Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Kiwi in IE

The RCC's view that a foetus should be granted equal rights to the woman carrying it is interesting! Is this the same Institution that up until only a couple of decades ago sent stillborn and unbaptised babies to 'limbo' and insisted they be buried in 'unconsecrated' ground?

Sycopat

Spotted this walking into work this morning.

Felt a bit sick tbh, given it's massively unapolagetic hypocrisy.

Why is it that the anti-choice campaign seems to have more advertising money being spent on it than most general elections?

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Yes, its true of course in your head, just as god is true in the popes head.

Really. There is no evidence to prove God exists - there is ample evidence of the existence of hungry children.

Key facts

6.9 million children under the age of five died in 2011.

More than half of these early child deaths are due to conditions that could be prevented or treated with access to simple, affordable interventions.
Leading causes of death in under-five children are pneumonia, preterm birth complications, diarrhoea, birth asphyxia and malaria.

About one third of all child deaths are linked to malnutrition.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs178/en/index.html

TwoShedsJackson

As for the 'young women' picture, I can see around 5 women that might be considered young-ish and 2 or 3 more that could be charitably described as relatively young. The other 50 odd are the usual reactionary geriatrics.

Flier

Sycopat wrote: »

Spotted this walking into work this morning.

Felt a bit sick tbh, given it's massively unapolagetic hypocrisy.

Why is it that the anti-choice campaign seems to have more advertising money being spent on it than most general elections?
Attached Images
2013-01-16 10.13.07_resized.jpg (1.16 MB, 20 views)

It's on a double yellow. Should have been towed and locked in the pound.

Bannasidhe

Excellent article by Vincent Browne in today's IT.

Just think of the reaction there would be were the Oireachtas to pass a law requiring healthy males to donate a kidney to another person, urgently in need of a transplant, even though a healthy male could easily live a healthy and full life thereafter with the remaining kidney.

How is that worse than requiring a woman to give her body to the sustenance of another human being when doing so would injure her life very considerably?

Suppose a healthy male, in hospital for a minor operation, were to awake to find himself hooked up to another person for a few months, so that this other person would live. Would any of us consider it would be okay for a law to be passed that criminalised that male for refusing to give sustenance to the other person? And criminalise anybody who assisted that healthy male in unhooking him from that other person, even when thereby that other person would die?

Yes, in the vast majority of instances, the woman has consented at least to the possibility of having another human being requiring her to give sustenance to a person for nine months. But what about a woman who is raped, who gave no consent? The absolutist opposition to abortion is born out of a culture that is hostile to the equality of women.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2013/0116/1224328903239.html

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sadly, this is true.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/582268_319052314873250_1574234396_n.jpg

I disagree.
They* do encourage family planning albeit through abstinence. Once the process of conception begins the individual human exists and everything that can be done, must be done to give that human being a fair chance at making his/her own way in the world. Regardless of how harsh the circumstances may be, every child deserves a chance. Remember they believe in miracles and they don't see a point in killing a child when there still exists the potential, however small, that a miracle might occur. For the dead child, there is no miracle; no hope.


I think captions like the above while humorous, serve nothing further than to alienate people you're trying to get to understand your position. Which isn't really constructive. If anything it's destructive.

*Seems to be describing the ideology of religious pro-lifers.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

I disagree.
They* do encourage family planning albeit through abstinence. Once the process of conception begins the individual human exists and everything that can be done, must be done to give that human being a fair chance at making his/her own way in the world. Regardless of how harsh the circumstances may be, every child deserves a chance. Remember they believe in miracles and they don't see a point in killing a child when there still exists the potential, however small, that a miracle might occur. For the dead child, there is no miracle; no hope.


I think captions like the above while humorous, serve nothing further than to alienate people you're trying to get to understand your position. Which isn't really constructive. If anything it's destructive.

*Seems to be describing the ideology of religious pro-lifers.

I disagree. 6.9 million children under the age of five died in 2011.

A third of those from malnutrition. That's over 2 million children who died last year alone because of a lack of nutritious food or any food at all.

Given the resources being pumped into PR campaigns to 'save' fetus' who haven't even been conceived yet while not addressing the very real concerns over the welfare of children who are here now strikes me as hypocrisy of the highest order and it should be highlighted.

Ironically, The United States, the source of funding for much of the Pro-life campaigns in Ireland, comes in at #25 among the 43 developed countries ranked for levels of child malnutrition. http://www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.8076153/k.B2B6/Chronic_Malnutrition_and_Child_Survival__Facts_and_Stats.htm

About 1% of children in the United States suffer from chronic malnutrition.

http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/Malnutrition.aspx

There are currently around 20253474 children under 5 in the US (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html) -202534 of whom are currently suffering from malnutrition.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I disagree. 6.9 million children under the age of five died in 2011.

A third of those from malnutrition. That's over 2 million children who died last year alone because of a lack of food.

Given the resources being pumped into PR campaigns to 'save' fetus' who haven't even been conceived yet while not addressing the very real concerns over the welfare of children who are here now strikes me as hypocrisy of the highest order and it should be highlighted.

Ironically, The United States, the source of funding for much of the Pro-life campaigns in Ireland, comes in at #25 among the 43 developed countries ranked for levels of child malnutrition. http://www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.8076153/k.B2B6/Chronic_Malnutrition_and_Child_Survival__Facts_and_Stats.htm

http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/Malnutrition.aspx

There are currently around 20253474 children under 5 in the US (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html) -202534 of whom are currently suffering from malnutrition.

Waiting for some 'miracle' to provide food???? :mad:

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I disagree. 6.9 million children under the age of five died in 2011.

A third of those from malnutrition. That's over 2 million children who died last year alone because of a lack of nutritious food or any food at all.

Given the resources being pumped into PR campaigns to 'save' fetus' who haven't even been conceived yet while not addressing the very real concerns over the welfare of children who are here now strikes me as hypocrisy of the highest order and it should be highlighted.

Ironically, The United States, the source of funding for much of the Pro-life campaigns in Ireland, comes in at #25 among the 43 developed countries ranked for levels of child malnutrition. http://www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.8076153/k.B2B6/Chronic_Malnutrition_and_Child_Survival__Facts_and_Stats.htm

http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/Malnutrition.aspx

There are currently around 20253474 children under 5 in the US (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html) -202534 of whom are currently suffering from malnutrition.

You've effectively made the fallacy the of composition here.

If a group campaigns for cancer funding, is it hypocrisy if the same group doesn't campaign for MS funding? Or vice versa?

Also a distinction should be drawn between members of the group and the group itself. Individual members of the group for cancer funding may indeed be also actively involved in MS funding.

I don't think the argument that abortion helps solve malnutrition problems is constructive to the pro-choice case.

TomCo

noreprieve wrote: »

I seem to be getting flooded with facebook adverts now that almost pathetic.

So pathetic i almost didn't bother ... but i had to.

I found this photo set yesterday from that event.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_reynolds/sets/72157632177916694/with/8246434639/

You can clearly see the age demographic is solidly in the OAP bracket. Gives me a lot of hope that this anti-choice nonsense is generational.

The text on the pictures is interesting too:

The two rows of young people who were pushed through to the front and then told to hold the placards in front of cameras trying to get shots down the street.

kylith

Jernal wrote: »

You've effectively made the fallacy the of composition here.

If a group campaigns for cancer funding, is it hypocrisy if the same group doesn't campaign for MS funding? Or vice versa?

Also a distinction should be drawn between members of the group and the group itself. Individual members of the group for cancer funding may indeed be also actively involved in MS funding.

I don't think the argument that abortion helps solve malnutrition problems is constructive to the pro-choice case.

I don' think that the bit in bold is the point. I think that Banna's point is that if these campaigners are so desperate to save children, why aren't they donating money to feed children that are starving right now, rather than wringing their hands about whether or not someone might abort a child in the future.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

You've effectively made the fallacy the of composition here.

If a group campaigns for cancer funding, is it hypocrisy if the same group doesn't campaign for MS funding? Or vice versa?

Also a distinction should be drawn between members of the group and the group itself. Individual members of the group for cancer funding may indeed be also actively involved in MS funding.

I don't think the argument that abortion helps solve malnutrition problems is constructive to the pro-choice case.

No. I don't think I have.

Pro-life groups whole campaign platform is 'The Right to Life of a Child' but ignore actual living children in favour of 'potential' children.

Cancer groups work on behalf of people with cancer.
MS groups work on behalf of people with MS.

Pro-Life group claim to be all about the children....

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

I don' think that the bit in bold is the point. I think that Banna's point is that if these campaigners are so desperate to save children, why aren't they donating money to feed children that are starving right now, rather than wringing their hands about whether or not someone might abort a child in the future.

That is absolutely my point.

Dades

FWIW, I see both of your points.

oldrnwisr

Jernal wrote: »

I disagree.
They* do encourage family planning albeit through abstinence. Once the process of conception begins the individual human exists and everything that can be done, must be done to give that human being a fair chance at making his/her own way in the world. Regardless of how harsh the circumstances may be, every child deserves a chance. Remember they believe in miracles and they don't see a point in killing a child when there still exists the potential, however small, that a miracle might occur. For the dead child, there is no miracle; no hope.


I think captions like the above while humorous, serve nothing further than to alienate people you're trying to get to understand your position. Which isn't really constructive. If anything it's destructive.

*Seems to be describing the ideology of religious pro-lifers.

Sorry Jernal but I have to disagree. There are a couple of problems from my perspective with your overview of the religious pro-life position.
First of all, there's abstinence. Insofar as we're talking about religious pro-lifers here, then we're more likely than not to be talking about abstinence-only education. The thing is that this attitude to education only serves to fuel the abortion problem. States in the US which have implemented abstinence-only education have higher teen pregnancy rates than those that don't.

Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy

"Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy (ORadj = .4, 95% CI = .22– .69, p = .001) than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no significant effect of abstinence-only education (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .38–1.45, p = .38)."


Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S

"Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state."


Abstinence-only education places these religious pro-lifers in a fight against human nature, one for which they are ill-equipped. If we look at the spectrum of "causes" of abortion in countries with legal abortion, we can categorise them into several distinct groups: crisis pregnancy, foetal abnormality, risk to life/health of mother and trauma (rape/incest). Now, despite how the religious pro-lifers like to use the term pro-abortion, I don't think there is anyone out there who wouldn't like to see abortion rates fall. However, one of the best methods of achieving this is to educate children properly about sex so they can make informed choices. These people however owing their theologically informed worldview are either too stupid or too obstinate to correct this flaw in their reasoning and so the problem persists and escalates.


Now as for this every life deserves a chance idea, I fundamentally disagree. I think that the position held by YD and the more intractable pro-lifers, that of life at any cost holds to an overly simplistic view of the entire debate. Its not or shouldn't be life at any cost but rather the quality of life. There is nothing more despicable to me than the behaviour of two people who would bring a child into the world just to live an incredibly short life filled with pain and suffering for whatever reason. I think MrPudding sums the point up very nicely:

MrPudding wrote: »

So, I mentioned that sometime I think lives aren’t worth living, I want to clarify that, and this ties in with the sentence above, that sometime I think abortion is the fairest option for the unborn as well. When test show that a foetus is not viable, that if the pregnancy continues to term and if the baby is born it will be disabled or deformed to the extent that survival is impossible I think it is cruel to continue with the pregnancy. I watch a programme the other night that interviewed a couple that continued with a pregnancy where the child had no kidneys. They knew it would die, and likely suffer, but they continued anyway. They were hoping for a miracle, they were hoping that this foetus would spontaneously develop a pair of kidneys. But mostly, it seems, they needed the baby to be born so they could cope with the loss. I think they are monsters. Where a baby will know nothing but pain and suffering, even if that is for a mercifully short period of time, the baby gains nothing from being born. Nothing. Allowing the parent “closure” is not, in my book, a valid reason for allowing such a pregnancy to continue. It is cruel and unusual. And if you think you have the moral high ground in this debate this is one area where you are sorely wrong.

MrP

In summary, I don't think it's destructive to use an image like the one in Bannasidhe's post to get your point across. It is an efficient and simple method of conveying a much more complex message. It's not the most polite approach but when you're dealing with people who are either incapable of seeing the flaws in their own reasoning or unwilling to do anything about them, its the most effective.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

kylith wrote: »

I don' think that the bit in bold is the point. I think that Banna's point is that if these campaigners are so desperate to save children, why aren't they donating money to feed children that are starving right now, rather than wringing their hands about whether or not someone might abort a child in the future.

While its clearly its really a question for pro-lifers to answer, I'd have to agree that a person active in pursuit of one ethical objective doesn't really have to justify why they're not giving equal attention to all other ethical objectives that might be pursued. It's a begrudging argument that only works with a sympathetic audience.

Ash.J.Williams

Starving kids are not the priority, nor are abused kids....their only priority is that all eggs hatch, starving or not.

Bannasidhe

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Starving kids are not the priority, nor are abused kids....their only priority is that all eggs hatch, starving or not.

Exactly. Pro-Lifer organisations get all worked up about the unborn's right to life and place all of their considerable resources to ensure that every fetus is protected but show scant interest in the quality of life of living, breathing, existing children.

The are Pro-Birth. Not Pro-Life.

wp_rathead

robindch

There's a pro-life rally in Merrion Square this Saturday at half four.

There's also a silent pro-choice counter-demonstration organized for the same time and the same place.

On facebook at the moment, the pro-choicers are leading the pro-lifers by around four to one, though that figure should probably be taken with a pinch of salt as I'd imagine that most of the pro-lifers are probably not on facebook, and those that are may not live in Ireland.

The pro-choicers have allegedly predicted that 50,000 people will turn up to their gig; I suspect the real figure will be closer to around 5,000 to 7,500.

Anybody going along to either?

Turtwig

I think both of you are still missing the point.

kylith wrote: »

if these campaigners are so desperate to save children, why aren't they donating money to feed children that are starving right now, rather than wringing their hands about whether or not someone might abort a child in the future.

You're assuming that they're not donating money to feed children that are starving. To use a very simple example : The Catholic Church in Ireland is pro-life and is currently campaigning against introducing legislation for abortion. Yet they also have Trócáire. Both of you seem to be missing the point that they care just as much about the thing inside the womb as they do outside it. Even if that level of care for inside the womb infringes on the right of another, it's not fair or even accurate to claim they don't care about a child once it's outside the womb.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. I don't think I have.

Pro-life groups whole campaign platform is 'The Right to Life of a Child' but ignore actual living children in favour of 'potential' children.

Cancer groups work on behalf of people with cancer.
MS groups work on behalf of people with MS.

Pro-Life group claim to be all about the children....

I'm sorry that my analogy wasn't precise enough. (Leaving aside that Pro-life groups believe they are actively working with children.)
But these things can always be refined. Hopefully this one will illustrate the point.

Would you claim that groups campaigning to save penguins in Antarctica don't care about living humans?
Would you claim that groups campaigning to save/fund various museum exhibitions don't care about living people?

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

I think both of you are still missing the point.


You're assuming that they're not donating money to feed children that are starving. To use a very simple example : The Catholic Church in Ireland opposes is pro-life and is currently campaigning against it. Yet they also have Trócáire. Both of you seem to be missing the point that they care just as much about the thing inside the womb as they do outside. Even if that level of care for inside the womb infringes on the right of another, it's not fair or even accurate to claim they don't care about a child once it's outside the womb.



No Pro-life group claim to be all about the children. That's an utterly ridiculous strawman.

I'm sorry that my analogy wasn't precise enough. (Leaving aside that Pro-life groups believe they are actively working with children.)
But these things can always be refined. Hopefully this one will illustrate the point.

Would you claim that groups campaigning to save penguins in Antarctica don't care about living humans?
Would you claim that groups campaigning to save/fund various museum exhibitions don't care about living people?

and you are missing my point.
Pro-life groups claim to be about protecting children.

We hope that with your help, this year will be a year during which our Government will decide against abortion legislation, and instead opt to protect mothers and babies.

http://prolifecampaign.ie/

This image is prominent on their home page

That is a child - not a fetus.

Their rhetoric speaks of their desire for a debate based on all life being equal

A respectful debate is needed — one based on an acknowledgement of the equal value of all human lives.

http://prolifecampaign.ie/

So, logically - given their own statements, they should be acting to protect all babies and given their insistence that all life is equal why is their focus only on the unborn?

It like a group that claims to campaign against disease but is actually only interested in typhoid.

Turtwig

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Sorry Jernal but I have to disagree. There are a couple of problems from my perspective with your overview of the religious pro-life position.
First of all, there's abstinence. Insofar as we're talking about religious pro-lifers here, then we're more likely than not to be talking about abstinence-only education. The thing is that this attitude to education only serves to fuel the abortion problem. States in the US which have implemented abstinence-only education have higher teen pregnancy rates than those that don't.

Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy

"Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy (ORadj = .4, 95% CI = .22– .69, p = .001) than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no significant effect of abstinence-only education (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .38–1.45, p = .38)."


Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S

"Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state."


Abstinence-only education places these religious pro-lifers in a fight against human nature, one for which they are ill-equipped. If we look at the spectrum of "causes" of abortion in countries with legal abortion, we can categorise them into several distinct groups: crisis pregnancy, foetal abnormality, risk to life/health of mother and trauma (rape/incest). Now, despite how the religious pro-lifers like to use the term pro-abortion, I don't think there is anyone out there who wouldn't like to see abortion rates fall. However, one of the best methods of achieving this is to educate children properly about sex so they can make informed choices. These people however owing their theologically informed worldview are either too stupid or too obstinate to correct this flaw in their reasoning and so the problem persists and escalates.


Now as for this every life deserves a chance idea, I fundamentally disagree. I think that the position held by YD and the more intractable pro-lifers, that of life at any cost holds to an overly simplistic view of the entire debate. Its not or shouldn't be life at any cost but rather the quality of life. There is nothing more despicable to me than the behaviour of two people who would bring a child into the world just to live an incredibly short life filled with pain and suffering for whatever reason. I think MrPudding sums the point up very nicely:




In summary, I don't think it's destructive to use an image like the one in Bannasidhe's post to get your point across. It is an efficient and simple method of conveying a much more complex message. It's not the most polite approach but when you're dealing with people who are either incapable of seeing the flaws in their own reasoning or unwilling to do anything about them, its the most effective.

I completely agree that abstinence only education does not work. I should have put this in my initial post that I don't agree with the logic, but I was just trying to convey very briefly that they do take family planning into account. To me anyway the poster was implying that they don't take family planning into account and that they're apathetic towards children who are born. The point is they do take it into account and they do have sympathy. It's a horrible form of fatalism, but they have sympathy for all those who suffer nonetheless.


My point about constructiveness was that any hopes of ever getting them to understand your position dwindle substantially when you use arguments like that. It's a bit like calling a Christian deluded, or a person opposed to gays adopting kids a bigot. And just leaving it there. Yes, they are bigots, probably with good intentions too, but unless you take the time to explain to them why they're bigots you're just going to alienate them further. What you want is they themselves to realise that they're views were bigoted without you explicitly telling them so. Pointing out quite blatantly that they're bigots will just get you one big massive stonewall.

Mark Hamill

Jernal wrote: »

Would you claim that groups campaigning to save penguins in Antarctica don't care about living humans?

To use your analogy against you, wouldn't you find it odd if one of those groups which claim to want to save penguins only seemed to act to save penguin eggs, even to the detriment of young mother penguins?

Hotblack Desiato

wprathead wrote: »

[noparse][/noparse]

You messed up the URL



Uh oh, it's huge. Oh well, not my fault

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Excellent article by Vincent Browne in today's IT.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2013/0116/1224328903239.html

I think he stole a couple of ideas from here

Kiwi in IE

This is about woman's rights and power and control over others who do not share the same beliefs. The debate has little to do with fetuses. The National debate is ridiculous and the opinions of religious 'pro lifers' is completely irrelevant. Whether abortion is legalised or not, they will be free to continue to not have abortions. Their rights are not being infringed upon one way or the other. Even if their life is in danger, they will still be free to choose to die for an unviable pregnancy if that is what they wish to do.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and you are missing my point.
Pro-life groups claim to be about protecting children.

http://prolifecampaign.ie/

This image is prominent on their home page

That is a child - not a fetus.

Their rhetoric speaks of their desire for a debate based on all life being equal
http://prolifecampaign.ie/

So, logically - given their own statements, they should be acting to protect all babies and given their insistence that all life is equal why is their focus only on the unborn?

It like a group that claims to campaign against disease but is actually only interested in typhoid.

I see where you're coming from Ban and but for I don't want to get banned from the PLC Facebook page, I'd repost your post on FB.

I guess from their point of view, they look at the unborn as the forgotten or blatantly ignored children. It is as if to society these children don't exist. I'm scared to use another analogy, but here goes:
(It's the only way I'm going to get better at using these things anyway:))

The stigma against mental health isn't as pronounced as it used to be, but suppose it was extremely pronounced. Would it be fair to say that people who campaign for mental health awareness and equality of sorts, don't give a crap about physical health?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

To use your analogy against you, wouldn't you find it odd if one of those groups which claim to want to save penguins only seemed to act to save penguin eggs, even to the detriment of young mother penguins?

With all due respect, this is irrelevant. We're comparing one category of children with another. A more relevant question would have concerned, penguins chicks born in snug conditions with penguin chicks born into much more harsher struggles.

Kiwi in IE

I think the penguin analogy used by Mark Hamill sums it up precisely!