Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

UDP

iguana wrote: »

What do they think those calls will achieve? If someone is on the fence about abortion I don't think an automated call is going to make them decide to be pro-life. If anything it's likely to piss them off or even creep them out a bit and turn them toward a pro-choice position.

The americans use them the whole time for everything from elections to stuff like this. Think they don't realise that things work a bit different over here.

fisgon

Listening to Breda O Brien on the radio just now, the tactics of the anti-abortion side are clear. They call themselves "pro-life", and the new buzz word for their opponents is as supporters of the "culture of death.". Breda, in her contribution, must have said the word "life" about twenty times.

There has obviously been a meeting, or a memo. I said this jokingly in another forum, but I have no doubt that this is in fact the case. The trick is to associate their side of the debate with something that no-one could possibly oppose - Life. The other side, of course, has to be for Death, and how could you support them? Hence, the Culture of Death.

Some of this is overt, some of this is subliminal. Breda was very obviously crowbarring in at every opportunity the L word into her conversation. The subtext is clear - "we are morally superior, we are for Life, you are for Death".

Of course this rhetoric is instead of actual arguments. The word "life" is never defined, and no attempt is given to actually make a coherent point about this "life" that they are so in favour of. It is profoundly dishonest, manipulative and shows a complete contempt for language and how to use it.

Galvasean

Bingo time.

'Life' (must be uttered no less than four times per speech/debate, otherwise there's no challenge)

'culture of death'

'abortion on demand'

'Ireland is one of the safest places for pregnant women'

'those who can't speak for themselves'

'child' (as per 'life', must be uttered no less than 4 times - must also be said in reference to an embryo/fetus)

GCU Flexible Demeanour

fisgon wrote: »

Listening to Breda O Brien on the radio just now, the tactics of the anti-abortion side are clear. They call themselves "pro-life", and the new buzz word for their opponents is as supporters of the "culture of death.". Breda, in her contribution, must have said the word "life" about twenty times.

This is hardly new. The organisation backing the original 1983 referendum called itself the Pro-Life Amendment Campaign or PLAC; those opposed simply entitled themselves the Anti-Amendment Campaign (which reflects the way that legalisation of abortion wasn't on their agenda - it was purely a campaign to keep the topic out of the Constitution.)

The obvious fact that PLAC had a better title inspired a Martyn Turner cartoon. It showed a beaming PLAC supporter wearing a badge saying "Pro Life". Beside him, a less contented person had a badge saying "Not 'Pro Life'. Which is not the same as Anti Life. See back for details."

That's where this "Pro Choice" thing comes from - the need to find an equivalent phrase that spins as well as the opposition. And, indeed, the problem is it doesn't. An appeal to 'choice' seems ephemeral, if the topic is introduced as life and death. Plus, a lot of people having abortions may feel that 'choice' doesn't really catch the experience they've just had.

The solution is simply to come up with reasonable arguments, and sticking to them. That's what the Pro Life side are and will do. The US election tactics, however, may backfire on them. I've haven't had the joy of being summonsed to the phone to hear their message. But it's exactly the kind of thing that can motivate people to vote the other way.

Obliq

Interesting take on abortion and "pro-life" from last night's live at the apollo with Reginald D Hunter. A good point and a good laugh - abortion bit from 3.20 to 4.00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEeXQ-euxrw

Feck. Not working for me - here's the link if you're interested! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEeXQ-euxrw

JimiTime

fisgon wrote: »

Listening to Breda O Brien on the radio just now, the tactics of the anti-abortion side are clear. They call themselves "pro-life", and the new buzz word for their opponents is as supporters of the "culture of death.". Breda, in her contribution, must have said the word "life" about twenty times.

There has obviously been a meeting, or a memo. I said this jokingly in another forum, but I have no doubt that this is in fact the case. The trick is to associate their side of the debate with something that no-one could possibly oppose - Life. The other side, of course, has to be for Death, and how could you support them? Hence, the Culture of Death.

Some of this is overt, some of this is subliminal. Breda was very obviously crowbarring in at every opportunity the L word into her conversation. The subtext is clear - "we are morally superior, we are for Life, you are for Death".

Of course this rhetoric is instead of actual arguments. The word "life" is never defined, and no attempt is given to actually make a coherent point about this "life" that they are so in favour of. It is profoundly dishonest, manipulative and shows a complete contempt for language and how to use it.

Ehhh, I really don't think any side in this debate can start getting on a high horse about manipulating language!

Sarky

Please tell me you're joki-

Oh, wait, it's JimiTime.

Bobby42

Here's an example of how pro lifers really are anything but "pro life".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n_o8xIk-xw

They should be honest and say, yes, we just want to control women.

Sin City

Bobby42 wrote: »

Here's an example of how pro lifers really are anything but "pro life".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n_o8xIk-xw

They should be honest and say, yes, we just want to control women.

Statements like these, are just underhanded.
Using one idiot to brand a belif. Tar everyone with the same brush, to try and discredit those with an opposing view insted of debating the issue

Galvasean

Sin City wrote: »

Statements like these, are just underhanded.
Using one idiot to brand a belif. Tar everyone with the same brush, to try and discredit those with an opposing view insted of debating the issue

In fairness, you have a point, the pro-lifer who stabs people is a distinct minority. The pro-lifer who tells blatant lies and consistently breaks the law to suit an agenda however...

Bobby42

Yeah to be fair, I should have made this point when I posted that video,

the guy who stabbed a guy seven times is not representative of all pro lifers, I'm not gonna take this extreme example and paint all pro lifers with the same brush.

What I do believe though is that this guy took the pro life ideology to an extreme.

The pro life campaign has nothing to do with being pro life.

Take youth defence, at the slightest mention of the word abortion they are up in arms, leaflets, posters, videos, protests, billboards, everything. Taking the moral high ground because they claim to be so concerned about the children.

But what about when the government cuts child benefit or taxes maternity leave? Or cuts carers respite grant? Or cuts funding to community groups and disadvantaged areas?

Where's the protests, and lobbying, and videos, and mass leaflet campaign?

Oh right, there never is one from youth defence or any other pro life group. Not a peep. Why? Because they couldn't care less about children really.

There agenda is about the control of women. See the way they always dodge the question when asked about all the women who go to the UK and elsewhere for abortions? Well that's because if they had their own way, those women would be sent to the Magdaline laundries.

PopePalpatine

Actually, has anyone ever tried to suggest Magdalene Laundries to them (under a different name, of course) to try to see how they would respond?

Peregrinus

iguana wrote: »

What do they think those calls will achieve? If someone is on the fence about abortion I don't think an automated call is going to make them decide to be pro-life. If anything it's likely to piss them off or even creep them out a bit and turn them toward a pro-choice position.

The automated phone call - like so much else about Youth Defence - is borrowed from the US. And I think the received wisdom over there is that, indeed, it's not effective to change minds, but that it can be effective to motivate people who are already inclined to agree with a particular position, but who aren't actively doing anything about it. In other words, its purpose is not to enlarge the supporter base, but to ginger it up.

I don't know whether it's in fact effective in the US for that purpose, presumably there is some evidence to suggest so. But, even if it is effective in the US, it doesn't follow that it will be similarly effective in Ireland. I would be enraged to get a call of that kind, regardless of who orginated it or how I felt about the cause they were promoting; I'd regard it as intrusive and disrespectful. And I doubt that I'm alone.

lazygal

Bobby42 wrote: »

The pro life campaign has nothing to do with being pro life.

Take youth defence, at the slightest mention of the word abortion they are up in arms, leaflets, posters, videos, protests, billboards, everything. Taking the moral high ground because they claim to be so concerned about the children.

But what about when the government cuts child benefit or taxes maternity leave? Or cuts carers respite grant? Or cuts funding to community groups and disadvantaged areas?

Where's the protests, and lobbying, and videos, and mass leaflet campaign?

Oh right, there never is one from youth defence or any other pro life group. Not a peep. Why? Because they couldn't care less about children really.

There agenda is about the control of women. See the way they always dodge the question when asked about all the women who go to the UK and elsewhere for abortions? Well that's because if they had their own way, those women would be sent to the Magdaline laundries.

I said as much to the FG TD who responded to my email asking him to clarify why he is 'prolife'. I asked him why he was voting in favour of cuts to child benefit and taxing maternity benefit if he was in favour of enforced pregnancy, and that surely if he believes women should always be forced to remain pregnant asked him why he has never introduced legislation to propose the right to travel for pregnant women going to the UK be rescinded. Like most Irish so called pro-lifers, they regard the UK as handily being close enough to Ireland and with a nicely liberal abortion regime, so any dirty little sluts or women with serious health complications or carrying a foetus that won't live past birth can have their shameful killing of tiny baaaaaabieeeees taken care of. Very handy altogether. I also shudder when I hear pro lifers bleating about the cheek of the likes of India telling us to get our act together or that they accuse people of favouring abortion on demand like its a bad thing.

Pro life people, as I told that TD are in favour of pregnancy and they should be upfront about that. What do people like Breda O'Brien and the rest of the judgmental crowd in Iona or Youth Defence do on a practical level to help women in crisis pregnancy situations? Beyond saying an auld rosary I'd say sweet fanny adams.

Obliq

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Actually, has anyone ever tried to suggest Magdalene Laundries to them (under a different name, of course) to try to see how they would respond?

Doubt if they'd call a spade a spade but here's a direct quote from Liveactionnews, and another article by Geoff's Shorts that pretty accurately (I imagine) describes their longing for a simpler time :eek:

Live Action, Youth Defence, and the Return to the Magdalene Laundries

"... back in the olden days of yore, when there was a standard – and when if you got caught having sex before marriage, you would get your butt beat and get sent off to Ye Olde Forbidding Nunnery & School For Wayward Girls – there were a lot fewer teenagers having sex." -Kristen Walker Hatten, liveactionnews.org

I greeted news that Youth Defence is now open about their US-based financing with mixed delight. True, the myth that they are the voice of the silent Irish majority can only be damaged by this approach. But I worry that their true colours may show more clearly when they drop the pretense of being strangers to the worst excesses of anti abortion activism in the USA.

Take the opening quote. It hankers back to a simpler time, where Magdalene laundries prevented abortions by incarcerating those women who dared be raped, judged lascivious by village elders, or - horror of horrors - choose their sex partners without church approval.


I do not quote out of context. There is no effort to recognise the horrors inflicted by these penal institutions of church and state, no attempt to ameliorate or acknowledge the damage done. Yet despite this, the majority of followers of Youth Defence (50.3%) also follow Live Action News.

http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2012/12/live-action-youth-defence-and-return-to.html

lazygal

And yet not a word about the other part of the babymaking equation. Reminds me of that school that refused entry to a pregnant female student, yet remained strangely silent on whether it checked if its male students had fathered any children.

What is so scary about women having sex with partner(s) of their choosing, and then being allowed a choice in what happens should they get pregnant? How does it affect anyone else if a women choses to abort or bear a child? I doubt the pro enforced pregnancy crowd are rallying around pregnant women who are abandoned by the fathers of their children.

aloyisious

Re any phonecalls from the Anti-abortion camp, there's this in today's Irish Examiner..........

US rules protect illegal anti-abortion robocalls
Monday, December 24, 2012
An investigation into a flood of illegal anti-abortion robocalls to thousands of homes in Ireland could stall — because of free speech protections in the US.

By John Breslin
Regulators in Ireland have linked the calls to a telephone number of an anti-abortion activist living in a suburb of Denver, Colorado, according to a weekend report.

The Data Protection Commissioner’s office asked authorities in the US to investigate further.

The unsolicited calls made last month, which provoked hundreds of complaints to the Data Protection Commissioner, vigorously defended Ireland’s restrictive abortion practices following the death of Savita Halappanavar.

Irish investigators traced the calls to an employee of Personhood USA living in Colorado, according to a weekend report in the Washington Post, quoting an unnamed source close to the probe.

However, the investigation could stall as US communications regulators are unlikely to look into the matter further at their end as the content of the calls was political, and therefore free-speech protected.

Personhood USA and its affiliates across the country campaigns for the foetus to be recognised as a person, thereby designating abortion as murder.

It has managed to organise a small number of state ballot initiatives, or referenda, but all have been soundly defeated.

US groups, both those that oppose and support abortion, are closely following the events and debate in Ireland, with some allegations of financial support flowing across the Atlantic.

The Data Protection Commissioner confirmed he had been in touch with a communication regulator in another country after receiving a record 500 complaints.

However, authorities in Ireland might be out of luck in asking for help from the Federal Trade Commission in the US.

FTC spokesman Peter Kaplan said: “It is unlikely the commission would assist in a matter that involves non-commercial calls, which are outside the FTC’s jurisdiction.”

While all robocalls — unsolicited taped calls sent to an almost unlimited number of people — are banned in Ireland, and carry hefty fines, they are deemed political in the US and therefore protected under the first amendment right to free speech.

The voice on the calls, a man with an Irish accent, quoted leading Galway obstetrician Eamon O’Dwyer: “I want to reassure you that Irish doctors do not put mothers’ lives at risk and we are always obliged to save mothers’ lives, even if that results in the unfortunate death of an unborn child.”

Dr O’Dwyer has publicly disassociated himself from the calls and said he was not aware his comment were going to be used in any robocall campaign.

Investigators believe the calls were arranged by a website that offers calling services across the globe.

They have further identified a number linked to the calls which has also appeared on websites for Personhood USA and an offshoot, Personhood Colorado.

That number has been tracked to a Personhood USA employee living in Arvada, a Denver suburb.

The Black Oil

One of the other calls plugged a website with Savita's name in the url, but hey, it's OK for the pro life camp to set up sites in her name...bunch of hypocrites when they moan about exploitation.

Sulla Felix

I think most people would be unhappy with what seems to be interference in Irelands political process by an outside agency. Even more than the phonecalls themselves that implication might be a shot in their own foot.

Hotblack Desiato

We'd never have had the eighth amendment in the first place if it wasn't for US anti-choice money and interference.

Sulla Felix

Can you remember was there any discourse on the issue in the media at the time?

Hotblack Desiato

Yeah was all over the papers for months. There's stuff on Youtube too e.g. William Binchy vs. Mary Robinson :

Interesting that it only passed 51:49 in Dublin.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

lazygal wrote: »

How does it affect anyone else if a women choses to abort or bear a child?

But isn't the point that it has a fairly big impact on the child. I think, if you reflect on that sentence, you can't but notice that its making a massive and unsound leap.

To avoid blind alleys, I'm not commenting one way or the other on when exactly a foetus should be deemed to have some level of legal standing. I'd simply note that, even where abortion is legal, typically a line is drawn at some point in the pregnancy where it is no longer lawful.

However, in your statement, I think you're railroading past the complex issue of when, if ever, we have to deem that there's an 'anyone else' present.

And, anticipating the next merry-go-round, the inability to exist independently has to undermine the position of people that require life support for a period. It has the perverse effect of undermining a principle that we'd probably accept in other circumstances - that the defenseless deserve protection.

The point about the abortion issue, surely, is we do harm whatever we do. The issue is about deciding which form of harm is less damaging.

aloyisious

I'm facing the possibility that some of the bishops and others opposed to abortion here in the republic are willing to force some pregnant woman (any woman) commit suicide, rather than lose the argument and face.

I'm wondering how they would face up to the fact that their opposition led to the loss of both woman and foetus. Sometimes it seem's to me their stand on this is akin to slapping a suicidal woman across the face and saying "woman, wake up to your responsibilities", with the option of calling her a murderer (if she did kill herself) kept in reserve for condemnation from the altar.

I'm waiting for the day some coroners court here will hold an inquest into a dead woman's suicide and a letter from her is read into evidence outlining how the denial of abortion here lead to her death and that of the foetus.

In light of the FG Junior Minister's recent death due (apparently) to pressure of the job, I'm wondering if the Bishops and other's (including Youth Defence) will take this into account with regard to asking for the politicians to be targetted on how they should vote on the issue when it comes before the Dail.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

aloyisious wrote: »

In light of the FG Junior Minister's recent death due (apparently) to pressure of the job, I'm wondering if the Bishops and other's (including Youth Defence) will take this into account with regard to asking for the politicians to be targetted on how they should vote on the issue when it comes before the Dail.

I don't particulary know why you want to chuck his death in as a flavouring. But, given that it's reported that Shane McEntee's suicide was related to anonymous comment on the Internet, I'd take it what you really mean is that this site should be closed down.

Clearly, anything that might be cited as a cause for suicide must be eliminated. Only way to make sure, short of nuking the place from orbit.

Ash.J.Williams

If you want a baby it's a baby from after conception, if you don't then its not..

aloyisious

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't particulary know why you want to chuck his death in as a flavouring. But, given that it's reported that Shane McEntee's suicide was related to anonymous comment on the Internet, I'd take it what you really mean is that this site should be closed down.

Clearly, anything that might be cited as a cause for suicide must be eliminated. Only way to make sure, short of nuking the place from orbit.

Naw, it was purely an A and B reference:-

A.. in relation to the pressure that will surely be applied to politicians when it draw's close to decision-time next year. Fair and judicious comment cannot be condenmed, play the issue, not the man or woman. I suspect that there will be many a dirty blow landed in the future in relation to the abortion topic.

B.. In relation to how the response to the risk of suicide by pregnant women in relation to not been allowed termination of pregnancy here, even if they are pregnant due to rape and sexual abuse.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

If you want a baby it's a baby from after conception, if you don't then its not..

Indeed, that seems to be the contention. It reminds me a little of a sequence in a play written by Machiavelli "Mandragola", that mocks the idea of the "greater good of the many"

http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~nnew4107/Texts/Sixteenth-century_Florence_files/Mandragola_Translation.pdf

[58] LIGURIO It happened, either through the carelessness of the nuns or through the headstrong nature of the girl, that she finds herself four months pregnant: with the result that, unless prudent remedy is taken, his Honour, the nuns, the girl, Cammillo, and Calfucci family are disgraced. And his Honour fears this shame so greatly that he has vowed that provided it is not made public he’ll give three hundred ducats in God’s name.

[59] NICIA (Balderdash!)

[60] LIGURIO (Keep quiet!) And he will give them through you. And you alone, and the abbess, can provide a remedy.

[61] FRIAR How?

[62] LIGURIO By persuading the abbess to give the girl a potion to make her abort.

[63] FRIAR I’ll have to think this over carefully.

[64] LIGURIO What is there to think over? Just look at how many good things will flow from this action. You’ll maintain the honour of the convent, of the girl and her relations; you’ll restore a daughter to her father; you’ll be doing a favour for his Honour, for all his relations; you’ll do as many good works with these three hundred ducats as you can. And on the other hand, you’re not harming anything except a bit of unborn flesh, devoid of feeling, that could be lost in a thousand ways. And I do believe that a deed is good when it is good for the majority and the majority are happy with it.

Morag

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1228/breaking1.html

The wording of the 1983 “pro-life” amendment to the Constitution was hastily approved despite one attorney general labelling it a legal “time bomb” and another expressing doubts about its merits, newly released State papers show.

On November 2nd, 1982, two days before a vote of no confidence in the Dáil, which led to a general election the following month, the then Fianna Fáil government announced the wording of the anti-abortion amendment, which went on to be approved by the electorate.

This was despite the government being warned by attorney general Patrick Connolly SC that a “pro-life” amendment “might well have the effect of threatening the right of the mother” to have a life-saving operation.

Foreseeing some of the problems thrown up by the 1992 X case, Mr Connolly noted that, “whatever my personal views be”, a rape victim could not be exempted from any constitutional prohibition.

Nor, “in the current climate of what it is sought to achieve”, could the amendment exempt abortion where the mental health of a woman was at serious risk.

The Fianna Fáil government also had advice from the previous attorney general, Peter Sutherland, who argued that the amendment would create serious legal ambiguities.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Morag wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1228/breaking1.html

Not a bad article; plenty of interesting snippets. This bit brought me right back.

Mr Connolly was forced to resign on August 16th after the arrest of double murderer Malcolm Macarthur in his home.

And, while he was a complete non-entity at the time

The files also show that Enda Kenny made representations on behalf of constituents between August 1981 and June 1982, seeking to expedite the introduction of the amendment.

Within the large volume of correspondence released this year by the Department of the Taoiseach, no other TD made as many such representations.

It also correctly contextualises the "suicide" issue, that's expended so much energy here, as simply a mechanism to resolve the immediate practical problem in the X case.

Nine years after the amendment was introduced, it was invoked by the High Court to prevent a 14-year-old rape victim from travelling abroad for an abortion.

The Supreme Court overturned the ruling as the life of the girl, known as X, was deemed to be at risk through the threat of suicide.

Finally, the picture is helpful, too. It illustrates how the anti-abortion lobby was spearheaded by out-of-touch celibate males engaging in mansplaining at every opportunity, just like today.