Abortion Discussion

Satori Rae

K4t wrote: »

Not particularly. While it's unfortunate that your 6 year old niece had to witness such scenes, they shouldn't have to accommodate their protest to her sensitivities either. As for their reaction to your grievances, that's not really a surprise to me.

Maybe I hadn't actually meant just for my niece though but for all the other primary school kids as well, words are one thing I mean you can kind of brush stuff like that off, it is the posters that irritated me.

It wouldn't be like I would like her to be raised in a bubble or anything but I consider 6 way to young to see things like that or to know anything that is of an adult nature. The only thing I suggested for them to do was maybe protest at certain times when kids were not going in and out of the school, they could have simply took a wee 5 min break there and then and placed their signs against the wall to hide the images. When they seen them coming out.

I do not think they would like if I flashed such images into the mind of their children if they where that age. And I don't think they do them selves favors by doing so or scoffing in peoples faces at what is a respectful request or for them to even think over.

I don't really see how my request seems unreasonable?

Shrap

Satori Rae wrote: »

I do not think they would like if I flashed such images into the mind of their children if they where that age.

Quite agree. It's one thing telling 6 yr olds about the danger of death by getting run over if you aren't careful crossing the road; it's another thing completely showing them images of accident victims. And that's about an issue that is relevant to their lives, age 6.

There's a reason we make sure our kids don't get a glimpse of a horrible car crash and we get them to look down while passing one. It's because they're KIDS. Same goes for any other gory visuals.

Satori Rae

Shrap wrote: »

Quite agree. It's one thing telling 6 yr olds about the danger of death by getting run over if you aren't careful crossing the road; it's another thing completely showing them images of accident victims. And that's about an issue that is relevant to their lives, age 6.

There's a reason we make sure our kids don't get a glimpse of a horrible car crash and we get them to look down while passing one. It's because they're KIDS. Same goes for any other gory visuals.

I very much agree with you.

This is why and it may be a bit OT but there is an age limit on movies and games.

I would like kids to stay kids as long as possible. I must admit I was pretty hacked off and it took all my re-strength to try talk like a calm adult to them after wards.

I actually thought that when they were protesting they hadn't researched the area properly more so then anything I just wanted to let them know for the future there were kids near by so they would know for next time.

Some of them poster placards are pretty graphic for young kids to see.

patsman07

The Black Oil wrote: »

Uh oh. The balance machine again.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0311/686420-media-bias-protest/

You have to hand it to the "pro-life" people. They do seem to be very well organised, especially considering the religious right in this country have (thankfully) very little influence in other areas of public discourse.

I find it strange that you don't hear them arguing against the morning after pill, which in their view is surely the same as an abortion at 4months. They seem to pick their battles well.

alaimacerc

patsman07 wrote: »

You have to hand it to the "pro-life" people. They do seem to be very well organised, especially considering the religious right in this country have (thankfully) very little influence in other areas of public discourse.

Let's not count our chickens before they hatch... We'd the Mad Monk himself, Brian McKevitt, all over the shop on the Children's Rights Referendum, and the Lolek axis will get worse before it gets better on the Marriage Equality one.

I find it strange that you don't hear them arguing against the morning after pill, which in their view is surely the same as an abortion at 4months. They seem to pick their battles well.

I think their (lack of much of a) stance on IVF is more revelatory. The MAP isn't an abortifacient, it's a contraceptive. At least in its primary mode of mechanism, and as far as best research available goes, there's no evidence to show any post-fertilisation secondary or tertiary action. Not that those would be considered equivalent to abortion in law anyway.

patsman07

The IVF point is an excellent one. Should be used more to undermine the 'pro-lifers.'

shruikan2553

Satori Rae wrote: »

I have to say the crowd I seen in my local town protesting for Pro Life a good while back where miles away from being very peaceful I must say.

Firstly and not to sound like I am attacking a persons right to protest, I believe that even though personally I do not like it, it does not mean they cant do it, however one of my issues with that certain group of Pro Life People was the venue they picked to protest out side of (some office for the local TD I think).

But right across from this happens to be my nieces primary school she is 6, so not only did she exit the school gates seeing angry people shouting and roaring about child murder and how it is wrong she also seen the massive signs of aborted fetuses splashed across them being literally shoved in our faces as I tried to walk by holding her as quickly as I could.

As I said she is 6 and should not be subjected to that in my opinion and obviously her mother agrees on this.

when I lodged a complaint with youth defense I have to say they where so inconsiderate in my views on them re thinking their protest mannerisms.

They basically scoffed in my face saying she should know by now if not earlier basically about babies being aborted...... I am I the only one that is a bit concerned and horrified in this? Isn't the whole thing being pro life to protect children so how can telling a 6 yr old about abortion protect them?

It personally seemed like they twisted a lot of views to suit their justifications to me.

I am most certainly pro choice but I try and ignore their views at least without letting loose at them, because thats their choice/belief.

But doesn't anyone else think this is unacceptable?

If it was YD then I wouldnt expect any different. They're a shower of ***** at the best of times. They're view is if it isnt suitable for children to see then it's bad. Try starting an orgy outside of their children's school and see how quickly they'll complain though.

Satori Rae

I was sure it was YD but when I asked them they neither confirmed or denied just attacked my views on the matter. I mean how can you respect an org or a group if they are that childish that they cant talk rationally to people what so ever then they just make them selves look like exactly how they come across....

Lingua Franca

I think I saw something on the YD site once that was anti IVF, they'd some anti gay stuff too but it (a newsletter) was removed pretty sharpish when it started to creep out into the public.

Satori Rae

Does anyone know what happened to the baby of the mother that was tied down and denied and bought to a term to be given a c section....I seen they were causing a stir over it and a few people said that instead of all this pushing for it to be born and approving of the methods used where they going to pay the medical expenses and keep the child. Because when it comes down to it I wonder would they care that much? Because it seems they direct a lot of anger and hate just in my opinion from what I gleamed of them as a whole (not to say they are all like that)

Lingua Franca

The last I heard, she'd left it in the care of the HSE and it was being looked after in a NICU because it was really very premature. Odds are that the baby is in care now and his or her identity will be protected, as it should be.

Satori Rae

Lingua Franca wrote: »

The last I heard, she'd left it in the care of the HSE and it was being looked after in a NICU because it was really very premature. Odds are that the baby is in care now and his or her identity will be protected, as it should be.

I definitely agree, this was very sad state of affairs tbh. (to put it mildly)

recedite

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Odds are that the baby is in care now and his or her identity will be protected, as it should be.

Satori Rae wrote: »

I definitely agree, this was very sad state of affairs tbh.

A good result for the baby though, surely? All's well that ends well.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

A good result for the baby though, surely? All's well that ends well.

Seriously? What makes you think a birth is "the end" of any problems? Thats a truly bizarre comment.

You do know the statistics on disability after such a premature delivery, don't you? Not to mention that when a birth resulting from a woman being forced to carry a child can be portrayed as simplistically as you describe, it is a rapist's charter for sure. Think about that. If you are able to.

A woman being gang-raped, left suicidal after being refused the early termination she requested and then forced into having a caesarean, which is major surgery, almost certainly leaving the resulting child with severe, permanent disabilities (we don't even know for sure that it's still alive, do we?), and the young woman herself so deeply traumatized that months later she was unable to testify in court - and you think a trite proverb is suitable comment on such a catastrophe? Do you have any capacity for empathy at all? :mad:

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

.. it is a rapist's charter for sure.

The last thing on a rapists mind is "who will look after the baby".

Do you know where this alleged "gang rape" occurred BTW?

Loafing Oaf

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I think I saw something on the YD site once that was anti IVF,

Part of the 'pro-life no' side's objection to the 2002 abortion referendum was that it did not extend protection to the pre-implantation embryo, which as they saw it would entail banning the MAP, the IUD contraceptive, embryo destruction in IVF and stem cell research.

Lingua Franca

recedite wrote: »

The last thing on a rapists mind is "who will look after the baby".

Do you know where this alleged "gang rape" occurred BTW?

Please stop being disingenuous, you know as well as we do that details of the case including the woman's nationality have been kept secret for privacy issues.

We know it didn't happen in Ireland and she arrived pregnant so why are you asking? "Well, we don't know for sure that she even was raped"?

Lingua Franca

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Part of the 'pro-life no' side's objection to the 2002 abortion referendum was that it did not extend protection to the pre-implantation embryo, which as they saw it would entail banning the MAP, the IUD contraceptive, embryo destruction in IVF and stem cell research.

I searched up "Youth Defence IVF" and the results from their site are best described as "cagey".

Their writings on the subject fall along the lines of "We know that IVF causes babies to be born and that's awesome, but embryo destruction and selective pregnancy reduction is bad, IVF treatment can be fatal, IVF babies have birth defects and also IVF hardly ever works so why bother?". Then they push something called "NaPro Technology" as a treatment for infertility which causes no embryo destruction. That's charting your periods and mucus, to you and me.

Brian Shanahan

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I searched up "Youth Defence IVF" and the results from their site are best described as "cagey".

Their writings on the subject fall along the lines of "We know that IVF causes babies to be born and that's awesome, but embryo destruction and selective pregnancy reduction is bad, IVF treatment can be fatal, IVF babies have birth defects and also IVF hardly ever works so why bother?". Then they push something called "NaPro Technology" as a treatment for infertility which causes no embryo destruction. That's charting your periods and mucus, to you and me.

So basically they're pushing the catholic reproductive line of "science bad, rhythm method good", but this time for making babies rather than hoping that babies won't be made.

Genius.

eviltwin

recedite wrote: »

A good result for the baby though, surely? All's well that ends well.

Do you really believe that once there is a good outcome for the baby that makes everything okay? This isn't a movie, the mother doesn't take one look at the baby she didn't want and suddenly have a change of heart.

What about the impact of all this on the mothers physical health not to mention the emotional toll it took. And what exactly is a good result? A live birth regardless of the health of the child? YD are of course delighted the baby survived and to them that's a good result but that's ignoring the obvious but sure what do they care? Child born, job done, next!

eviltwin

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I searched up "Youth Defence IVF" and the results from their site are best described as "cagey".

Their writings on the subject fall along the lines of "We know that IVF causes babies to be born and that's awesome, but embryo destruction and selective pregnancy reduction is bad, IVF treatment can be fatal, IVF babies have birth defects and also IVF hardly ever works so why bother?". Then they push something called "NaPro Technology" as a treatment for infertility which causes no embryo destruction. That's charting your periods and mucus, to you and me.

Napro isn't actually IVF though is it, its great for charting your cycle and can help increase your chances of pregnancy but its no use if you have a medical problem that requires intervention. The Napro clinics here are very right wing, they will only deal with straight couples and only those who are married which seems unfair to those who aren't.

lazygal

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I searched up "Youth Defence IVF" and the results from their site are best described as "cagey".

Their writings on the subject fall along the lines of "We know that IVF causes babies to be born and that's awesome, but embryo destruction and selective pregnancy reduction is bad, IVF treatment can be fatal, IVF babies have birth defects and also IVF hardly ever works so why bother?". Then they push something called "NaPro Technology" as a treatment for infertility which causes no embryo destruction. That's charting your periods and mucus, to you and me.

Napro is natural reproduction and the clinics only treat married couples. There is a bit more too it than periods and mucus and it's cheaper and less invasive than proceeding straight to IVF. Of course Catholic teachings state ivf is wrong so Catholic couples can't use such treatments.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

The last thing on a rapists mind is "who will look after the baby".

Rapists wanting, and sometimes getting, access to the children they have fathered is not all that uncommon.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209258/Familys-outrage-girls-rapist-seeks-paternal-visitation-rights-child.html

What insight that may give us into their minds at the time of the rape I wouldn't care to say - but my point was more that if we really believed that the creation of a new person was enough to justify any amount of suffering inflicted on the mother, then a rapist could certainly use that fact as mitigation for his crime in court.

recedite wrote: »

Do you know where this alleged "gang rape" occurred BTW?

No, since the identity of both woman and child are being kept secret - despite Youth Defence's attempts to get photos of the child by hanging around outside neonatal departments when this all first came out.

What would it change anyway? Other than your transparent attempt at implying there was no rape. You don't know that, but we do know she was suicidal, and these days, happily, that no longer usually happens under anything but the most exceptional circumstances. Such as rape. So it certainly seems like a plausible explanation for her exceptionally distressed state of mind, as attested to by various doctors and psychiatrists.

Loafing Oaf

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I searched up "Youth Defence IVF" and the results from their site are best described as "cagey".

Their writings on the subject fall along the lines of "We know that IVF causes babies to be born and that's awesome, but embryo destruction and selective pregnancy reduction is bad, IVF treatment can be fatal, IVF babies have birth defects and also IVF hardly ever works so why bother?". Then they push something called "NaPro Technology" as a treatment for infertility which causes no embryo destruction. That's charting your periods and mucus, to you and me.

While we're on this area, the only genuinely non-religious pro-lifer I've ever come across is Ruth Dudley Edwards, and I remember that she was prompted to write an article setting out her position by some development at IVF clinics in the UK, possibly a legal ruling allowing them to pour a whole load of surplus embryos down the sink. The point being that a pro-lifer who sincerely believes in "the right to life of the unborn from the moment of conception" would oppose the deliberate destruction of embryos produced through IVF and would seek to outlaw the practice.

Satori Rae

recedite wrote: »

A good result for the baby though, surely? All's well that ends well.

I do not know if I would put it like that personally, I mean who's to know how that child will grow up, will they have special needs due the conditions and stress the mother was under?

Don't get me wrong I love the fact the baby has survived but has it created a worse off situation for this child when it is older and if it finds out how his/her mother was treated and that she forced into carrying them, their could be psychological issues there?....and will they get a good home?

I know some friends of mine who grew up in care and experienced the worst sexual abuse in one or two foster homes.

Again not all foster homes would be like that I am sure they are amazing foster parents out their and rules are probably stricter these days but these are all concerns.

I really do think the decision should have been left to the mother or at least she should have been told from the get go what the system could or could not do for her. Reading bits of her story here and there it seemed like she was fobbed off until it was a bit to late.
In the end no woman should go through that and I feel it was handled very very badly.

As for YD thinking they should have the right to know who the baby is or the mum they really should just leave them alone unless the mother feels like talking to them. I think you would need time to adjust after something that barbaric being done to you.

alaimacerc

eviltwin wrote: »

The Napro clinics here are very right wing, they will only deal with straight couples and only those who are married which seems unfair to those who aren't.

I wasn't familiar with this, but apparently there was a fitness to practice hearing about this, so you're not alone in thinking so. The bead-rattling corners of the web seem very defensive about this lot, too.

ETA: here's that "ambush" on the Late Late the pl.ie types were so worried about. One might note that the audience interventions are entirely of the "right to life" sort. One wonders just how biased the piece would have to be to be "balanced" in the eyes of some....

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

..my point was more that if we really believed that the creation of a new person was enough to justify any amount of suffering inflicted on the mother, then a rapist could certainly use that fact as mitigation for his crime in court.

I have never heard anyone try to make that particular point before. I presume its only a strawman argument you have conjured up.
The pro-life position is that subsequent to the creation of a new person, the "new person" is not culpable or punishable for the sins of their father. So that baby should be treated as any other baby, regardless of whether its father was a rapist.

volchitsa wrote: »

No, since the identity of both woman and child are being kept secret - despite Youth Defence's attempts to get photos of the child by hanging around outside neonatal departments when this all first came out.
What would it change anyway? Other than your transparent attempt at implying there was no rape.

It wouldn't change anything IMO, whether she was raped or not. And I'm not implying that she was, or she was not raped. I'm saying all we know is that she arrived in this country pregnant, and since then our social services and free legal aid services have spent a huge amount of resources looking after her. How is that legal case of hers against the State for alleged maltreatment going anyway?
I asked about the alleged gang rape because you seemed to be bandying about certain opinions as if they were undisputed facts, as in....

volchitsa wrote: »

...
A woman being gang-raped, left suicidal after being refused the early termination she requested and then forced into having a caesarean, which is major surgery, almost certainly leaving the resulting child with severe, permanent disabilities ....

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

I have never heard anyone try to make that particular point before. I presume its only a strawman argument you have conjured up.

It's the point you made, when you said "all's well that ends well". "All" is most definitely not well for the woman, even now. By ignoring that fact, and presuming to say that all was well, you dismiss her entirely. You may find it hard to acknowledge just how anti-woman that position is, but that's your problem, not mine.

recedite wrote: »

The pro-life position is that subsequent to the creation of a new person, the "new person" is not culpable or punishable for the sins of their father. So that baby should be treated as any other baby, regardless of whether its father was a rapist.

I know what the pro-life position is. I didn't know they were as extreme as you, in totally dismissing the woman as a person, to the point of claiming that "all" was fine as long as there was a live baby at the end of it.
All is not well. Some recognition of the woman's right to have her mental health at least acknowledged, if not acted upon, would be welcome.

recedite wrote: »

It wouldn't change anything IMO, whether she was raped or not. And I'm not implying that she was, or she was not raped. I'm saying all we know is that she arrived in this country pregnant, and since then our social services and free legal aid services have spent a huge amount of resources looking after her. How is that legal case of hers against the State for alleged maltreatment going anyway?
I asked about the alleged gang rape because you seemed to be bandying about certain opinions as if they were undisputed facts, as in....

You do seem particularly unsympathetic to the woman, that's clear.

Do you have any reason not to believe her account? She was attested, by experts, to be suicidal because of her pregnancy. That alone is strong evidence in support of her account.

As for how any other case is going, why do you ask me, how should I know? The tone of your posts come across as sneering at her. I presume that is deliberate. It really says all we need to know about you.

Smiley92a

So... has anyone brought up Purvi Patel, the woman in Indiana who just got twenty years for having a stillbirth?

PopePalpatine

FFS Indiana, first the "muh relijus freedumms" law, now this.