Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

MrPudding

Delirium wrote: »

Irish Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (an anti-abortion group) have been cautioned by Kilkenny Gardai after complaints from the public.



Source (press release from ICBR regarding caution)

FYI, there's photo on the top of the page of the group with one of their foetal images on a banner for those that would rather avoid the pic.

Just spent the last 10 minutes googling, and can't find any reference to their success against Sussex police, apart form on their own website/facebook and other other pro-life sites.

Has anyone heard of this victory?

MrP

Delirium

MrPudding wrote: »

Just spent the last 10 minutes googling, and can't find any reference to their success against Sussex police, apart form on their own website/facebook and other other pro-life sites.

Has anyone heard of this victory?

MrP

I presume this report (on a anti-abortion site) is the case they're referring to.

recedite

Delirium wrote: »

Irish Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (an anti-abortion group) have been cautioned by Kilkenny Gardai after complaints from the public.
Source (press release from ICBR regarding caution)

A caution is when a minor offence has been committed, but the Garda has decided not to prosecute.
In this case the Garda sergeant only invited the protesters to explain themselves, which they appear to have done very well, by drawing attention to the Sussex police case. I'd be very surprised if the sergeant takes it any further, in which case the complaint against them will be considered spurious.
Its a clear freedom of speech issue.

MrPudding

aloyisious wrote: »

It looks [to me] like the Centre is not wholly an Irish group and might be an off-shoot of a larger body or umbrella organisation. It's statement is worded and reads like something issued by a multinational group, something from across the waters.

The link Delirium posted mentions CBR-UK and CBR-US

Delirium wrote: »

I presume this report (on a anti-abortion site) is the case they're referring to.

Ah, ok. Apparently it was £40,000 not £400,000. I would still like to read a report of the case that wasn't drafted by the pro-life people and perhaps appeared on a site a little more balanced...

MrP

PopePalpatine

aloyisious wrote: »

It looks [to me] like the Centre is not wholly an Irish group and might be an off-shoot of a larger body or umbrella organisation. It's statement is worded and reads like something issued by a multinational group, something from across the waters.

Yeah, there's a whiff of overpriced pizza off of this crowd.

aloyisious

F/B has a page {maybe that's the wrong word] titled "Repeal the 8th funding" claiming that the The Abortion Rights Campaign Ireland are receiving funds from abroad from a group called Repeal the 8th London a UK based organisation. The page claims that the "repeal the 8th lobby" is also being funded by a US funded lobby group, with George Soros being involved. It seem's the "name the secret funder" game is on again, this time allegedly revealed in documents leaked by DC leaks.... It may be the intent to infer that the leak source is in the US Capital city.

Incidentally the group making the claim are looking for funding and [in the link below] alleges that the repeal the 8th lobby get well paid.

Link to the source making the claims is.... https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.repealthe8thfunding.com%2F&h=ATPTlNO7TgiBiId-SFS8o6hZDxUAiRVNWK78Ql6njKopdrCPLjlbz_O3d5lG2yUljYDwGDCKiUUXipafV8vvUIWKZbYfUrJN3SNH4O0DIn6xkcz3WxwFmiTftrSDDwDR-PckV6b8930M8jhOpTc2HQsfFfN4YgrLRA3NgodiFNDxN6KR2RDEFF6cYJL7MXM5zxHn-pXStChZD3hOA3zYsObT1N0eTZWd4aQmsNTrMgFx6ZWkOttbf0pRKwsRASA9CgE-TwVXNrXDjc_CjlgJXgNEH4_uEVsjupLkecNTy2ViQgdQy3inx-0gyg43j2XBP_3Eck_nYMwZql4DXAOf1xj6EcybS3C9LGXdTxIe3pLLIe5pIOlgbWiazk-4_ADr0YjA1KRVwS1iwsxXTF7VuJ6RrxiO6SLTJ8Yt8hwjqIYBf9Doq9GWe4x8CHPVxKuZvT8HMcKkIu--mCKaQyY0EqvKBVPu7XpyKM6MltD0XOLyzGjYVRwJOBFsuMUR5pJKM_7B0hvTIwenzrQCRvZyeEiDns1tnYdSXspPtI0_VxQbBqm0vZS2rjaWkYU

Loafing Oaf

A spate of deeply stupid letters to the papers over the past week criticising Varadkar for not defending our abortion laws in the face of Trudeau's criticisms. Are these people unaware that Leo is on the record as saying the 8th Amendment is too restrictive and should be replaced? Why should he be expected to stick up for an Irish law he doesn't agree with just because he's visiting another country? Would this crowd have expected him to defend Ireland's criminalisation of gay sex if he was visiting Canada 25 years ago? I suspect some of them would...

recedite

Maybe those people thought they were getting a blueshirt :pac:
Anyway, we'll see what his attitude is to various things over the next few years. I'm guessing that Trudeau cleared it with Varadkar before making the critical comments. Maybe even did it as a favour to Varadkar, to make his position stronger (that we need a referendum).

aloyisious

I got a Love Both leaflet on protecting the 8th in the letterbox. It has some well worded reading. One para reads: An independently produced actuarial report compared the number of irish women who travel abroad to avail of abortion, to abortion rates in other EU countries. It concluded that at least 100,000 have been saved from abortion by the 8th amendment in the past two decades.*

The para is asterisked and is based on an Irish Times report about a group claiming that the 8th saved the A/M number, a [unless the group is Love Both] third party reference, a quote about a quote in a newspaper report.

I note that the reference to irish women is present-tense and the reference to abortion rates is to EU countries, not the usual UK one, which means a greater number of abortions as against a single nation [Ireland] so the percentage ratio is greatly increased.

The asterisked link below it on the leaflet is *www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/eight-amentment-has-saved-100-000-lives-group-claims-1.2783045. I googled the link and arrived at today's online issue of todays Irish Times.

Delirium

Crisis pregnancy agency avoids telling women it opposes abortion

A crisis pregnancy agency funded by the Catholic Church is flouting HSE rules by hiding from women its opposition to abortion.

The health service will not be taking any action against Cura even though the advertising breaches its guidelines. The HSE said that it believed women who wanted an abortion who went to Cura would be referred elsewhere.

The Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference has defended its use of public money for the anti-abortion agency. Cura, which uses HSE funding, claims in its adverts to be a non-judgmental crisis pregnancy counselling agency. It is “informed by the values of the Catholic Church” but does not say that it is opposed to abortion, receives religious funding and will not offer advice to women who want to travel to terminate their pregnancies.

It regularly runs adverts on Dublin Bus and Luas services as well as at university campuses. It also runs an awareness programme in schools.

Full Article

PopePalpatine

#JustLegatusLackeyThings:

aloyisious

PopePalpatine wrote: »

#JustLegatusLackeyThings:

Reading the above one might, just might, jump to conclusions as to what Seanie may have thought [back in 2013] about the other defence available in chemists against the results of sleeping around and the likely consequences of using them for protection. I couldn't comment publicly on any such conclusions.


Bearing in mind that I have no idea as to whom Seánie Ó Domhnaill is in actual life, similarly I won't speculate publicly about him.

The debate on the medicine, and it's alleged side-effects, seem's to be continuing here, according to RTE's "what it say's in the papers" today.

the headbanger

I've taken things into my own hands. I have taken to defacing these so called "pro choice" (I beg to call it something else) signs around my neighborhood.

Whatever about the ins and outs of the wider debate I find it horrifying to find suburban streets splattered with these signs. It's what I really hate about the pro abortion movement; they present their argument (that abortion should be liberalized) as self evident truth, when it's not.

aloyisious

the headbanger wrote: »

I've taken things into my own hands. I have taken to defacing these so called "pro choice" (I beg to call it something else) signs around my neighborhood.

Whatever about the ins and outs of the wider debate I find it horrifying to find suburban streets splattered with these signs. It's what I really hate about the pro abortion movement; they present their argument (that abortion should be liberalized) as self evident truth, when it's not.

Interesting... Just in passing, would you have a similar view toward altering signage put up by the other side of the debate in suburban streets?

Do you believe the proposal of the Pro Choice side of the debate, that women, not the church, not the state, be allowed to decide the future of their pregnancies, is wrong and should not be allowed?

the headbanger

aloyisious wrote: »

Interesting... Just in passing, would you have a similar view toward altering signage put up by the other side of the debate in suburban streets?

No I wouldn't and here's why.

I'm my view abortion is nothing more than murder. So signs calling for liberal abortion laws are deeply offensive to me. With respect I don't think the same can be said about signs that plead with people to not kill babies.

aloyisious

the headbanger wrote: »

No I wouldn't and here's why.

I'm my view abortion is nothing more than murder. So signs calling for liberal abortion laws are deeply offensive to me. With respect I don't think the same can be said about signs that plead with people to not kill babies.

That would seem to preclude any debating on the issue of abortion, despite this [whatever about the ins and outs of the wider debate] being your earlier post.

Is it your preference that the debate should be limited to the issue of signage only, because some people believe signage used by the anti-abortion side of the debate to be offensive?

Please note my deletion of the word erection and substitution of it with the word issue in the sentence above.....

the headbanger

aloyisious wrote: »

That would seem to preclude any debating on the issue of abortion, despite this [whatever about the ins and outs of the wider debate] being your earlier post.

Is it your preference that the debate should be limited to the erection of signage only, because some people believe signage used by the anti-abortion side of the debate to be offensive?

Two points:

1. Offensive signage should not be erected. Abortion signage is deeply offensive - I am looking out a window now and can see a pro choice rally sign and a school within my view.

2. Even if you can make out an argument for abortion, signs deprecating abortion are not offensive to the same degree to those that disagree with the message. In a world without abortion, feminists, nosely millennials and liberals are left upset, but not murdered. The innocent babies on the other hand are brutally murdered

Delirium

the headbanger wrote: »

Two points:

1. Offensive signage should not be erected. Abortion signage is deeply offensive - I am looking out a window now and can see a pro choice rally sign and a school within my view.

2. Even if you can make out an argument for abortion, signs deprecating abortion are not offensive to the same degree to those that disagree with the message. In a world without abortion, feminists, nosely millennials and liberals are left upset, but not murdered. The innocent babies on the other hand are brutally murdered

A world without abortion doesn't exist. That's why even with our extremely restrictive laws we have clauses for when the pregnant persons life is in danger.

the headbanger

Delirium wrote: »

A world without abortion doesn't exist. That's why even with our extremely restrictive laws we have clauses for when the pregnant persons life is in danger.

Yes. That's correct. Doesn't cut against anything I have said though.

aloyisious

the headbanger wrote: »

Two points:

1. Offensive signage should not be erected. Abortion signage is deeply offensive - I am looking out a window now and can see a pro choice rally sign and a school within my view.

2. Even if you can make out an argument for abortion, signs deprecating abortion are not offensive to the same degree to those that disagree with the message. In a world without abortion, feminists, nosely millennials and liberals are left upset, but not murdered. The innocent babies on the other hand are brutally murdered

Could I take it that if some-one from the anti-abortion side of the debate were to put up a sign deprecating abortion [along the lines of anti-abortion signage bearing the image of what some on the anti-abortion side of the debate claim is an aborted baby] near or in place of the pro-choice sign you mentioned as being visible from your window,that you would not find it offensive, seeing as the sign would be near the school you mentioned?

Would you think that such an image-bearing anti-abortion sign would be very inappropriate to put up near a school, as distinct from a worded sign from the Pro-choice side of the debate, if it is a given that children would be attending the school? [I am assuming you do mean a educational building for the teaching of children]....

the headbanger

aloyisious wrote: »

Could I take it that if some-one from the anti-abortion side of the debate were to put up a sign deprecating abortion [along the lines of anti-abortion signage bearing the image of what some on the anti-abortion side of the debate claim is an aborted baby] near or in place of the pro-choice sign you mentioned as being visible from your window,that you would not find it offensive, seeing as the sign would be near the school you mentioned?

Would you think that such an image-bearing anti-abortion sign would be very inappropriate to put up near a school, as distinct from a worded sign from the Pro-choice side of the debate, if it is a given that children would be attending the school? [I am assuming you do mean a educational building for the teaching of children]....

I haven't actually seen any such sign near a school to be honest so it's really a hypothetical problem.

But I guess if a pro abortion person was concerned by its presence near a school (consisting, by the way, of children that have mercifully avoided the faith that she might have visited on them) she could go out and deface that sign too.

Do you think we should remove the photos of lung cancer from cigarette packets?

looksee

Defacing signs seems like a childish way to express your opinion, either way. Get some signs of your own printed and put them up, complain to the council about littering, have a public meeting to see what local opinion is, all much more constructive than scribbling on something you don't like.

aloyisious

the headbanger wrote: »

I haven't actually seen any such sign near a school to be honest so it's really a hypothetical problem.

But I guess if a pro abortion person was concerned by its presence near a school (consisting, by the way, of children that have mercifully avoided the faith that she might have visited on them) she could go out and deface that sign too.

Do you think we should remove the photos of lung cancer from cigarette packets?

I actually haven't seen a Pro-choice sign near a school either but would still have a POV on such an item being so located, despite it being [to me] a hypothetical situation. As for defacing signs, that might be an unlawful act which I, naturally, couldn't promote. I would refer them to the local council environment dept as being unsuitable for the location they were erected in.

Re the other version of health-related signage you referred, that seems to be a different issue altogether.

recedite

the headbanger wrote: »

Two points:

1. Offensive signage should not be erected. Abortion signage is deeply offensive - I am looking out a window now and can see a pro choice rally sign and a school within my view.

2. Even if you can make out an argument for abortion, signs deprecating abortion are not offensive to the same degree to those that disagree with the message. In a world without abortion, feminists, nosely millennials and liberals are left upset, but not murdered. The innocent babies on the other hand are brutally murdered

Your argument here is basically that anything which you find offensive should be taken down, and anything which is only offensive to other people should be left up.

And if the law does not agree with you, then you will take the law into your own hands.

Its an argument against free speech.

Instead of thinking this way, you need to accept that it is you that is taking the offence. It is your own reaction. You don't have to take offence, its just how you choose to react to something you see. You need to control that.

the headbanger

looksee wrote: »

Defacing signs seems like a childish way to express your opinion, either way. Get some signs of your own printed and put them up, complain to the council about littering, have a public meeting to see what local opinion is, all much more constructive than scribbling on something you don't like.

Perhaps it would be childish if the contents of the poster in the first place was fair and inoffensive. But in my own opinion the contents are grotesque and don't belong in residential areas. They are deeply hurtful to pro life people. So in that way the signs don't deserve a reasoned response. They are provocative and hideous. So they should be deprecated or taken down.

If on the other hand it was a poster that said "here are four reasons why taxes should be increased" I would agree with you that I shouldn't scribble my opinions on that poster.

I hope I'm making the distinction clear. One is so egregious that it's presence is outrageous and takes it "out" of reasoned discourse. In that way those posters should be cut down

the headbanger

recedite wrote: »

Your argument here is basically that anything which you find offensive should be taken down, and anything which is only offensive to other people should be left up.

And if the law does not agree with you, then you will take the law into your own hands.

Its an argument against free speech.

Instead of thinking this way, you need to accept that it is you that is taking the offence. It is your own reaction. You don't have to take offence, its just how you choose to react to something you see. You need to control that.

That's not an accurate presentation of my argument. I'm not just talking about "me". It's hurtful and disrespectful to all residents and particularly those who send their children to that school. Theyes a time and a place for all speech. And provocative abortion posters don't belong in residential areas or a school

aloyisious

the headbanger wrote: »

Perhaps it would be childish if the contents of the poster in the first place was fair and inoffensive. But in my own opinion the contents are grotesque and don't belong in residential areas. They are deeply hurtful to pro life people. So in that way the signs don't deserve a reasoned response. They are provocative and hideous. So they should be deprecated or taken down.

If on the other hand it was a poster that said "here are four reasons why taxes should be increased" I would agree with you that I shouldn't scribble my opinions on that poster.

I hope I'm making the distinction clear. One is so egregious that it's presence is outrageous and takes it "out" of reasoned discourse. In that way those posters should be cut down

Just out of interest, so we can see if your opinion on the offensiveness of the Pro-choice poster/s you are upset by is, in our opinions, merited, could you provide us a photo or the wording of the poster/s that has caused you such upset. It might tend to sway this part of the debate towards your point of view.

eviltwin

I haven't seen any 'pro abortion' posters, have seen quite a few Repeal the 8th ones for various things but that is not the same as advocating for abortion.

I'd like to see examples of these posters so we can see for ourselves how offensive they are.

Unless they break any laws I think defacing them is childish at best. Do you not believe that in any debate both sides have the right to put forth their position? Do you not think that its gross arrogance to decide that because you personally find the posters message to be offensive that that somehow gives you right to remove that message on behalf of your community? Perhaps you should allow the people in your locality the chance to hear both sides and form their own opinion.

I'd imagine if someone defaced an anti abortion poster you wouldn't appreciate it.

Samaris

I remember seeing a lot of the highly offensive signs around the marriage referendum. Rather than going out defacing signs, I got involved (partly because I agreed with the referendum passing and partly because I was actually outraged at the sheer lies on the posters), went around, talked to people, canvassed, etcetera.

Seems a more productive activity than shinning up poles with a marker.

the headbanger

eviltwin wrote: »

I haven't seen any 'pro abortion' posters, have seen quite a few Repeal the 8th ones for various things but that is not the same as advocating for abortion.

I'd like to see examples of these posters so we can see for ourselves how offensive they are.

Unless they break any laws I think defacing them is childish at best. Do you not believe that in any debate both sides have the right to put forth their position? Do you not think that its gross arrogance to decide that because you personally find the posters message to be offensive that that somehow gives you right to remove that message on behalf of your community? Perhaps you should allow the people in your locality the chance to hear both sides and form their own opinion.

I'd imagine if someone defaced an anti abortion poster you wouldn't appreciate it.

We'll repeal the 8th is a pro abortion stance so let's clear that up.

And what's all this about breaking the law/within the law. I'm talking about right and wrong. You don't win an argument about what is right and wrong by simply pointing at "the law."

I can only repeat again that it is ghastly to post pro abortion posters near schools. I don't propose to repeat that again.

And you are incorrect; I wouldn't really have any view if someone defaced a pro life banner.