Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Zulu

CroatoanCat wrote: »

Is anybody else chilled to the bone by Eramen's posts? Such terrifyingly eloquent propaganda. To quote Mr. Knightley to Emma: "Better to be without sense, than misapply it as you do."

P.S. Thanks to lazygal for her trojan work on this and so many related threads.

endacl wrote: »

Not chilled, no. If he was serious, he's in a very tiny minority. And gone from this thread.

To quote what was already posted here: these posts are "lower than a snakes belly".

It's funny how quickly the moral high ground erodes when people adopt an air of superiority...

up for anything

beeno67 wrote: »

There are very few recorded instances of pregnant women committing suicide worldwide.

An abortion is obviously forever. To decide you want an abortion you should be able to make a clear decision and be of "sound mind". If you are suicidal you are almost by definition unable to make that decision.

Why would the persons suicidal wish be cured by an abortion?

The significant word there is 'recorded'. In this country suicides are hushed up and swept under the carpet. How much more so if the person is pregnant. Lots of girls committed suicide by inaction and hoping their pregnancy would miraculously disappear.

I'm sure Anne Lovett wasn't in that grotto all those years ago praying for a safe delivery and a healthy baby - she was probably on her knees crying, begging and pleading with the mother of God to get her out of an untenable situation. Her prayers were answered.

Lola18 wrote: »

When that control involves another life people sometimes need that reminder that abortion is not the answer

It's all about control, controlling other people because of your own belief system. If we were lucky enough in this country to have access to abortion I'm sure there would be nobody twisting your arm forcing you to have one. I realise where you personally are coming from but forcing people to give birth is not the answer.

Zulu

up for anything wrote: »

...I realise where you personally are coming from but forcing people to give birth is not the answer.

Then you will realise that the counter argument to this is that killing children isn't the answer either?

lazygal

Zulu wrote: »

Then you will realise that the counter argument to this is that killing children isn't the answer either?

What is the answer?

Shenshen

cassid wrote: »

There are over 5000 babies born preterm in Ireland each year, that's one in sixteen women will deliver preterm.

I often wonder why organisations can't help and support the babies that are here now fighting for survival.

In Ireland, some neonatal units don't have enough incubators, ventilators, hospital grade breast pumps, CPAP machines. The hospitals are forced to swap equipment between them to help the babies that arrive before their time. The preterm birth rate is increasing every year and yet investment in neonatalogy has not kept abreast with the increase in numbers putting huge strain on resources. There are over 11,000 admissions to the neonatal units each year in Ireland.

The neonatal transport unit that moves the sickest babies to is only working certain hours, God forbid you deliver outside those hours.

I know of preterm babies who are one and two and have never gone home because they require intensive medical care and there is no enough money for support packages for 24/7. Why can't these groups help these babies have a better quality of life at home ?

Why can't these groups have babies with access to essential services and therapies just so they can live a "normal" life.

Why can't these groups help parents with simple things like food, water, accommodation when their sick baby is transferred to Dublin from around Ireland for treatment, they have nowhere to stay and really sick babies can spend months in Dublin before the baby is well enough to go home.

My guess after seeing some of the campaign posters in question is that these groups don't give a shit about any person once they're born.
Otherwise, how could they campaign against the potential of suicide being a reason to be allowed to abort? In a country with one of the highest rates of suicides in the developed world?
To me that sounds as if they'd rather mother and child ended up dead than letting the mother live. Sure, she's been born already, no need to try and protect HER life any more.

I can't begin to describe how much this saddens and infuriates me.

Zulu

lazygal wrote: »

What is the answer?

To suicide?

Cabaal

Lola18 wrote: »

When that control involves another life people sometimes need that reminder that abortion is not the answer

Yeah, because a women who has been brutally beaten and raped and becomes pregnant, should always be forced to give birth to the rapists offspring.

What do you suggest, they hold her down for the duration of the pregnancy until she gives birth?

Unless you want that women to be seriously affected mentally and unless you want her to look at her rapists offspring each day then abortion certainly is the answer if the women wants one.

It is not your place to deny this women control of her own body have she was held down and raped! Its bad enough she had no control of the rape, now you want to control the rest of her life.

The likes of YD and the especially the catholic church have no place in this debate, they are in no place to lecture anyone on morals on any level.

Lets not forget that Sean Brady personally helped to cover up a sexual abuse case, he also knew about sexual abuse cases and he failed to walk 20metres to report all this to his local Gardai station.

Yet Brady walked around the Knock shrine in protest of the abortion legislation,

Clearly the catholic church cares all about the zygoth but doesn't give a crap about actual children, people that continue to support an organization that stands by Brady are pathetic excuses for human beings.

Grayson

Eramen wrote: »

Nice decoy. Yet it's only in Britain, Ireland and France I believe. The rest of Europe is in terminal decline.

Muslim people and Asian immigrants are quite content to have large families. Nearly half of all births in France are to people of North African or Mid-Eastern origin.

Europeans seem to have no hope for the future and just make pathetic excuses for why their civilisation is dysfunctional.

If Europe is dysfunctional, where's working ok? The US is messed up. And most of the rest of the world is a third world hell hole. I'm taking it you mean China then.

Europe is fine. there's no crises of civilisation. We're a well educated population that is pretty socially secure. Sure we have hiccups, but nothing compared to the rest of the world. The only thing in crises is the church and that's half because of their own doing. the other half is because once you educate people enough will start asking why they're told santa clause isn't real when they hit 13 but are still told that God is.

up for anything

Zulu wrote: »

Then you will realise that the counter argument to this is that killing children isn't the answer either?

See that's where your counter argument falls down, for me. I don't see it as killing children.

lazygal

Zulu wrote: »

To suicide?

To treating women who's lives are at risk for physical or mental reasons. Or women who simply don't want to be pregnant. You said its not abortion. Is forced pregnancy, even if the woman has to be detained until after the birth, the answer?

Laneyh

Zulu wrote: »

To quote what was already posted here: these posts are "lower than a snakes belly".

It's funny how quickly the moral high ground erodes when people adopt an air of superiority...

Well you're quoting me there. I haven't adopted a moral high ground and I only feel superior enough to understand the rules of the thread

I have tried to approach the debate calmly and rationally

The banned personage did not employ the same approach and also veered off topic significantly

So, its little wonder that people commented on this.

Laneyh

Zulu wrote: »

Then you will realise that the counter argument to this is that killing children isn't the answer either?

What was the question ?

No one is suggesting killing children

Zulu

up for anything wrote: »

See that's where your counter argument falls down, for me. I don't see it as killing children.

And I do, so we hit an impasse...

lazygal wrote: »

To treating women who's lives are at risk for physical or mental reasons. Or women who simply don't want to be pregnant. You said its not abortion. Is forced pregnancy, even if the woman has to be detained until after the birth, the answer?

I've not issues with abortion to save a womans life for "physical reasons". I suspect counselling and support will serve to treat mental illness better than the killing of a healthy child.

Laneyh wrote: »

Well you're quoting me there. I haven't adopted a moral high ground and I only feel superior enough...

It's low to have a pop at someone who can't reply. The decent thing to do; the mature thing to do would be to ignore the posts and carry on.

Laneyh wrote: »

What was the question ?

No one is suggesting killing children

Well abortion kills children. (Using the defination of the word child) But I accept that some prefer not to think about it in those terms.

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

Well abortion kills children. (Using the defination of the word child) But I accept that some prefer not to think about it in those terms.

Using that definition so does many other things but I haven't seen many posters or mobile billboards calling for government to legislate against them.

Where are the YD ad campaigns demanding 'every pre-term child should have access to full neo-natal care'?

Where are the YD ad campaigns demanding that not one child should ever go hungry? We have in recent weeks heard school principles express grave concern at the increasing number of children arriving at schools hungry and the impact this has on their education - it's hard to concentrate when your belly is empty.

Are those youths not worth defending?

Is that not a cause which will bring in the Yankee dollars?

Apparently not.....

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Using that definition...

Listen, I'm just using the word as per the dictionary.

Where are the YD ad campaigns demanding 'every pre-term child should have access to full neo-natal care'?

I dunno, ask them. I'm not here to defend them.

We have in recent weeks heard school principles express grave concern at the increasing number of children arriving at schools hungry and the impact this has on their education - it's hard to concentrate when your belly is empty.

It's harder to concentrate when you're dead, what's your point: that hungry children should be euthanased?

Are those youths not worth defending?

Of course they are; is someone trying to kill them?

Cabaal

Zulu wrote: »

Listen, I'm just using the word as per the dictionary.

Thats grand and all but we're talking about medical procedures, so for clarity lets stick to medical terms that more clearly define whats being discussed.

An abortion involves a zygote or later a fetus, not a baby.

A baby refers to a newborn, unless the zygote or fetus can live outside of its mother then it is certainly not a baby.

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

Listen, I'm just using the word as per the dictionary.

I dunno, ask them. I'm not here to defend them.

It's harder to concentrate when you're dead, what's your point: that hungry children should be euthanased?


Of course they are; is someone trying to kill them?

The point - and other's have made it too - is that we are seeing unknown amounts of money being pumped into a PR campaign which claims to be about 'saving' children - 'children' who have not actually been born so we are really talking about potential children - when actual already born children are going hungry, going without proper medical care, fighting to have the supports they need to avail of their Constitutional right to an education.

Seems to me that many of those who scream they are pro-life have scant interest in the already born.

RDM_83 again

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Using that definition so does many other things but I haven't seen many posters or mobile billboards calling for government to legislate against them.

Where are the YD ad campaigns demanding 'every pre-term child should have access to full neo-natal care'?

Where are the YD ad campaigns demanding that not one child should ever go hungry? We have in recent weeks heard school principles express grave concern at the increasing number of children arriving at schools hungry and the impact this has on their education - it's hard to concentrate when your belly is empty.

Are those youths not worth defending?

Is that not a cause which will bring in the Yankee dollars?

Apparently not.....

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The point - and other's have made it too - is that we are seeing unknown amounts of money being pumped into a PR campaign which claims to be about 'saving' children - 'children' who have not actually been born so we are really talking about potential children - when actual already born children are going hungry, going without proper medical care, fighting to have the supports they need to avail of their Constitutional right to an education.

Seems to me that many of those who scream they are pro-life have scant interest in the already born.

I'm sorry but people state that feminism is a an "equality" movement, yet it is acceptable for it to have a narrow focus on only one aspect of gender inequality, and for criticisms of the movement to be simply classed as "whataboutery". How come this logic doesn't apply to these movements too? Not defending YD actions here but an answer on the lack of consistency would be appreciated?

Zulu

Cabaal wrote: »

An abortion involves a zygote or later a fetus, not a baby.

The definition includes: "an unborn infant; a fetus." So I'll thank you to accept that I'm using the word correctly.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seems to me that many of those who scream they are pro-life have scant interest in the already born.

So if I may break it down, you have two issues. One is with how private individuals spend their own money (especially when it conflicts with your interests) and the second is with the "pro life" term.
Well the former is something that I have no issue with - people can spend their money as as they wish, even if it conflicts with my beliefs/interests.

But I'll agree with you on the latter. "Pro-life" is as silly a term as "pro-choice". Clearly "pro-life" seems to be preoccupied with preserving the life of the child prior to birth and little else. But then "pro-choice" seems only to concern itself with the choice of the mother, but not the child or the father. Go figure.

Cabaal

Zulu, so your saying YD care about "children"?

If thats the case then they have some major flaws in their campaign,

It cannot be disputed that YD have very very strong links to the catholic church and christian organisations in the USA, both in relation to people involved in the organisation and where it gets its funding.

The issue here is its linked to a organisation that knowingly covered up sexual abuse of children, infact Sean Brady himself who still holds his position of authority personally helped cover up a case and he also failed to report the other cases he knew about for many many years.

Those are some very odd links for a organisation that claims to care about children.

Surely anyone in their right mind who honestly cared about the care of children and the lives of children would disown themselves from the catholic church until the catholic church took meaningful action to deal with all the people involved in the cover up of sexual abuse.

Of course this won't happen as the last pope knew all about it due to his previous position that he held in the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, who received reports of all the sexual abusing priests and again...did nothing.

Bannasidhe

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm sorry but people state that feminism is a an "equality" movement, yet it is acceptable for it to have a narrow focus on only one aspect of gender inequality, and for criticisms of the movement to be simply classed as "whataboutery". How come this logic doesn't apply to these movements too? Not defending YD actions here but an answer on the lack of consistency would be appreciated?

Since when is this thread about Feminism?
Where did I mention Feminism?

If you want to discuss Feminism how about you start a thread on that?

Cabaal

Zulu, lets establish where you stand on this.

So lets say 4 weeks ago your wife/sister/cousin etc was brutally beaten and raped, today she discovered she was pregnant. She doesn't want to go through with 9 months of hell and she certainly doesn't want to give birth to the rapists offspring. She wants to get an abortion....a perfectly understandable decision given the dramatic experience.

Do you:
- Support her in her decision?
- Not support her at all either way
- Try and change her mind and give birth to the rapists offspring.

After you've answered that, here's another I'd like you to answer:

Women wants to have a baby and after getting pregnant its discovered that the fetus has a abnormality, it will not live.
the women understandably doesn't want to go through with nine months of hell knowing that her baby will never live outside of her. She wants to have an abortion?

Do you support her?
Do you tell her to go to the uk?
Do you allow her to have the procedure in Ireland where she can receive the care and support she needs in Ireland?

Zulu

Cabaal wrote: »

Zulu, so your saying YD care about "children"?

Where did I say that? ...while you are looking for that, keep an eye out for where I said: "I'm not here to defend" Youth Defence.

Zulu

Cabaal wrote: »

Zulu, lets establish where you stand on this....

I'm against the killing of an unborn child.

I accept that this sadly needs to happen on occasion to save the life of the mother.

I abhor the concept of abortion "on demand", and couldn't in good conscience, as a citizen, stand idly by while certain parties attempted to normalise it in my society.

<I dont think I can be clearer, but feel free to ask if I'm not...>

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

So if I may break it down, you have two issues. One is with how private individuals spend their own money (especially when it conflicts with your interests) and the second is with the "pro life" term.
Well the former is something that I have no issue with - people can spend their money as as they wish, even if it conflicts with my beliefs/interests.

But I'll agree with you on the latter. "Pro-life" is as silly a term as "pro-choice". Clearly "pro-life" seems to be preoccupied with preserving the life of the child prior to birth and little else. But then "pro-choice" seems only to concern itself with the choice of the mother, but not the child or the father. Go figure.

YD is not a 'private individual' it is a lobby group.

Yes, pro-choice is the correct term because it is about protecting a woman's right to decide what does or does not happen to her own body.

Men have an absolute right to determine what happens their body - women in Ireland do not. No man - be he a father or not - will ever be put in a situation where his health and/or life will be placed in jeopardy for the sake of his children and he will be given no choice in the matter.

A Father would be perfectly within his rights to refuse to donate an organ to save his child and no law in the land would force him to do so. Woman are denied any choice.

You mean 'potential' child. If it is an actual child as you insist - why does the State not pay child benefit from the moment of conception?

RDM_83 again

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Since when is this thread about Feminism?
Where did I mention Feminism?

If you want to discuss Feminism how about you start a thread on that?

Its not about Feminism, it is about the fact that it is considered acceptable to engage in "whataboutery" for groups you disagree with but unacceptable for those that you do? If "whataboutery" can be used to as a defense for one social movements narrow focus it can be used to defend anothers focus.

If you are arguing from a consistent position this would be the case, since it isn't could you explain to me why, your a smart person, if there's a reason for this disjuncture in your approach to different groups it should be within your means to explain?

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

YD is not a 'private individual' it is a lobby group.

Private funds, from private individuals - not state coffers.

Yes, pro-choice is the correct term because...

Bull. There are 3 choices. The choice of the mother. The choice of the father. The choice of the child.
Considering 1 out of 3 isn't "pro-choice" at all.

Men have an absolute right to determine what happens their body

No. They don't.

women in Ireland do not.

Citizens in Ireland do not.

A Father would be perfectly within his rights to refuse...

...but not to refuse an abortion to save his childs life, right?

You mean 'potential' child.

No I mean child. It's the dictionary defination of the word. I'm not trying to bend words to suit my interests.

If it is an actual child as you insist - why does the State not pay child benefit from the moment of conception?

Seriously, WFT is this shit? ...Because the child does not require child benefit from that point? But since when does the Irish Social Welfare system define the English language?

CroatoanCat

Zulu wrote: »

To quote what was already posted here: these posts are "lower than a snakes belly".

It's funny how quickly the moral high ground erodes when people adopt an air of superiority...

I take your point, Zulu. I'm afraid I made the error of not reading through to the end before posting and did not realise the poster in question had been banned from the thread and had, therefore, no right to reply.

Cabaal

Zulu wrote: »

I'm against the killing of an unborn child.

I accept that this sadly needs to happen on occasion to save the life of the mother.

I abhor the concept of abortion "on demand", and couldn't in good conscience, as a citizen, stand idly by while certain parties attempted to normalise it in my society.

<I dont think I can be clearer, but feel free to ask if I'm not...>

So in cases of rape or incest you think abortion is ok?
This isn't abortion on demand after all, but it is none the less YD are against.

Bannasidhe

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its not about Feminism, it is about the fact that it is considered acceptable to engage in "whataboutery" for groups you disagree with but unacceptable for those that you do? If "whataboutery" can be used to as a defense for one social movements narrow focus it can be used to defend anothers focus.

If you are arguing from a consistent position this would be the case, since it isn't could you explain to me why, your a smart person, if there's a reason for this disjuncture in your approach to different groups it should be within your means to explain?

Again - I repeat where did I make any reference to Feminism in this thread?

I didn't - so I fail to see where I have engaged in any kind of 'whataboutery'.

If you think I agree with every thing ever said by every single feminist you are very much mistaken. Also, as there is no 'Feminist' HQ issuing statements on behalf of the Feminist Hive Mind to state that there is one single feminist perspective on anything is to show that you don't understand the first thing about feminism or the debates that occur within it's very broad spectrum.

Now - would you care to discuss the topic of this thread or do you intend to continue to try and drag it off topic so you can to indulge that bee in your bonnet?