Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

pauldla

Obliq wrote: »

Unfortunately not just YD, see above...:mad:

(Oops, new page. See previous page!)

:eek:

I'd never set foot in the place again, and that's the truth. Where is it, do you know?

Penn

Obliq wrote: »

Unfortunately not just YD, see above...:mad:

(Oops, new page. See previous page!)

Huh, I checked their website and almost fainted when I saw their contact address was not 60A Capel Street. Maybe that office got overcrowded with the number of organisations working out of there

28064212

Penn wrote: »

Huh, I checked their website and almost fainted when I saw their contact address was not 60A Capel Street. Maybe that office got overcrowded with the number of organisations working out of there

Already investigated by fitz0 here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79893902#post79893902

Obliq

pauldla wrote: »

:eek:

I'd never set foot in the place again, and that's the truth. Where is it, do you know?

I don't know pauldla....Have been trying to find out, and all it says on that despicable fb page is a "dublin bar". One of the comments below the article made me shiver, and I hope it isn't true but unfortunately makes sense to me:

"It’s a wide campaign all over the place, not just some hardline publican’s statement.

I’m completely open to correction, but I think beer mats are supplied to the pubs by alcohol distributors, and they’re obliged by their contract with the distributors to put them out."
by Neil, whoever he is - hope you're wrong Neil!!

kylith

pauldla wrote: »

:eek:

I'd never set foot in the place again, and that's the truth. Where is it, do you know?

It looks to me like Q Bar. The railings outside the window seem to be the same ones that are visible outside Redz on D'olier St.

pauldla

kylith wrote: »

It looks to me like Q Bar. The railings outside the window seem to be the same ones that are visible outside Redz on D'olier St.

Thanks, kylith.

Any boycott of me by the place would be about just as meaningful as the Chinese boycott of French luxury goods before the Beijing Olympics, of course. Can I boycott the place in spirit?

28064212

kylith wrote: »

It looks to me like Q Bar. The railings outside the window seem to be the same ones that are visible outside Redz on D'olier St.

Yep, definitely QBar (look at the counter top and the metal bar in front of the counter top)

Dades

Obliq wrote: »

I’m completely open to correction, but I think beer mats are supplied to the pubs by alcohol distributors, and they’re obliged by their contract with the distributors to put them out.[/I]"
by Neil, whoever he is - hope you're wrong Neil!!

That may be true for beer mats advertising their beverages, hardly in this instance. Clearly there's a sympathetic bar-owner involved.

Obliq

This is what "family and life" have put next to their photo from yesterday:

"Pro-Life beer mats on display in Dublin. Three different messages on three different beer mats. F&L helping to inform the public with facts not fiction. This campaign is now nationwide. Please like and share!"

So, nationwide seemingly. Again the Advertising authorities will probably have no authority whatsoever, as this message is not selling a product.

Obliq

Dades wrote: »

That may be true for beer mats advertising their beverages, hardly in this instance. Clearly there's a sympathetic bar-owner involved.

Hope you're right Dades

Sharrow (remember her? where's she gone anyway?) has a comment under the article:

"If they use the same pubs as they did last year;
http://www.quinnhotels.com/public_houses.cfm "

What gives? The comment below hers is "aren't they our pubs now?"

robindch

robindch wrote: »

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

Hope the weather clears up before then -- one windy snowshower could cut like the scythe of Old Father Time through the ranks of the anti-abortion protesters.

old hippy

jank wrote: »

Sensationalist ignorant nonsense.

S.i.n?

lazygal

robindch wrote: »

Hope the weather clears up before then -- one windy snowshower could cut like the scythe of Old Father Time through the ranks of the anti-abortion protesters.

The lord works in mysterious ways.

kylith

pauldla wrote: »

Thanks, kylith.

Any boycott of me by the place would be about just as meaningful as the Chinese boycott of French luxury goods before the Beijing Olympics, of course. Can I boycott the place in spirit?

We could always go in and tell them that we were about to patronise them, but that the beermats changed our minds and we will never darken their doors again.

Kiwi in IE

It is not 'sensationalist, ignorant nonesense' name one other western country where a particular church controls 90% of state funded schools in the year 2013! It is true there was a large protest in France against gay marriage, so I guess some there do try to force their beliefs on others too. The difference is that the French state are secular and therefore less likely to pander to such groups! And anyway the fact France have reached the gay marriage debate is significant. Abortion is still being squabbled about here, so we are likely to be about 40 years away from considering gay marriage. Religion needs to be removed from ALL state funded institutions and law immediately!

I read in the paper today that Enda Kenny is going to meet with Cardinal Brady so Brady can discuss his concerns about the abortion issue. Why does this meeting need to take place? Brady, along with the Vatican remain free to tell their followers not to have abortions. Catholic people remain free to take that advice. If the country is truly as devoutly Catholic as they attempt to portray, why are they worried about 'floodgates'? Surely there will be hardly anyone availing of the service, due to religious reasons.

Kiwi in IE

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but among numerous other hypocrisies from the RCC in this debate, historically weren't children who resulted from the typical 'crisis pregnancy' labelled 'illegitimate bastards' and often shunned by society and abused in workhouses etc? Can anyone seriously tell me that from the viewpoint of the RCC, this debate is about fetuses and not an attempt to maintain control in Irish society and restrict women's rights?

ShooterSF

As a barman it's very strange to see a pub taking a point of view on such a contentious subject. Most pubs wouldn't want their staff even discussing the issue with punters never mind publicly advertising their stand point. And before anyone suggests that they just took the mats as they are free, nearly every major drink manufacturer are more than happy to give theirs out for free in this country.

Sarky

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I read in the paper today that Enda Kenny is going to meet with Cardinal Brady so Brady can discuss his concerns about the abortion issue.

Brady knows all about looking after Ireland's young people. Ooh, I wonder if Kenny will ask him what's the hold up with coughing up the rest of what his church owes its abuse victims.

Edit: Screw it, I'm emailing Kenny to register my disappointment.

RDM_83 again

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It is not 'sensationalist, ignorant nonesense' name one other western country where a particular church controls 90% of state funded schools in the year 2013! It is true there was a large protest in France against gay marriage, so I guess some there do try to force their beliefs on others too. The difference is that the French state are secular and therefore less likely to pander to such groups! And anyway the fact France have reached the gay marriage debate is significant. Abortion is still being squabbled about here, so we are likely to be about 40 years away from considering gay marriage.

That point is very odd, though people may hold similar views sometimes because of religious beliefs or plain old traditionalism, abortion and gay marriage are in no way a similar issue, you can have pro-life gay people you know

Kiwi in IE

RDM 83 that post was ongoing from a discussion from yesterday. Sorry it probably didn't make sense out of context. For some reason when I'm on boards using my phone quoting dosn't work properly.

Gbear

One thing that annoys me about this debate is the apparent obtuseness of the pro-choice side at times.

If you believe that a fetus is a person from the point of conception then the reasons for wanting an abortion are irrelevant and the only reasonable position to take from that is that abortion is unacceptable unless the mother's own life is in danger.

Either a fetus is deserving of a right to life at a given time or it isn't. Whether you want an abortion because you were raped or because you just don't want a baby shouldn't even enter the discussion. Either it doesn't deserve any rights and you should be allowed to dispose of it for any reason you like or no reason at all, or else it does deserve a right to life and that's the end of it.
If it deserves life then you don't get a special dispensation to murder a baby just because you were raped.

The only thing that needs to be established is at what stage should a fetus gain a right to life, if any.

I feel that the women's rights issue raised by this is a complete red herring and although it's pretty clear that the likes of the Catholic Church have a systematic anti-woman bias, I don't think it actually effects what the core issue is.

MrPudding

Gbear wrote: »

I feel that the women's rights issue raised by this is a complete red herring and although it's pretty clear that the likes of the Catholic Church have a systematic anti-woman bias, I don't think it actually effects what the core issue is.

The woman's right is far from a red herring, it is the main issue. You are right in that a decision has to be made as to when a foetus attracts certain rights, but once you have made that determination (good luck with that) to then need to resolve the conflict between those rights and the rights that the woman has, and has had since she was born.

It is not a case of "the foetus now has a right to life ad all other rights are irrelevant" it is a case that the foetus now has a right and where that right and the right of the pregnant woman are on conflict the conflict must be resolved.

That is the core issue. A conflict of rights.

MrP

iguana

ShooterSF wrote: »

As a barman it's very strange to see a pub taking a point of view on such a contentious subject. Most pubs wouldn't want their staff even discussing the issue with punters never mind publicly advertising their stand point. And before anyone suggests that they just took the mats as they are free, nearly every major drink manufacturer are more than happy to give theirs out for free in this country.

Any chance the beermats are the result of a bit of guerilla marketing by some eager pro-lifers and the bar management were clueless about it?

expectationlost

kenny/bishop meeting happening today 3 hours so far

Gbear

MrPudding wrote: »

The woman's right is far from a red herring, it is the main issue. You are right in that a decision has to be made as to when a foetus attracts certain rights, but once you have made that determination (good luck with that) to then need to resolve the conflict between those rights and the rights that the woman has, and has had since she was born.

It is not a case of "the foetus now has a right to life ad all other rights are irrelevant" it is a case that the foetus now has a right and where that right and the right of the pregnant woman are on conflict the conflict must be resolved.

That is the core issue. A conflict of rights.

MrP

Hmm. That's a valid point and I haven't argued with full clarity. There's an example below of what specifically is annoying me about one of the arguments on the pro-choice side.

There are two pregnant women. A) has been raped and wants an abortion and arrived at pregnancy under normal circumstances and wants an abortion.

Does the foetus being carried by A) have fewer rights than foetus ?
If it doesn't, then why do people ever bring up rape as being relevant to the discussion?

It's not important to the point what the cut off for abortion is - we'll call it x.
If x is the point after which society has deemed it unacceptable to abort then why would the mother being raped stretch the point to x+1?

Why do people say they are "disgusted" when "pro-life" people don't want to give rape victims special dispensation? If you believe life begins at conception then there is nothing anti-women about such a position. It is perfectly logically consistent and completely reasonable once you've accepted the original premise.

I can't think of any examples on this site of such an opinion but I quite often end up shouting at the radio at people I'd much rather be supporting - I am pro-choice myself - because I feel that they're using illogical arguments that only hinder their position.

So the women's rights issue as a whole isn't a red herring but framing the rape/abortion question as specifically one of women's rights is.

Also, thank you for spelling foetus correctly. It looked wrong in my posts.:)
Stupid US-centric spell checker.:rolleyes:

MrPudding

Gbear wrote: »

Hmm. That's a valid point and I haven't argued with full clarity. There's an example below of what specifically is annoying me about one of the arguments on the pro-choice side.

There are two pregnant women. A) has been raped and wants an abortion and arrived at pregnancy under normal circumstances and wants an abortion.

Does the foetus being carried by A) have fewer rights than foetus ?
If it doesn't, then why do people ever bring up rape as being relevant to the discussion?

Actually, this is something that irritates me about the pro-life side. I think you would be better to ask them what the difference is... Many pro-life proponents will say that rape is an exception that they are happy to allow.

I, personally, would probably argue that the foetus in both cases would have the same rights. Whilst there is clearly an emotive aspect to the scenario, as the woman has been raped, this does not have any impact on the rights the foetus attracts, they both have the same rights with, I would suggest, equal strength. Where the rape is relevant is in the analysis of the woman's rights and how the conflict should be resolved.

Gbear wrote: »

It's not important to the point what the cut off for abortion is - we'll call it x.
If x is the point after which society has deemed it unacceptable to abort then why would the mother being raped stretch the point to x+1?

That is going to depend on the circumstances. There are clearly circumstances where abortion should be available beyond what we would normally consider to be acceptable, risk to the mother etc. It is not inconceivable that that a raped woman might not have the access, through no fault of her own, to an abortion until it is beyond that point.

Gbear wrote: »

Why do people say they are "disgusted" when "pro-life" people don't want to give rape victims special dispensation?

If you believe life begins at conception then there is nothing anti-women about such a position. It is perfectly logically consistent and completely reasonable once you've accepted the original premise.

It is a fairly emotive topic and there are several aspects of the pro-life position that I find disgusting, treatment of rape victims being one of them.

That said, many pro-life proponent's support a special dispensation in the case of rape. This is logically inconsistent unless they accept that rather than it being a matter of life begins at conception, end of, the entire debate is actually about a conflict of interests. The fact that the foetus is the product of a rape does not mean it isn't life, so the only justification for a pro-life person supporting abortion in this circumstance is an acceptance that there is a conflict of rights.

Gbear wrote: »

I can't think of any examples on this site of such an opinion but I quite often end up shouting at the radio at people I'd much rather be supporting - I am pro-choice myself - because I feel that they're using illogical arguments that only hinder their position.

I think that when it is looked at as an issues of conflicting rights then rape is a relevant and logical part of the resolution of that conflict. As I pointed out above, I don't believe it changes the rights of the foetus in any way, and I think that is still logically consistent.

Gbear wrote: »

So the women's rights issue as a whole isn't a red herring but framing the rape/abortion question as specifically one of women's rights is.

Hmmm, I don't think so. I don't think rape changes the rights of the foetus at all, as I mentioned, but I do think it is something that needs to be taken into account when trying to resolve the conflict. When trying to resolve a conflict of rights all aspects should be taken into account. The manner in which conception occurred would be relevant. The fact that some pro-life people, who believe that life begins at conception, support abortion in the case of rape would suggest that this is also not a red herring but very relevant to the debate.

Gbear wrote: »

Also, thank you for spelling foetus correctly. It looked wrong in my posts.:)
Stupid US-centric spell checker.:rolleyes:

You're welcome.

Kiwi in IE

To me the rights issue is very clear. While a fetus is dependant on a woman's body for survival, it's rights are decided by her!

noreprieve

Still waiting on youth defence to retract this one and apologize.

Kiwi in IE

From YD's Facebook page shown on the above post by Noreprieve;

"These babykillin scumbag scum would look for any ol' excuse to make us kill our baby"!

Clearly some of them really are so stupid they think abortion will be made compulsory for everyone. Like the household charge.

Justin1982

Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Its unbelievable the shi*t storm of shi*t talk that Irish people can turn an issue like Abortion into. We really have some of the most ridiculous people living on our fair island.

There is no definite right when it comes to abortion. There is no definite wrong. Arguing passionately one way on abortion or another is just narrow minded.

Any way, not that its any of my f*uckin business, me being a man and all, I'll add to the **** storm with my opinion. Well its not exactly my opinion. More a statement of a few obvious facts.

1. We already have abortion in Ireland.....The morning after pill. And I've seen a string of young girls queuing up in a walk up clinic for it early on a weekend in Dublin.
2. We already have abortion in Ireland.....The women just have to travel to England to do it. And doing it in their numbers they are as well.
3. Some women want an abortion so much that they are willing to do a DIY job with a knitting needle or other various methods. I know this because when I was a teenager some anti-abortion group came to my school to show us pictures and read testimonies of women who did DIY jobs.
4. What prick is going to deny a girl who was raped and wants an abortion if its in the early stages?
5. Women arent just baby making machines
6. There is a sizeable proportion of the population who want to avail of abortion in a way that looks after their interests and after care. This is not provided at the moment. So a lot of women are suffering having gone to Britain.

Anyway, I'm not really pro abortion myself but to ignore the above facts as a pro lifer well you'd want to be retarded. Abortion is a reallity in Ireland. We just want to bury our heads in the sand, pretend it doesnt exist and **** on about morals. At the end of the day, its the individual womans choice whether she has a baby or not. Pro lifers wont give two ****s about the child or the woman after she has the baby at the end of the day.