Pro lifers giving out sweets to children on Shop street

The Idyll Race

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

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

Yes, and anyone spreading misinformation should always be called out on it. Cuts both ways.

dharma200

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

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

along with the handing out of sweets to children?

To get back to the thread.. handing sweets out to children really should not be encouraged to garner support for a religious right groups agenda, surely there should be some sort of Children First protocol in place for this type of activity? What with all the church in this country has gone through with young children in recent times.. should groups be allowed to hand out sweeties to children to promote their cause?

oppenheimer1

The Idyll Race wrote: »

Yes, and anyone spreading misinformation should always be called out on it. Cuts both ways.

Giving sweets to children is hardly spreading misinformation. People are allowed to have opposing viewpoints.

dharma200

ofcourse people are, no one is saying they shouldnt... please read the title of the thread... it has been derailed somewhat... should the religious right in Ireland be allowed to use the distribution of chocolate sweets to random children on the street as part of their protesting methodology, and not be expected to come against some critisism?

Should the handing out of sweets not be frowned upon?

blacklilly

dharma200 wrote: »

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

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

along with the handing out of sweets to children?

To get back to the thread.. handing sweets out to children really should not be encouraged to garner support for a religious right groups agenda, surely there should be some sort of Children First protocol in place for this type of activity? What with all the church in this country has gone through with young children in recent times.. should groups be allowed to hand out sweeties to children to promote their cause?

Pro life is not a religious group, yes granted there are many catholics who support it but is that not a given seeing as what the catholic church teaches, you are not going to find devout catholics supporting a pro choice agenda.

Bipolar Joe

The answer is clearly yes, for the same reason pretty much all marketing aimed at children should be banned or severely revised. The likes of McDonalds are a brilliant example of child-marketing gone too far. Appeal to the base instinct and of course children are going to go along with whatever you say.

dharma200

I am sure the group on shop street that this thread relate to were affiliated with a religious organisation, as is Youth Defense, perhaps the most vocal and well known pro life protesters....

blacklilly

Lots of groups hand out sweets, I don't know if it really matters, small children are not going to understand the pro life issue but for instance if their parents engage in conversation with one of the pro lifers is it not just a nice thing to hand sweets to the children? I honestly don't think there'd be a sthread if this was the ispca handing out sweets

ncdadam

dharma200 wrote: »

bnot on this thread mate, this is about the giving out of sweets to children on shop street by religious pro lifers...

There are plenty of threads about muslims elsewhere

Is there a difference between a 'religious pro-lifer' and an ordinary pro-lifer?

Tipsygypsy

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

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

.

christmas2012 wrote: »

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

I did, see above. I cited two documents which refute your claim. It was in the VERY FIRST POST I MADE IN THIS THREAD, which was in immediate response to your original claim.

Now, if you would be so kind as to back up your claims.

No? Can't?
Fine, then please keep your 'FACTs' to yourself

dharma200

no, I tell my children to not accept sweets from strangers.
This is not a thread about the ispca. feel free to start one if you see them giving out chocolate sweets to children.

dharma200

ncdadam wrote: »

Is there a difference between a 'religious pro-lifer' and an ordinary pro-lifer?

no, although most pro lifers I have encountered on the street waving placards are usually affiliated with some sort of religius order or organisation

blacklilly

dharma200 wrote: »

I am sure the group on shop street that this thread relate to were affiliated with a religious organisation, as is Youth Defense, perhaps the most vocal and well known pro life protesters....

Was it the pro life organisation? Speaking as someone who knows many people who support this group, there are many of them who are not at all religious but again if catholics support this group who is anyone to say they shouldn't, in fact it would be somewhat hypocritical if a catholic didn't support a group like this

oppenheimer1

dharma200 wrote: »

along with the handing out of sweets to children?

To get back to the thread.. handing sweets out to children really should not be encouraged to garner support for a religious right groups agenda, surely there should be some sort of Children First protocol in place for this type of activity? What with all the church in this country has gone through with young children in recent times.. should groups be allowed to hand out sweeties to children to promote their cause?

Do you oppose people bringing their children along to pro-choice rallies as well?

dharma200

I am not saying they shouldnt.

dharma200

not atall.

oppenheimer1

dharma200 wrote: »

I am not saying they shouldnt.

If you don't oppose it then that would make you a hypocrite.

I personally don't think children should be engaged or used to pursue a political point, even if I agree with it. It annoys me to see parents bringing children to rallies.

blacklilly

dharma200 wrote: »

no, I tell my children to not accept sweets from strangers.
This is not a thread about the ispca. feel free to start one if you see them giving out chocolate sweets to children.

Ok but I would presume you would be just as outraged with any group giving sweets to children then so its not just solely to do with your disdain of pro life

Bipolar Joe

This is a subject way, WAY beyond the scope of a child, they shouldn't be wrangled in by either party. Kids understand sweets. If ISPCA were handing out sweets to kids, yes that would be weird, seeing as a general rule you don't accept candy from random people.

Now, the main difference between ISPCA and anti-choice groups is that one wants people to stop abusing children, one wants people to stop getting rid of a mass of cells. It's a good job I collect my hair, skin and nails, at least we have SOME common ground.

AnonoBoy

What if you're pro-life but anti-sugar????? :eek:

somefeen

Tis' all a load of auld bollox really

blacklilly

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

This is a subject way, WAY beyond the scope of a child, they shouldn't be wrangled in by either party. Kids understand sweets. If ISPCA were handing out sweets to kids, yes that would be weird, seeing as a general rule you don't accept candy from random people.

Now, the main difference between ISPCA and anti-choice groups is that one wants people to stop abusing children, one wants people to stop getting rid of a mass of cells. It's a good job I collect my hair, skin and nails, at least we have SOME common ground.

I'm not even going to try have a conversation with you. Even the most prolific pro choice person will agree there is a difference between your hair, skin,nails and a zygote, embryo, fetus, you must be incapable of understanding basic science

blacklilly

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

This is a subject way, WAY beyond the scope of a child, they shouldn't be wrangled in by either party. Kids understand sweets. If ISPCA were handing out sweets to kids, yes that would be weird, seeing as a general rule you don't accept candy from random people.

Now, the main difference between ISPCA and anti-choice groups is that one wants people to stop abusing children, one wants people to stop getting rid of a mass of cells. It's a good job I collect my hair, skin and nails, at least we have SOME common ground.

I'm not even going to try have a conversation with you. Even the most prolific pro choice person will agree there is a difference between your hair, skin,nails and a zygote, embryo, fetus, you must be incapable of understanding basic science

Bipolar Joe

blacklilly wrote: »

I'm not even going to try have a conversation with you. Even the most prolific pro choice person will agree there is a difference between your hair, skin,nails and a zygote, embryo, fetus, you must be incapable of understanding basic science

I was making a joke, but oh well. Carry on not having a conversation with me, it's worked out sterling so far.

insu1

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

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

With optional interface to this ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/data_visual/psycho/2011/11/06/index.php

OldNotWIse

dharma200 wrote: »

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.

What are you talking about???? You seem very worked up over something but alas after a night away from the thread I can't for the life of me figure out what it is

smash

I was walking past a sweet shop recently and 2 people were handing out flyers with photos of Coca Cola on them so I took one thinking it was a competition or something. Turns out they were talking about the winning formula of Coca Cola because of a special ingredient and then comparing it to life, where god is the special ingredient to make your life a winning formula.

I was tempted to scan it and send it to coke so they'd get done for copyright infringement.

OldNotWIse

dharma200 wrote: »

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

I dont have links, that's why I askedfor clarification... I'm not really too bothered either way about finding links to prove other posters wrong or score more points for my "stance" - I was simply wondering about this, as I had heard something about it before but wasn't sure.

smash

smash wrote: »

I was walking past a sweet shop recently and 2 people were handing out flyers with photos of Coca Cola on them so I took one thinking it was a competition or something. Turns out they were talking about the winning formula of Coca Cola because of a special ingredient and then comparing it to life, where god is the special ingredient to make your life a winning formula.

I was tempted to scan it and send it to coke so they'd get done for copyright infringement.

please do

smash

bluewolf wrote: »

please do

I think I still have it at home, so I'll do it if I find it.

OldNotWIse

ncdadam wrote: »

Is there a difference between a 'religious pro-lifer' and an ordinary pro-lifer?

Did you fall and hit your head? Do you actually think that everyone who is pro life is religious??? Or is this just a convenient label that you use for anyone who dares to oppose abortion? Some of us are against abortion simply because we think it is wrong to end the life of a human being - it has nothing to do with religion. Can't believe I even had to clarify this...

Micky Dolenz

I was at a Paddys day parade and some of the organisations that were in it were throwing sweets to the kids in the crowd. Glad I read this, next year I'll know to be truly disgusted.

EoghanIRL

sweeney1971 wrote: »

I find it is usually first year students who go on these demonstrations as it is very hard studying arts or other useless degree courses.

Lol

Stevolende

I grew up in an Ireland where condoms were damn hard to get your hands on. 'Tipsygypsy'

The first pharmacy you could get condoms over the counter in Galway happened about the turn of the millenium. I'm not sure if it was predated by an AIDS clinic giving out free ones as there had been in Dublin.
Seems way too short a time ago.

christmas2012

I did, see above. I cited two documents which refute your claim. It was in the VERY FIRST POST I MADE IN THIS THREAD, which was in immediate response to your original claim.

Now, if you would be so kind as to back up your claims.

No? Can't?
Fine, then please keep your 'FACTs' to yourself

angry because it doesnt sit with your world view..?the facts are that some women go on later in life to miscarry like it or not,you dont have to get so emotional about it bc your pro abortion,thats just a tough fact you have to deal with,there are other facts aswell(which i left out bc of some posters reactions,but i think i will mention it now for good sauce),some of these aborted babies are left struggling to die for hours on end after the abortion,and some suffocating as they are out of the womb and amniotic fluid they use to breathe before time..

Tipsygypsy

christmas2012 wrote: »

angry because it doesnt sit with your world view..?the facts are that some women go on later in life to miscarry like it or not,you dont have to get so emotional about it bc your pro abortion,thats just a tough fact you have to deal with,there are other facts aswell(which i left out bc of some posters reactions,but i think i will mention it now for good sauce),some of these aborted babies are left struggling to die for hours on end after the abortion,and some suffocating as they are out of the womb and amniotic fluid they use to breathe before time..

Still no actual factual evidence to back up your claims re miscarriage after abortion?

Even though I have presented you with two documents that refute your claim. Have you even looked at those links?

Wow, that takes a special kind of ignorance.

AnonoBoy

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

Still no actual factual evidence to back up your claims re miscarriage after abortion?

Even though I have presented you with two documents that refute your claim. Have you even looked at those links?

Wow, that takes a special kind of ignorance.

Don't be so surprised. Some Pro-Lifers have a notoriously tricky relationship with facts and the truth.

oh christmas, go away and stop trolling
"i think ugly babies should be aborted"

<snip>

Micky Dolenz

bluewolf wrote: »

oh christmas, go away and stop trolling
"i think ugly babies should be aborted"

<snip>

Mod

Please don't drag in posts from other forums, and if you have a problem with a post or poster, report it.

El Weirdo

christmas2012 banned for trolling. Again.

MagicSean

inisboffin wrote: »

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.

Yes we obviously have different views. You believe that the procedure only happens to the woman. I believe it happens to the woman and the child. And as the child cannot stand up for itself i believe society should. I believe the womans right to a medical procedure is secondary to the childs right to a life.

Stevolende wrote: »

I grew up in an Ireland where condoms were damn hard to get your hands on. 'Tipsygypsy'

The first pharmacy you could get condoms over the counter in Galway happened about the turn of the millenium. I'm not sure if it was predated by an AIDS clinic giving out free ones as there had been in Dublin.
Seems way too short a time ago.

Really? You could get them in my local offo and cinema toilets in the early 90's.

OldNotWIse

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Don't be so surprised. Pro-Lifers have a notoriously tricky relationship with facts and the truth.

The word you're looking for is...."some" Wouldn't want to be tarring everyone with the same brush now would we?

blacklilly

OldNotWIse wrote: »

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Don't be so surprised. Pro-Lifers have a notoriously tricky relationship with facts and the truth.

The word you're looking for is...."some" Wouldn't want to be tarring everyone with the same brush now would we?

Yes and 'some" pro choicers are totally oblivious to even the most basic science and refuse to acknowledge it.

AnonoBoy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

The word you're looking for is...."some" Wouldn't want to be tarring everyone with the same brush now would we?

Quite right. I did intend to write 'some' there and shouldn't have left it out.

OldNotWIse

blacklilly wrote: »

Yes and 'some" pro choicers are totally oblivious to even the most basic science and refuse to acknowledge it.

Perhaps. I'm pro life but I am not going to attempt to argue that ALL of either side is X,Y or Z. I think generalisations detract from one's convictions tbh. If you need to resort to statements like, "all pro lifers are religious fanatics" or "all pro choicers are baby killers" etc, then your argument is probably very lacking.

AnonoBoy

blacklilly wrote: »

Yes and 'some" pro choicers are totally oblivious to even the most basic science and refuse to acknowledge it.

I would wager that there are more unsubstantiated "scientific" claims made on the pro-life side than on the pro-choice side.

Now of course that doesn't mean everyone and people are entitled to their views on abortion. However some of these abhorrent fake crisis pregnancy advice centres which seem to operate solely on the use of scare tactics make you wonder what on earth goes through these people's minds. I've never seen anything even approaching that from the pro-choice side in Ireland.

OldNotWIse

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I would wager that there are more unsubstantiated "scientific" claims made on the pro-life side than on the pro-choice side.

Now of course that doesn't mean everyone and people are entitled to their views on abortion. However some of these abhorrent fake crisis pregnancy advice centres which seem to operate solely on the use of scare tactics make you wonder what on earth goes through these people's minds. I've never seen anything even approaching that from the pro-choice side in Ireland.

Why are they fake? Do they give out "fake" advice? Are they beside the "backstreet abortion" clinics?

AnonoBoy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Why are they fake? Do they give out "fake" advice? Are they beside the "backstreet abortion" clinics?

Well the advice isn't 'fake' in that it is advice, just really really poor advice peppered with huge amounts of lies.

They also advertised themselves as a non-partisan, non-judgemental advice centre for crisis pregnancies something which they were anything but.

The Pat Kenny radio show did an expose on one a few years back and it was shocking what they were trying to peddle as the truth to the undercover reporter. Their basic tactic was to scare anyone even considering abortion with "facts" about them becoming barren, developing breast cancer and the like.

Just found it. The clinic was called the "Ask Majella Crisis Pregnancy Agency".

Pat Kenny show here: http://www.ifpa.ie/node/279 (Actually that link doesn't appear to be to the right show)

Here's a link outlining what was covered on the show:

And here's the Ask Majella site where they state "all options discussed". Mind you since that show in 2009 I see they've updated their site to state that they're anti-abortion. Still not an excuse for lies though.

inisboffin

MagicSean wrote: »

You believe that the procedure only happens to the woman.

With respect you have no idea what I believe. I merely stated that a woman, not a man has the procedure, therefore it does fall under the remit of women's rights.

Tipsygypsy

MagicSean wrote: »

Really? You could get them in my local offo and cinema toilets in the early 90's.

Thats right, but up until June 93 could only pharmacies could sell condoms and you needed a doctors prescription and to be over 18.