Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

robdonn

MrPudding wrote: »

Basically they just have a problem with women in general having any control over their reproductive functions.

MrP

I don't think that we can really make that assertion. It is more likely that they believe in the autonomy of women but it conflicts on certain issues such as conception, pregnancy and abortion. The conflict is resolved by giving the foetus, as seen by them as being alive and defenceless, the priority, thus negating women's autonomy whenever they overlap.

I think one of the biggest problems with these discussions is the attempt to vilify the opposing side, whether it is pro-lifers as being misogynistic and anti-women, or pro-choicers as being pro-abortion and pro-baby-killing.

It's an exaggerated view on what's really happening and, although possibly true in rare cases, it is not the actual feelings of most people on either side. For every argument that a pro-choice advocate makes about a woman's right to autonomy being denied, a pro-life advocate will see (what they believe to be) a baby's life being denied. I don't think it's fair to assume that a pro-lifer is just out to subjugate women.

volchitsa

robdonn wrote: »

I don't think that we can really make that assertion. It is more likely that they believe in the autonomy of women but it conflicts on certain issues such as conception, pregnancy and abortion. The conflict is resolved by giving the foetus, as seen by them as being alive and defenceless, the priority, thus negating women's autonomy whenever they overlap.

I think one of the biggest problems with these discussions is the attempt to vilify the opposing side, whether it is pro-lifers as being misogynistic and anti-women, or pro-choicers as being pro-abortion and pro-baby-killing.

It's an exaggerated view on what's really happening and, although possibly true in rare cases, it is not the actual feelings of most people on either side. For every argument that a pro-choice advocate makes about a woman's right to autonomy being denied, a pro-life advocate will see (what they believe to be) a baby's life being denied. I don't think it's fair to assume that a pro-lifer is just out to subjugate women.

I agree that the vast majority of them don't consciously wish to do any such thing, they are merely channeling the propaganda they have received since childhood. In rather the same way as women in cultures where FGM is practiced genuinely think they are acting in a girl's best interests when they have her mutilated. The lack of understanding of where their own beliefs and actions derive from doesn't make these any less misogynistic in nature. It just shows how powerful a tool religion can be.

lazybones32

Overheal wrote: »

Please.

If it was a slam dunk, the activist group behind the videos wouldn't be dispensing the evidence in this protracted piecemeal fashion; they would have dumped the videos they had for all to see.

The actual motive for the piecemeal "leaks" of videos is to keep planned parenthood in the news in a negative light; new releases are timed with the story losing its momentum or being swept up by other news (Malaysian airlines wreckage for instance). Keep dragging it out long enough for the radio hosts and the evening talk shows to spin their take on it and keep the alleged charges in people's minds. These same tactics were famously used to get the American people to believe that as a matter of fact Iraq had chemical weapons of mass destruction. Tell a lie enough times until it becomes truth.

I was thinking along similar lines when this story first broke: why not present the most damning evidence first?
This was a 3 year operation. It could well be that they have more material available but are waiting to see how PP respond. Giving them enough rope to hang themselves, so to speak.
When you fight, you don't attack the strongest points; you box clever. Seeing as PP have enlisted the services of a D.C. based PR 'crisis management' agency, the people behind this operation must also have a strategy prepared.

I'd expect a trump card to be played yet.

Two Sheds

volchitsa wrote: »

I agree that the vast majority of them don't consciously wish to do any such thing, they are merely channeling the propaganda they have received since childhood. In rather the same way as women in cultures where FGM is practiced genuinely think they are acting in a girl's best interests when they have her mutilated. The lack of understanding of where their own beliefs and actions derive from doesn't make these any less misogynistic in nature. It just shows how powerful a tool religion can be.

Because abortion is good for women, right?

Black Menorca

Absolutely disgusting.

America owes these Pro-Life advocates a huge debt of gratitude.

The morally defunct, seemingly female run, Planned Parenthood organisation has been rumbled big time.

Now for the de-funding process.

Funny how RTE, the Irish Times, Newstalk and Today FM have been so quiet about this story.

Planned Parenthood have given the Irish Pro-Life organisations so much ammunition to defend any future attack on the 8th.
this will set back the abortion lobby decades in this country.

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

Absolutely disgusting.

America owes these Pro-Life advocates a huge debt of gratitude.

The morally defunct, seemingly female run, Planned Parenthood organisation has been rumbled big time.

Now for the de-funding process.

Funny how RTE, the Irish Times, Newstalk and Today FM have been so quiet about this story.

Planned Parenthood have given the Irish Pro-Life organisations so much ammunition to defend any future attack on the 8th.
this will set back the abortion lobby decades in this country.

May I suggest that you actually watch the videos first and then explain what exactly has Planned Parenthood admitted to that is illegal.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Because abortion is good for women, right?

"Abortion is great!" said nobody ever.

eviltwin

Two Sheds wrote: »

Because abortion is good for women, right?

Ah the old abortion regret video. There are plenty of women who have no regrets at all about having an abortion. What's your point?

Jayop

eviltwin wrote: »

Ah the old abortion regret video. There are plenty of women who have no regrets at all about having an abortion. What's your point?

What about the families of woman who died because they weren't allowed an abortion. Do they have regrets?

PopePalpatine

eviltwin wrote: »

Ah the old abortion regret video. There are plenty of women who have no regrets at all about having an abortion. What's your point?

Slut-shaming, what else?

eviltwin

Jayop wrote: »

What about the families of woman who died because they weren't allowed an abortion. Do they have regrets?

Not sure why you're asking me that, I'm pro choice

PopePalpatine

Jayop wrote: »

What about the families of woman who died because they weren't allowed an abortion. Do they have regrets?

In Catholic State they're not allowed to have any regrets except if the foetus didn't survive.

Jayop

eviltwin wrote: »

Not sure why you're asking me that, I'm pro choice

I know, I was confirming your point.

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

I don't think that we can really make that assertion. It is more likely that they believe in the autonomy of women but it conflicts on certain issues such as conception, pregnancy and abortion. The conflict is resolved by giving the foetus, as seen by them as being alive and defenceless, the priority, thus negating women's autonomy whenever they overlap.

I think one of the biggest problems with these discussions is the attempt to vilify the opposing side, whether it is pro-lifers as being misogynistic and anti-women, or pro-choicers as being pro-abortion and pro-baby-killing.

It's an exaggerated view on what's really happening and, although possibly true in rare cases, it is not the actual feelings of most people on either side. For every argument that a pro-choice advocate makes about a woman's right to autonomy being denied, a pro-life advocate will see (what they believe to be) a baby's life being denied. I don't think it's fair to assume that a pro-lifer is just out to subjugate women.

It's much easier to have a degree of respect for the opposing position when the truth is told. The pro-abortion lobby does not want the truth to be told, especially to women.
That's why our media never inform the public about the reality of abortion; we see every sort of surgery on our screens but never abortion. It's the reason RTE and Newstalk regularly give free rein to those pushing for abortion

Just as the Irish media refused to cover the Gosnell story, they are now refusing to cover the Planned Parenthood story. Why? Because information is the enemy of the pro-abortion cause. Women must be kept in ignorance if the abortion industry and its fat cats are not to be undermined.

eviltwin

Two Sheds wrote: »

It's much easier to have a degree of respect for the opposing position when the truth is told. The pro-abortion lobby does not want the truth to be told, especially to women.
That's why our media never informs the public about the reality of abortion; we see every sort of surgery on our screens but never abortion.

Just as the Irish media refused to cover the Gosnell story, it is now refusing to cover the Planned Parenthood story. Why? Because information is the enemy of the pro-abortion cause. Women must be kept in ignorance if the abortion industry and its fat cats are not to be undermined.

Speaking as someone who has had an abortion there is no hiding of anything. Every part of the procedure was explained to me, I was able to ask questions, I could have left at any stage. In comparison when I had my children here I was often made to feel invisible by the healthcare system, something that is not just restricted to maternity btw. I don't know where your notion that there is no information passed to patients comes from, it's complete rubbish.

Two Sheds

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Slut-shaming, what else?

What a crass thing to say. Do you have any women in your life?

eviltwin

Two Sheds wrote: »

What a crass thing to say. Do you have any women in your life?

What point were you trying to make with that video then?

galljga1

Two Sheds wrote: »

It's much easier to have a degree of respect for the opposing position when the truth is told. The pro-abortion lobby does not want the truth to be told, especially to women.
That's why our media never inform the public about the reality of abortion; we see every sort of surgery on our screens but never abortion. It's the reason RTE and Newstalk regularly give free rein to those pushing for abortion

Just as the Irish media refused to cover the Gosnell story, they are now refusing to cover the Planned Parenthood story. Why? Because information is the enemy of the pro-abortion cause. Women must be kept in ignorance if the abortion industry and its fat cats are not to be undermined.

Why should we be bothered with stories about abortion in America. Sure it isn't happening here. Is that not what we want? Ship women off to the UK and we are all happy back here in our sanctimonious little island.
Adopt the ostrich position.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

It's much easier to have a degree of respect for the opposing position when the truth is told. The pro-abortion lobby does not want the truth to be told, especially to women.
That's why our media never informs the public about the reality of abortion; we see every sort of surgery on our screens but never abortion. It's the reason RTE and Newstalk regularly give free rein to those pushing for abortion

Just as the Irish media refused to cover the Gosnell story, they are now refusing to cover the Planned Parenthood story. Why? Because information is the enemy of the pro-abortion cause. Women must be kept in ignorance if the abortion industry and its fat cats are not to be undermined.

I think you may have missed my point with the whole vilification thing...

But what is the truth? So far there have been accusations but no evidence has been provided to support it. And I know, you've posted videos several times, but we have pointed out time and time again that they do not actually show any evidence of breaking the law.

And our media doesn't cover abortion stories? Here are 683 stories from RTE alone on abortion. Your complaint is that they don't report the nonsense that you insist is real.

Oh, and here is RTE's coverage of the trial of Kermit Gosnell.

Two Sheds

eviltwin wrote: »

Speaking as someone who has had an abortion there is no hiding of anything. Every part of the procedure was explained to me, I was able to ask questions, I could have left at any stage. In comparison when I had my children here I was often made to feel invisible by the healthcare system, something that is not just restricted to maternity btw. I don't know where your notion that there is no information passed to patients comes from, it's complete rubbish.

Wouldn't it be better if women were informed before they became patients? How many people have ever watched an abortion being performed or seen what an abortion does to an unborn child? Would that be too much information for women?

eviltwin

Two Sheds wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better if women were informed before they became patients? How many people have ever watched an abortion being performed or seen what an abortion does to an unborn child? Would that be too much information for women?

I was informed over the telephone when I made the appointment long before I became a patient. I also have the capacity to use the internet. Stop implying women are stupid.

galljga1

Two Sheds wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better if women were informed before they became patients? How many people have ever watched an abortion being performed or seen what an abortion does to an unborn child? Would that be too much information for women?

I am not aware of many people who have watched surgical procedures before undergoing same.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better if women were informed before they became patients? How many people have ever watched an abortion being performed or seen what an abortion does to an unborn child? Would that be too much information for women?

Yeah, and we could force them to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat first too, right?

Jayop

Two Sheds wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better if women were informed before they became patients? How many people have ever watched an abortion being performed or seen what an abortion does to an unborn child? Would that be too much information for women?

I got a vasectomy done and I didn't watch any videos of one being performed on others before that. Why would I when I'm not the surgeon.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better if women were informed before they became patients? How many people have ever watched an abortion being performed or seen what an abortion does to an unborn child? Would that be too much information for women?

In secondary school (yes, in Ireland) we were shown plenty of video footage that would make you proud as we got to see little chunks of fetus collected in a surgical tray, etc. so I'm not sure what your point is, as the information is not only widely available, but is thrown in your face on occasion. Again you've established an arguing point which is readily debunkable.

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

I think you may have missed my point with the whole vilification thing...

But what is the truth? So far there have been accusations but no evidence has been provided to support it. And I know, you've posted videos several times, but we have pointed out time and time again that they do not actually show any evidence of breaking the law.

And our media doesn't cover abortion stories? Here are 683 stories from RTE alone on abortion. Your complaint is that they don't report the nonsense that you insist is real.

Oh, and here is RTE's coverage of the trial of Kermit Gosnell.

Have you even bothered to check RTE's coverage of abortion? It doesn't attempt to inform people about abortion. It cover the politics of abortion. RTE is a public relations machine for the pro-abortion lobby.
Only yesterday we heard RTE Radio give an unchallenged opportunity to a FG politician to promote her campaign for abortion on demand.

RTE covered the Gosnell case very late in the day, when it could no longer be ignored, and only after a raft of complaints about its censorship of the story.

Black Menorca

robdonn wrote: »

May I suggest that you actually watch the videos first and then explain what exactly has Planned Parenthood admitted to that is illegal.

Illegal is your word.

Immoral is mine. Engineering a partial birth abortion to get an 'intact sample'.
Sick, just sick.

eviltwin

Two Sheds wrote: »

Have you even bothered to check RTE's coverage of abortion? It doesn't attempt to inform people about abortion. It cover the politics of abortion. RTE is a public relations machine for the pro-abortion lobby.
Only yesterday we heard RTE Radio give an unchallenged opportunity to a FG politician to promote her campaign for abortion on demand.

RTE covered the Gosnell case very late in the day, when it could no longer be ignored, and only after a raft of complaints about its censorship of the story.

Why is it the responsibility of the media to inform the people about how medical procedures happen. That's the job of the medical profession and seeing as abortion isn't available here who takes on that responsibility? Even when you have programs about medicine it's usually entertainment rather than education.

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

In secondary school (yes, in Ireland) we were shown plenty of video footage that would make you proud as we got to see little chunks of fetus collected in a surgical tray, etc. so I'm not sure what your point is, as the information is not only widely available, but is thrown in your face on occasion. Again you've established an arguing point which is readily debunkable.

Please point out where any of our media has relayed the facts about the practise of abortion to the public. We're in the throes of a campaign to legalise abortion-on-demand but nobody wants to say what it is we're supposed to legalise. Can you spot what might be wrong with that?

Not a NSA agent

galljga1 wrote: »

I am not aware of many people who have watched surgical procedures before undergoing same.

I wouldnt recommend it from experience. Of course it would be stupid to suggest we ban eye surgeries because I felt uncomfortable watching one.

Two Sheds wrote: »

Please point out where any of our media has relayed the facts about the practise of abortion to the public. We're in the throes of a campaign to legalise abortion-on-demand but nobody wants to say what it is we're supposed to legalise. Can you spot what might be wrong with that?

Why would they? They havent done much on cancer treatments or other medical things either because it isnt news.

Two Sheds

eviltwin wrote: »

Why is it the responsibility of the media to inform the people about how medical procedures happen. That's the job of the medical profession and seeing as abortion isn't available here who takes on that responsibility? Even when you have programs about medicine it's usually entertainment rather than education.

I'll just leave that there.

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

Illegal is your word.

Immoral is mine. Engineering a partial birth abortion to get an 'intact sample'.
Sick, just sick.

A partial birth abortion? Oh, that's horrible. That should be illegal!

Oh wait, it is illegal, and nobody has shown any evidence that they do it. The videos in question certainly don't.

eviltwin

Two Sheds wrote: »

Please point out where any of our media has relayed the facts about the practise of abortion to the public. We're in the throes of a campaign to legalise abortion-on-demand but nobody wants to say what it is we're supposed to legalise. Can you spot what might be wrong with that?

You're being ridiculous now, we see many changes to medical practice here, we don't need to know the ins and outs.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

I'll just leave

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.

eviltwin

Two Sheds wrote: »

I'll just leave that there.

Answer the question. Do you think rte should inform us of every medical practice out there?

galljga1

Two Sheds wrote: »

Please point out where any of our media has relayed the facts about the practise of abortion to the public. We're in the throes of a campaign to legalise abortion-on-demand but nobody wants to say what it is we're supposed to legalise. Can you spot what might be wrong with that?

I don't really want to know the nitty gritty details of open heart surgery and I do not expect the media to provide details of this or any other surgical procedure. To be honest I know more about abortion than probably most other surgical procedures. Information is readily available to anyone requiring education in that area.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

Illegal is your word.

Immoral is mine. Engineering a partial birth abortion to get an 'intact sample'.
Sick, just sick.

You dismiss reference to illegality and then state partial birth abortions (illegal in US as of 2003) are taking place.

Two Sheds

eviltwin wrote: »

Answer the question. Do you think rte should inform us of every medical practice out there?

When we have politicians and lobbyists from the UN to Amnesty International broadcasting their demands that we liberalise our laws on abortion then yes, RTE, as the Public Service Broadcaster, has a duty to inform us, to the fullest possible extent, about what it is we're supposed to accept.

eviltwin

Two Sheds wrote: »

When we have politicians and lobbyists from the UN to Amnesty International broadcasting their demands that we liberalise our laws on abortion then yes, RTE, as the Public Service Broadcaster, has a duty to inform us, to the fullest possible extent, about what it is we're supposed to accept.

People already know, there you go again assuming support for abortion equals ignorance of the procedure.

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

When we have politicians and lobbyists from the UN to Amnesty International broadcasting their demands that we liberalise our laws on abortion then yes, RTE, as the Public Service Broadcaster, has a duty to inform us, to the fullest possible extent, about what it is we're supposed to accept.

I'm presuming that you mean take a pro-life slant. I doubt you'd okay with them informing people that abortion is safer for a woman compared to carry the pregnancy to term.

Or explaining exactly what's involved in carry a foetus that has been diagnosed with a fatal foetal abnormality to term.

Not a NSA agent

Two Sheds wrote: »

When we have politicians and lobbyists from the UN to Amnesty International broadcasting their demands that we liberalise our laws on abortion then yes, RTE, as the Public Service Broadcaster, has a duty to inform us, to the fullest possible extent, about what it is we're supposed to accept.

I missed the specials on young presidents abroad and gay marriages: stealing your children.

RTE could always start what you want but it would be a new things and they would be accused of pro abortion bias if it isnt 2 hours of partial birth abortions.

galljga1

Two Sheds wrote: »

When we have politicians and lobbyists from the UN to Amnesty International broadcasting their demands that we liberalise our laws on abortion then yes, RTE, as the Public Service Broadcaster, has a duty to inform us, to the fullest possible extent, about what it is we're supposed to accept.

RTE, as the public service broadcaster should remain fair and impartial, hence it should provide information relating to the relevant law as it is and and proposed amendments to said law. It does not have to provide detail of the procedures carried out when providing an abortion service. What nonsense.

Two Sheds

eviltwin wrote: »

People already know, there you go again assuming support for abortion equals ignorance of the procedure.

The old 'shure everybody knows that' tactic.

What have you got against giving people information? Why do you want censorship?

Black Menorca

robdonn wrote: »

A partial birth abortion? Oh, that's horrible. That should be illegal!

Oh wait, it is illegal, and nobody has shown any evidence that they do it. The videos in question certainly don't.

If its illegal, which on paper it indeed is, why are there 2,000 PBA's in America every year?

Black Menorca

Delirium wrote: »

You dismiss reference to illegality and then state partial birth abortions (illegal in US as of 2003) are taking place.

The ladies who dominate PP condemn themselves with their own words.

robdonn

Black Menorca wrote: »

If its illegal, which on paper it indeed is, why are there 2,000 PBA's in America every year?

Source?

eviltwin

Two Sheds wrote: »

The old 'shure everybody knows that' tactic.

What have you got against giving people information? Why do you want censorship?

It's not censorship, it's using the media for the purpose it was intended. Sure where would it end? Is it the media's role to tell me about the fundamentals of skin cancer or what obesity does to my insides or how alcohol is pickling my liver? There are enough pro life personalities and publications that can 'inform' us if they want to. It won't stop women having abortions though.

Two Sheds

galljga1 wrote: »

RTE, as the public service broadcaster should remain fair and impartial, hence it should provide information relating to the relevant law as it is and and proposed amendments to said law. It does not have to provide detail of the procedures carried out when providing an abortion service. What nonsense.

Those days are gone .... if they ever existed.
http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2015/0804/20150804_rteradio1-theraydarcyshow-kateoconne_c20824509_20824523_232_drm_.mp3

galljga1

Two Sheds wrote: »

Those days are gone .... if they ever existed.
http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2015/0804/20150804_rteradio1-theraydarcyshow-kateoconne_c20824509_20824523_232_drm_.mp3

So you want me to listen to 30 mins of Ray Darcy. No thanks.
Please make your point.

Two Sheds

eviltwin wrote: »

It's not censorship, it's using the media for the purpose it was intended. Sure where would it end? Is it the media's role to tell me about the fundamentals of skin cancer or what obesity does to my insides or how alcohol is pickling my liver? There are enough pro life personalities and publications that can 'inform' us if they want to. It won't stop women having abortions though.

Too much information is bad ....especially for women.