abortion itself is a traumatic and painful experience,a lot of women feel physically and emotianally hurt by an abortion,some go on in later years to get pregnant and miscarry..those are facts that should be heard,its a pity youth defence didnt go into that..i believe women should be fully informed..

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

Im sorry, are you suggesting that some women go on to miscarry because they have previously had an abortion?

christmas2012 wrote: »

some women do,abortion should come with a health warning,its not a 100% safe procedure to go through,also there is risk of infection the list goes on and on..

Christmas2012 can you please provide some evidence to back this (specifically the suggestion about abortion and subsequent miscarriage), otherwise it is just scaremongering.

Of course abortion is not 100% safe, no medical procedure is. You are aware that there is risk of infection and other complications with childbirth also? Also it does come with a warning, you have to sign a consent form.

There are plenty of threads out there debating abortion, and I dont mean to get into that here, but I won't sit by and allow mis-information to be spread.

christmas2012

Its not misinformation infection can spread and lead to miscarraige later in life when a women tries to concieve...something the marie stopes clinic should have up on their website,and YES as you say no procedure is 100 % safe..

Tipsygypsy

christmas2012 wrote: »

do they have risk of infection on their website?

Yes - link to their info booklet -
Does mention risk of infection.


http://www.mariestopes.org.uk/documents/Abortion%20-%20your%20questions%20%20answered.pdf

Tipsygypsy

christmas2012 wrote: »

Its not misinformation infection can spread and lead to miscarraige later in life when a women tries to concieve...something the marie stopes clinic should have up on their website,and YES as you say no procedure is 100 % safe..

I have asked you twice now to back up your suggestion that abortion can lead to subsequent miscarriages, and you have still not.
This is the misinformation to which I refer.

Either you can back it up, in which case please do. Or you can't, in which case please admit that you do not have evidence to support it.

Again, to be clear, I am speaking SPECIFICALLY about the comment you made about women who have had abortions going on to miscarry in later pregnancies.

tigger123

christmas2012 wrote: »

Its not misinformation infection can spread and lead to miscarraige later in life when a women tries to concieve...something the marie stopes clinic should have up on their website,and YES as you say no procedure is 100 % safe..

But isn't there a risk of infection from any medical procedure?

My two cents, no woman ever wants to be in the position of having an abortion, and I'm sure it's not a decision that would be made lightly. But it's happening, and it's a reality, and it's a disgrace that we as a State in the 21st century are sending our loved ones to England for abortions.

christmas2012

My two cents, no woman ever wants to be in the position of having an abortion

But yet they are not ready to have a child yet they are ready to have sex,copulation results naturally in pregnancy if they are not bright enough to figure that out for themselves,this is called natural consequence if they dont want any part of it,they shouldnt be having sex in the first place..


To the other commenter tipsygypsy,i dont have to spoon feed you facts look them up on google or the library if you like ..

So much for all this faux-concern about people not being informed. Can't even provide a couple of links :rolleyes:

sheesh

dharma200 wrote: »

Yep, these religious fundamentalist crazies sunk to new lows.. witnessed a male placard waver, with usual image of feotus (do they not think of the little babies while subjecting them to the dangers of the 3d scan images they seem to like so much), handing out Roses sweets to children :mad:.... bleurgh to him and belurgh to roses....

The Fiends!
Won't somebody think of the childrens' teeth!

Night Falls

christmas2012 wrote: »

But yet they are not ready to have a child yet they are ready to have sex,copulation results naturally in pregnancy if they are not bright enough to figure that out for themselves,this is called natural consequence if they dont want any part of it,they shouldnt be having sex in the first place..


To the other commenter tipsygypsy,i dont have to spoon feed you facts look them up on google or the library if you like ..

Your post makes me smile. A lot. Thanks for that.

tigger123

christmas2012 wrote: »

But yet they are not ready to have a child yet they are ready to have sex,copulation results naturally in pregnancy if they are not bright enough to figure that out for themselves,this is called natural consequence if they dont want any part of it,they shouldnt be having sex in the first place..


To the other commenter tipsygypsy,i dont have to spoon feed you facts look them up on google or the library if you like ..

The implication in what you're saying is that the pregnancy is punishment. Which is pretty disturbing. What about situations where the woman (or girl) was raped or abused? Or when the pregnancy is "incompatible with life"?

And if you're gonna make claims about the medical affects of an abortion ya should at least back it up with something.

christmas2012

im not making claims - look it up for yourself.

dharma200

christmas2012 is spreading usless and unsubstanciated facts on multiple threads on this issue. I would hazard a guess that arguing any point with this poster is like hitting your head over and over again on a brick wall...

tigger123

christmas2012 wrote: »

im not making claims - look it up for yourself.

:pac:

The Idyll Race

christmas2012 wrote: »

Its not misinformation infection can spread and lead to miscarraige later in life when a women tries to concieve...something the marie stopes clinic should have up on their website,and YES as you say no procedure is 100 % safe..

Fascinating - is a woman's womb more prone then to infection than any other part of her body? If so, the next Youth Defence campaign should be to prevent women having any operations because of the risk of infection.

blacklilly

dharma200 wrote: »

christmas2012 is spreading usless and unsubstanciated facts on multiple threads on this issue. I would hazard a guess that arguing any point with this poster is like hitting your head over and over again on a brick wall...

Although I am pro life I would have to agree with the above

Night Falls

christmas2012 wrote: »

im not making claims - look it up for yourself.

It's kind of up to you to prove your point, rather than the other way around. But please, carry on, I'm really enjoying you making a fool of yourself on this thread.

oppenheimer1

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Because the pro lifers are on the streets a lot more frequently recently and they are more in your face with their propaganda posters.

As is their right. Or should only points of view you agree with be allowed to publicly state their case?

Bipolar Joe

I should really get around to making that USB punching portal device.