Pro lifers giving out sweets to children on Shop street

OldNotWIse

AnonoBoy wrote: »

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

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.

hmmmm ok I would agree with you in this one so. I dont agree with abortion but I wouldn't put myself forward as someone purporting to be "non judgemental" etc and then give biased "options". I think if someone is in a position of power where they will be coming into contact with those who need assistance, it is wrong to promote one's own agenda (regardless of what that agenda is, so I'm not just talking about abortion). When we work in a professional capacities we need to leave our opinions at the door.

For example (and not trying to play down a crisis pregnancy) I work part time (on a voluntary basis) for an animal charity. Sometimes people come to me with sick animals and I know for example that they are puppy breeders or they choose not to have their animals neutered and let them roam etc, these are things I do not agree with, but I wouldn't dream of abusing my position to get this point across. It's not what I am there for and its not my place. (Hard as it may be) And I think abortion is such an emotive topic that if one feels strongly about it, one shouldn't place themself in that position of power in the first place.

OldNotWIse

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

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

Was the same with the pill I think? I remember thinking that was terrible that if a16 year old girl was responsible enough to be taking birth control, she still had to essentially have her parents consent to buy the pill?!

Miike

3D Ultrasound pose the same threat as 2D Ultrasound. Just sayin'

MagicSean

inisboffin wrote: »

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.

You are correct. I presumed you did not belief in life before birth and therefore saw it as a medical procedure only. I did not consider the possibility you did believe in life before birth and were merely indifferent to the destruction of it.

Tipsygypsy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Was the same with the pill I think? I remember thinking that was terrible that if a16 year old girl was responsible enough to be taking birth control, she still had to essentially have her parents consent to buy the pill?!

AFAIK Its still the case with the pill, as in can only be given on prescription and the legal age of medical consent is 16 - so no parental consent no pill.
Of course the age of sexual consent is 17, so in theory it shouldn't matter. And Im sure we'd all love to think that our 15 year olds are innocent little angels, but thats just not the reality.

I was so surprised when the morning after pill became available over the counter here. (happily surprised - in case theres any doubts).

I've realised I haven't weighed in on the actual thread topic (sorry). My own opinion is that there has to be room for (respectful and factual) debate and discussion and campaigning, but it is an adult topic and it is innappropriate to be trying to buy the affections of kids with sweets. And if they approached my kids with any attempts to even communicate, never mind bribe, they would be told in no uncertain terms where to shove their roses - this is not an issue that I want my children burdened with.

I also think that the mood of Ireland has changed and I think that if it were put to referendum the people would vote to allow abortion in Ireland in some circumstances. I do not know where that line of which circumstances apply or what gestational stage it could be allowed until. Im watching the entire topic with great interest and indeed, some hope.

But as stated earlier, I do think its important that people inform themselves properly and dont take the word of extreme groups as fact. It really is worth questioning the propaganda.

inisboffin

MagicSean wrote: »

You are correct. I did not consider the possibility you did believe in life before birth and were merely indifferent to the destruction of it.

Cool. Neither did I.

sheesh

dharma200 wrote: »

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?

no there is nothing inherently wrong with handing out sweets. even if the people handing them out are catholics. :D
the kids can wash their teeth when they get home.

I think it is quiet smart, the kids are going to be with adults and it immediately draws them in too so you can talk to them