Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Options
12467…24

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,994 ✭✭✭conorhal


    hfallada wrote: »
    I think fundamental Christians are the worst in the US. Most abortion clinics are hidden and have some of the toughest security systems as they are constantly bombed. One abortion doctor has been shot and almost killed 3 times. The last guys that did used the defense that if the doctor was killed "he was doing gods work".

    No worse the the abort-fanatics that have ranted to me about how 'no right has a term limit'.
    That's the kind of patent nonsense that make those pro-abort loonies sound just like fanatical NRA activists in the US who think the 'right to bare arms' means that they should be allowed to swagger down the street with an automatic weapon loaded with armour peircing bullets and a flamethrower.
    The current legislation places NO LIMITS on how late an abortion can be performed, there is no way that killing a near term baby is justifiable, but that is what this law permits and it's insanity.


  • Options
    #93
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,703 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Typical pro-abortionist spin. A spokesman for the Labour also mentioned that this would be the case, and their blithe failure to acknowledge that current procedure, the Dr treats the mother and the unborn as two patients and does their best to safeguard both and thus intervention is allowed to save the mother's life.


  • Options
    #94
    Laneyh
    Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭Laneyh


    If a private STD clinic plonked an ad outside there would be outrage.
    I find it appalling that they are allowed to place such a biased and harassing advert there.

    Even before the Savita case and this bill we had the billboard ads, posters, bus and bus shelter ads, video looping at the train stations etc.

    I was in Belfast a month ago and a few campaigners had set up camp opposite the train station with a banner - presumably to target women travelling up from the South.

    There are posters all around Dublin and my friend told me they are in residential parts of Limerick. I presume they are in other places nationwide.

    They are not actually advertising anything and there isn't a referendum so I would question the legality of these posters.


  • Options
    #95
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,994 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Demonique wrote: »
    https://www.facebook.com/prolifecampaignireland/posts/10151661857795379

    "Did you know the Bill will permit abortion throughout the full nine months of pregnancy?"

    When people out that viable fetuses will be delivered early and treated as premature babies two posters (Eilis Mulroy and Mary Flaherty) continually state the legislation allows for abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

    Eh, it does. Where in the legislation does it place a term limit on abortions?


  • Options
    #96
    SYLT
    Registered Users Posts: 123 ✭✭SYLT


    Is the van still there?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,994 ✭✭✭conorhal


    pharmaton wrote: »
    then there's this one...
    "The onus to care for the child only applies if the child happens to be born alive. Up to the point the childs head is outside the womb, it can be aborted. I would urge you to read the legislation."

    mudderagod...

    In other words, if we botch the abortion, then we might give a $h1t..


  • Options
    #98
    Laneyh
    Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭Laneyh


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    That's exactly the point. They are saying "Why has the child to suffer, because we couldn't protect the woman?"

    And where does it say more should be done to protect from rape ?

    I understand that protecting the child is their objective but I fail to see anything on the poster which alludes to protecting women

    I wasn't expecting to see this either as I say there is only one objective


  • Options
    #99
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    It is pregnancy which is aborted/terminated.

    My pregnancy was aborted/terminated by c-section at 39 weeks gestation for medical reasons. I and my child are both alive and well over a year later. No doctor would kill a 39 week old foetus on delivery after the prengnacy was terminated/aborted.

    YD are both right and laughably wrong - they confuse termination/abortion of pregnancy with termination/abortion of life. If a foetus is born alive, doctors will keep it alive, as they currently do when nature terminates/aborts a pregnancy at less than full gestatation or otherwise. Nature terminates/aborts more pergnancies than anyone else.


  • Options
    #100
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    o1s1n wrote: »
    These feminist buzz words make you sound like you're in a cult. Just so you know.
    but I am, just so you know


  • Options
    #101
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,994 ✭✭✭conorhal


    lazygal wrote: »
    It is pregnancy which is aborted/terminated.

    My pregnancy was aborted/terminated by c-section at 39 weeks gestation for medical reasons. I and my child are both alive and well over a year later. No doctor would kill a 39 week old foetus on delivery after the prengnacy was terminated/aborted.

    YD are both right and laughably wrong - they confuse termination/abortion of pregnancy with termination/abortion of life. If a foetus is born alive, doctors will keep it alive, as they currently do when nature terminates/aborts a pregnancy at less than full gestatation or otherwise. Nature terminates/aborts more pergnancies than anyone else.

    Your the one that's confused, or should I say, being dishonest. Did you request an abortion? Did your doctor reccomend an abortion?

    This legislation is for abortions, not c-sections, abortions without term limits. If the patent demands an abortion, that's what this legislation entitles them to, not a c-section.
    It's these kind of semantic attempts to deny the reality of this legislation that sicken me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Dick phelan
    Registered Users Posts: 3,155 ✭✭✭Dick phelan


    Oh god here it is again another feckin abortion thread in AH listen i would say that both the pro life and pro choice sides pick information and things that suite their side and agenda seriously we have enough of these threads we get it most people in AH are pro choice and think all pro lifers are religious nuts no need to make new threads to make the same points


  • Options
    #103
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    conorhal wrote: »
    Your the one that's confused, or should I say, being dishonest. Did you request an abortion? Did your doctor reccomend an abortion?

    This legislation is for abortions, not c-sections, abortions without term limits. If the patent demands an abortion, that's what this legislation entitles them to, not a c-section.
    It's these kind of semantic attempts to deny the reality of this legislation that sicken me.

    My doctor recommended my pregnancy be aborted/terminated by c-section. She didn't recommend killing my baby. How do you think later term abortion of pregnancy is carried out? Its by c-section or induced labour, which can in itself lead to emergency c-section. Nature can abort a pregnancy at any stage.
    Abortion of pregnancy is without limits-because a risk to life can occur when a foetus is 12, 24 or 39 weeks' gestation. Do you think we should deny lifesaving treatment in the form of abortion of pregnancy, at a certain point, meaning two lives may be lost?


  • Options
    #104
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Laneyh wrote: »
    And where does it say more should be done to protect from rape ?

    I understand that protecting the child is their objective but I fail to see anything on the poster which alludes to protecting women

    I wasn't expecting to see this either as I say there is only one objective

    They are saying by using abortion you would treating the child as the part of the problem, while the problem is how did that child get there in the first place, which is the rape of the woman. The abortion doesn't prevent the rape. Which is why it eh... "Won't make women safer..."

    It's pointing towards causes to the problem, not to the affects of it. Which a pregnancy from rape is.


  • Options
    #105
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,994 ✭✭✭conorhal


    lazygal wrote: »
    My doctor recommended my pregnancy be aborted/terminated by c-section. She didn't recommend killing my baby. How do you think later term abortion of pregnancy is carried out? Its by c-section or induced labour, which can in itself lead to emergency c-section. Nature can abort a pregnancy at any stage.
    Abortion of pregnancy is without limits-because a risk to life can occur when a foetus is 12, 24 or 39 weeks' gestation. Do you think we should deny lifesaving treatment in the form of abortion of pregnancy, at a certain point, meaning two lives may be lost?

    Again you're just attempting to spoof. If an abortion is mandated that REQUIRES the deliberate termination of the life of the foetus.
    Your baby wasn't aborted, it was delived prematurely with the intent of saving the life of your child.
    Tell me, where does this legislation make reference to prematurely delivering a viable foetus?
    Delivery is delivery, the circumstances my differ but the intent of the outcome is the same, saving a child, abortion is the opposite, what pro-abort campaigners are claiming is that IF in the course of an abortion that the job gets botched, then we might think about giving some small token $h1t about the baby.


  • Options
    #106
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    They are saying by using abortion you would treating the child as the part of the problem, while the problem is how did that child get there in the first place, which is the rape of the woman. The abortion doesn't prevent the rape. Which is why it eh... "Won't make women safer..."

    It's pointing towards causes to the problem, not to the affects of it. Which a pregnancy from rape is.
    If it was an ordinary group who created the posters, then you may be right. But this is Youth Defence. They don't give a **** about anything but their own agenda and treat everyone as enemies unless they agree 100% with them. They don't care about rape victims and they don't care about preventing rape. They only want the laws to reflect their own ideals.


  • Options
    #107
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    conorhal wrote: »
    Again you're just attempting to spoof. If an abortion is mandated that REQUIRES the deliberate termination of the life of the foetus.
    Your baby wasn't aborted, it was delived prematurely with the intent of saving the life of your child.
    Tell me, where does this legislation make reference to prematurely delivering a viable foetus?
    Delivery is delivery, the circumstances my differ but the intent of the outcome is the same, saving a child, abortion is the opposite, what pro-abort campaigners are claiming is that IF in the course of an abortion that the job gets botched, then we might think about giving some small token $h1t about the baby.


    You are wrong. Plain wrong. And you say pro abortion like its a bad thing. Aborting my pregnacy before natural delivery saved my life and that of my child. I'm pro abortion - and proud of the fact.

    I'm really going to enjoy seeing the footstamping and howls of outrage from the likes of YD when this Bill is passed by a massive majority.


  • Options
    #108
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    conorhal wrote: »
    Again you're just attempting to spoof. If an abortion is mandated that REQUIRES the deliberate termination of the life of the foetus.
    Your baby wasn't aborted, it was delived prematurely with the intent of saving the life of your child.
    Tell me, where does this legislation make reference to prematurely delivering a viable foetus?
    Delivery is delivery, the circumstances my differ but the intent of the outcome is the same, saving a child, abortion is the opposite, what pro-abort campaigners are claiming is that IF in the course of an abortion that the job gets botched, then we might think about giving some small token $h1t about the baby.


    <snigger>


  • Options
    #109
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    conorhal wrote: »
    Again you're just attempting to spoof. If an abortion is mandated that REQUIRES the deliberate termination of the life of the foetus.
    Your baby wasn't aborted, it was delived prematurely with the intent of saving the life of your child.
    Tell me, where does this legislation make reference to prematurely delivering a viable foetus?
    Delivery is delivery, the circumstances my differ but the intent of the outcome is the same, saving a child, abortion is the opposite, what pro-abort campaigners are claiming is that IF in the course of an abortion that the job gets botched, then we might think about giving some small token $h1t about the baby.


    But if a womans life becomes endangered early on in the pregnancy, it's very different to if the same happens later in the pregnancy.
    Later in the pregnancy the baby is delivered and if assistance is required for it to survive, that assistance is given.

    The issue arises earlier in the pregnancy where induction will most certainly result in the death of the foetus because it cannot sustain life outside of the womb and no amount of medical intervention will save it.

    It is the latter that the bill is legislating for. Quite simply, where the delivery of the foetus will mean certain death of the foetus.

    The intent of the bill is to save the mothers life. My life was saved with the termination of my pregnancy. But I was 37 weeks gestation so the termination of my pregnancy resulted in a healthy viable baby.

    Had the same condition occured at 17 weeks, my pregnancy would have been terminated resulting in the death of the foetus in order to save my life.
    That is why there is no limit on the proposal.


  • Options
    #110
    SparkySpitfire
    Registered Users Posts: 1,331 ✭✭✭SparkySpitfire


    Putting this here cos I'm pretty sure most AHers don't really care about this sort of thing but:

    http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/06/27/opposite-the-dublin-rape-crisis-centre/

    Pro-life/Anti-choice campaign have parked an Advan outside the Rape Crisis Centre. Classy.

    Also, is that a bus lane it's parked in? Is that legal?


  • Options
    #111
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,164 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    conorhal wrote: »
    Again you're just attempting to spoof.

    She's telling you the facts about her case and you're calling her a liar. What a nice chap.

    But why would we expect anything different?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    seenitall
    Registered Users Posts: 3,718 ✭✭✭seenitall


    Dravokivich, what you wrote was that they are saying that more needs to be done to address rape.

    I am puzzled at how them caring so much about protecting the possible result of the rape, can in any fricking way be interpreted as "we need to do more to protect women from rape".

    The two are completely, but completely and utterly, unrelated.

    Needless to say, these people couldn't care less about rape or raped women, as their today's action clearly shows. So I wouldn't think that they would be saying what you think they're saying even by mistake.


  • Options
    #113
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    humanji wrote: »
    If it was an ordinary group who created the posters, then you may be right. But this is Youth Defence. They don't give a **** about anything but their own agenda and treat everyone as enemies unless they agree 100% with them. They don't care about rape victims and they don't care about preventing rape. They only want the laws to reflect their own ideals.

    An ordinary group wouldn't do it as they did. I already said the message was shíte and that the way it was put forward was insensitive. But it does have a point. Dealing with the affects of rape in this manner, is not dealing with rape as a problem in itself. The pro-choice argument of abortion in the instance of pregnancy due to rape creates an idea to them that rape should be expected.


  • Options
    #114
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    An ordinary group wouldn't do it as they did. I already said the message was shíte and that the way it was put forward was insensitive. But it does have a point. Dealing with the affects of rape in this manner, is not dealing with rape as a problem in itself. The pro-choice argument of abortion in the instance of pregnancy due to rape creates an idea to them that rape should be expected.
    Well that's your view of their actions. Mine is that they are clearly saying "We don't care that you were raped. We are condemning you for considering an abortion." They mention or indicate nothing dealing with rape. Only ensuring that if their is a pregnancy as a result, the woman is forced to go through with it.


  • Options
    #115
    seenitall
    Registered Users Posts: 3,718 ✭✭✭seenitall


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    An ordinary group wouldn't do it as they did. I already said the message was shíte and that the way it was put forward was insensitive. But it does have a point. Dealing with the affects of rape in this manner, is not dealing with rape as a problem in itself. The pro-choice argument of abortion in the instance of pregnancy due to rape creates an idea to them that rape should be expected.

    :confused::confused:

    No. I admit, I am truly stumped here. Can't follow your (or their?) logic at all.

    Thank fcek for that.


  • Options
    #116
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    humanji wrote: »
    Well that's your view of their actions. Mine is that they are clearly saying "We don't care that you were raped. We are condemning you for considering an abortion." They mention or indicate nothing dealing with rape. Only ensuring that if their is a pregnancy as a result, the woman is forced to go through with it.

    then what does... and i quote

    "Won't make women safer"

    mean?

    Me fail English?


  • Options
    #117
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    That's nothing to do with rape.


  • Options
    #118
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    DUP and UUP had a row over using the same model in election posters a few years back that was quite hilarious.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8620102.stm


  • Options
    #119
    jaja321
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jaja321


    conorhal wrote: »
    It's low, but it's no lower then using a tragic case of medical negligence to push an agenda.

    Do you include Savita's parents in that? http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/proposed-law-not-sufficient-say-savita-halappanavar-s-parents-1.1440378


  • Options
    #120
    errlloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 12,609 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    then what does... and i quote

    "Won't make women safer"

    mean?

    Me fail English?

    It means safer from suicide / health problems not rape. The current legislation is to legalise abortion for suicidal women, the YD position is that abortion is as likely to lead to depression as pregnancy.... Or something.

    This is nothing to do with rape, apart from where they parked the truck.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,994 ✭✭✭conorhal


    lazygal wrote: »
    You are wrong. Plain wrong. And you say pro abortion like its a bad thing. Aborting my pregnacy before natural delivery saved my life and that of my child. I'm pro abortion - and proud of the fact.

    I'm really going to enjoy seeing the footstamping and howls of outrage from the likes of YD when this Bill is passed by a massive majority.

    That is one sick statement.

    I'm pretty sure that if your doctor came in and said 'so lazygal, we're gonna abort your baby today' you'd have a $h1t fit.

    The intention of an abortion is to terminate the life of a baby, and you still haven't explained how this is not the case. Late term abortion are not intended to delver a live baby, is that what you are trying to claim?
    Abortions very late in the gestation period require a partial birth abortion, typically rupturing the membranes, opening the baby's skull and sucking out the contents to collapse it to provide ease of delivery.


Advertisement