Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

the headbanger wrote: »

I've pretty much said all I have to on the topic now in any event. My proposition that pro abortion messaging of any sort does not belong near schools is not really accepted by those who have replied

The upshot of what you say is that POSTERS of any kind promoting the argument of either side of the debate referring to the issue of keeping or deleting the 8th amendment should NOT be put up near any school that has children as pupils. Would I be correct in that assumption?

Mark Hamill

the headbanger wrote: »

Let me be clear so. What I am discussing is pro abortion posters of any sort near a school.

I have never seen any pro abortion posters - anywhere. You need to give a specific example of what you are talking about.

recedite

the headbanger wrote: »

I've pretty much said all I have to on the topic now in any event. My proposition that pro abortion messaging of any sort does not belong near schools is not really accepted by those who have replied

I think you have a point, but you would have to modify it a bit for balance and say that no abortion posters (pro or anti) should be allowed within x Km of a school.
People campaigned along those lines to have a ban on fast food outlets springing up near schools, and have had success recently at county council level in some parts of the country. County councils can sometimes impose by-laws for this kind of thing.
Obviously it would be better to have some sort of national standard though.

kylith

the headbanger wrote: »

Let me be clear so. What I am discussing is pro abortion posters of any sort near a school. That's what I regard as offensive; the wider rubric of pro abortion posters, not the formulation of words found in specific posters. So my own view is that the information you are looking for isn't relevant to the argument I am making

Do you think that the poster oldrnwisr put up would be appropriate to have near a school?

Would I be justified in defacing that poster, since I disagree with it?

I still get flashbacks to the graphic images displayed by the anti-choice crowd on College Green when I was a child, just so you know. IMO the ones scarring children with posters are not the pro-choice side.

looksee

Mod: The headbanger has been banned from the forum for an abusive and now deleted post. There is no point trying to communicate with him.

aloyisious

This article about Catherine Zappone popped up on my screen as breaking news.... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjk9PaB-5PWAhVpB8AKHY1xBDwQFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fzappone-repeats-call-for-repeal-of-eighth-amendment-1.3213278&usg=AFQjCNHz_gMXEQycnlq_qJ30y0DiSBFBog

It mention's this is a repeat of a call that Catherine has made for a repeal of the 8th. I Found occasions on July 11th [RTE News at One and Broadsheet] and on Oct 16th [Independent.ie] when she has spoken about the 8th but can't find mention of her calling for it to be repealed.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

This article about Catherine Zappone popped up on my screen as breaking news.... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjk9PaB-5PWAhVpB8AKHY1xBDwQFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fzappone-repeats-call-for-repeal-of-eighth-amendment-1.3213278&usg=AFQjCNHz_gMXEQycnlq_qJ30y0DiSBFBog

It mention's this is a repeat of a call that Catherine has made for a repeal of the 8th. I Found occasions on July 11th [RTE News at One and Broadsheet] and on Oct 16th [Independent.ie] when she has spoken about the 8th but can't find mention of her calling for it to be repealed.

Didn't have to say it in words:P:

robindch

Tim Jackson, an independent from Donegal, is starting a hunger strike outside the Dail.

https://www.donegalnow.com/news/donegal-man-begins-hunger-strike-outside-dail-calls-taoiseach-watch-abortion-video/185133

Donegal Now wrote:

An independent general election candidate in Donegal in 2016 has started a hunger strike outside the D demanding that Leo Varadkar and the Oireachtas Committee on Abortion watch a video of an abortion at their meeting before discussing a referendum any further. Tim Jackson wrote to Leo Varadkar and Senator Catherine Noone, chairwoman of the committee, last week requesting the group watch footage of the controversial procedure, but did not receive a response.

Jackson, who was 26 when we ran in the last General Election, said: "Our leaders apparently don't want to face the ugly truth of how the child is killed, despite pushing for a repeal of the 8th Amendment. How many of them even care that the remains of the child are incinerated, as if they never existed? There is no outcry over a human being that's killed or denied a grave in this instance; there's actually political support for it. We also have a Minister for Children who has brought her office into disrepute by calling for a repeal which would strip children in the womb of their natural right to life. Choosing which human beings can live and die is unacceptable, and they won't get away with this." Jackson will drink water and says the hunger strike will not be to the point of death. He began this morning carrying a white flag which, he says, "calls for an end to the war on unwanted, unborn babies, 50 million of whom are killed every year."

Jackson polled 3,580 first preference votes in the five-seat Donegal constituency at the last general election and wasn't eliminated until the tenth count. A self-employed marketing consultant. He is a graduate of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth and has done aid work in Syria, the Central African Republic and India.

Below is the letter that he emailed to An Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and Senator Catherine Noone:

Tim Jackson wrote:

I am very disappointed that your government seems intent on having a referendum to decide which human beings can be legally killed in the womb. I am therefore calling on An Taoiseach and the Oireachtas Committee on Abortion to first watch a video of how children are killed in the womb, before any discussion of whether we should vote on their lives.

Such a vote would be the single worst policy-decision ever made by an Irish government, turning ballot papers into death permits. Democratic votes do not extend to robbing humans of fundamental rights. We would never consider legalising such evils as rape, and neither should we consider further legalising the murder of human beings in the womb.

If An Taoiseach and the committee refuse to view an abortion before proceeding further with deliberations, I can only assume you wish to be willfully ignorant of the barbarity of the procedure and what Irish children will suffer. If you do not reply within three days agreeing to this reasonable request, I will take proportionate, peaceful action to rectify the situation.

Sincerely,

Tim Jackson

aloyisious

Ta robindch.... I saw a group, incl a person in a wheelchair, on Kildare St near the library with a "Feotus In The Womb" image and "Stop The Killing" posters on the railings, wondered whom they were and if the protest was in any way related to disabled people reportedly being a groupage under threat by abortion. I don't know if Tim Jackson has broken with Youth Defence [he's listed - via google-search - as a member of YD] and expect that that group, despite the hunger-strike risk to his health, would see his intent as beneficial to protecting the 8th from deletion by the citizens and further the health of the unborn.

CabanSail

I had a very strange phone conversation with Youth Defence back in 2006. It was when they were running a campaign against Stem Cell Research. They had a poster with a baby on it and the words "Don't use me for Spare Parts" which I thought was completely inaccurate and unduly emotional. What I thought was going to be a 5 minute call to register my disapproval turned into a half hour "discussion" with a colleague listening in and almost rolling on the floor laughing.
The jist of it was I did not like them using a baby on the poster, as nobody was going to use a child like that for spare parts. The woman I was speaking to informed me they used a baby as that is what an embryo turns into. I made the point that embryos also turn into cranky old men, why not use one of them? That was deflected into if I supported murdering babies for research but I once again said no baby was in danger only embryos. Then it went to (her) fact that an embryo is a potential human and as such should have ALL the rights of person (this is where it turned weird) I clarified that all embryos have full rights from the moment of conception, she said they do. I then asked if she thought that having a funeral was a right which a person should have, she said it definitely was. I did point out that the huge majority of embryos which "die" are not due to abortion but through natural causes, like a failure to implant. The woman would not be even aware it existed and it would be discharged with the normal menstrual flow. However if her case was correct then every sexually active woman would need to collect her monthly discharge and give it a funeral as it could potentially have a person in it. She told me that was the sickest thing she had ever heard. I had to point out that this was not my policy but rather a logical conclusion of her own position.

realitykeeper

I am opposed to abortion so I will vote No. In the very rear cases, where the mother`s life is in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated then she should have the right to refuse (or give permission) to doctors to terminate the pregnancy and the doctors could then remove the child but they should not be allowed to murder it. On the contrary, they should have the legal duty to attempt to save the child. In other words, abortion should never be permitted in any circumstance.

Regardless of how likely such a termination is to result in the death of the child, this is not abortion since the purpose of the termination is not to kill the child but to save the mother and then save the child if it survives the termination.

PopePalpatine

realitykeeper wrote: »

I am opposed to abortion so I will vote No. In the very rear cases, where the mother`s life is in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated then she should have the right to refuse (or give permission) to doctors to terminate the pregnancy and the doctors should then have the legal obligation to remove the child but not to murder it. On the contrary, they should have the legal duty to attempt to save the child. In other words, abortion should never be permitted in any circumstance.

Regardless of how likely such a termination is to result in the death of the child, this is not abortion since the purpose of the termination is not to kill the child but to save the mother and then the child if it survives the termination.

You keep using that word "abortion", but the people at Merriam-Webster don't think it means what you think it means:

The termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus:
a :spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage
b :induced expulsion of a human fetus

aloyisious

realitykeeper wrote: »

I am opposed to abortion so I will vote No. In the very rear cases, where the mother`s life is in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated then she should have the right to refuse (or give permission) to doctors to terminate the pregnancy and the doctors could then remove the child but they should not be allowed to murder it. On the contrary, they should have the legal duty to attempt to save the child. In other words, abortion should never be permitted in any circumstance.

Regardless of how likely such a termination is to result in the death of the child, this is not abortion since the purpose of the termination is not to kill the child but to save the mother and then save the child if it survives the termination.

By "child" do you mean really mean feotus/unborn? Your recognition of the fact that the feotus/unborn may not survive the life-saving termination operation performed on the woman is praiseworthy in its recognition of the operation's main purpose, the saving of the woman's life. Some people from the NO side don't seem to accept that fact, preferring the wording of the 8th on equality between both woman and feotus to the nth degree.

BTW, does anyone know if Tim Jackson is still going ahead with his action? There was no one camped outside the Dail this evening.

rainbow kirby

realitykeeper wrote: »

I am opposed to abortion so I will vote No. In the very rear cases, where the mother`s life is in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated then she should have the right to refuse (or give permission) to doctors to terminate the pregnancy and the doctors could then remove the child but they should not be allowed to murder it. On the contrary, they should have the legal duty to attempt to save the child. In other words, abortion should never be permitted in any circumstance.

Regardless of how likely such a termination is to result in the death of the child, this is not abortion since the purpose of the termination is not to kill the child but to save the mother and then save the child if it survives the termination.

Some Olympic-level mental gymnastics going on here.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Tim Jackson, an independent from Donegal, is starting a hunger strike outside the Dail.

He got 3,500 votes - not at all bad - but oddly enough forgot to mention the a-word even once in his election literature:

https://irishelectionliterature.com/tag/tim-jackson/

Wonder how many other YD "sleeper agents" there are about the place playing schtum and trying to fool the electorate about their real reasons for seeking power?

Jackson will drink water and says the hunger strike will not be to the point of death.

What's the point?

Hotblack Desiato

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Some Olympic-level mental gymnastics going on here.

Q. When is abortion not abortion?

A. When a catholic doctor says it's OK.


Edit: Didn't take Katie Ascough long...

UCDSU president defends dropping abortion information from freshers' guide

Legal advice, blah de blah, which oddly enough was either never sought before or gave a different answer before.
The only person who can provide a definitive 'legal opinion' is a judge!
Just mention 'J1' and students lose their shit :rolleyes:
Back in my day it was injunctions and contempt of court and SPUC seeking people to be jailed for displaying phone numbers. A bit more skin in the game than possibly not being able to go on a jolly to the states.

MrPudding

realitykeeper wrote: »

I am opposed to abortion so I will vote No. In the very rear cases, where the mother`s life is in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated then she should have the right to refuse (or give permission) to doctors to terminate the pregnancy and the doctors could then remove the child but they should not be allowed to murder it. On the contrary, they should have the legal duty to attempt to save the child. In other words, abortion should never be permitted in any circumstance.

Regardless of how likely such a termination is to result in the death of the child, this is not abortion since the purpose of the termination is not to kill the child but to save the mother and then save the child if it survives the termination.

What the despicable organisation that is the RCC thinks about something is irrelevant to reality. The purpose, or the purported purpose of the termination is not relevant. There is a term in law called oblique intention. Oblique Intention states that where you carry out an act and you know that a particular consequence is virtually certain to occur, and that consequence does occur, then you intended that consequence.

You can dress it up anyway to like, but a rose by any other name...

MrP

realitykeeper

MrPudding wrote: »

What the despicable organisation that is the RCC thinks about something is irrelevant to reality. The purpose, or the purported purpose of the termination is not relevant. There is a term in law called oblique intention. Oblique Intention states that where you carry out an act and you know that a particular consequence is virtually certain to occur, and that consequence does occur, then you intended that consequence.

You can dress it up anyway to like, but a rose by any other name...

MrP

It seems to me that the pro death lobby are not satisfied with the mere slaughter of the innocents. Nothing short of the destruction of God`s Holy Catholic Church will satisfy them. Is that what is really going on here? If the intention is to save the Mother`s life and that outcome then happens, surely that is a good thing. Mind you, there have been cases in the past where Mothers have died so that their child might live. That is love.

MrPudding

realitykeeper wrote: »

It seems to me that the pro death lobby are not satisfied with the mere slaughter of the innocents. Nothing short of the destruction of God`s Holy Catholic Church will satisfy them. Is that what is really going on here?

God's Holy Catholic Church is actually evidence of the non-existence of your god. If god did actually exist then there is no way it would allow the continued existence of that despicable organisation.

Your god would not allow an organisation responsible for the rape and abuse of countless children, as well as the deaths of untold numbers of people in the developing world because of its idiotic and, quite frankly, criminally negligent teachings on contraception, to continue to exist and claim to be its spokesperson on earth.

Unfortunately for the human race, i think your despicable organisation will be around for a while, but I for one would not mourn its demise.

MrP

looksee

realitykeeper wrote: »

It seems to me that the pro death lobby are not satisfied with the mere slaughter of the innocents. Nothing short of the destruction of God`s Holy Catholic Church will satisfy them. Is that what is really going on here? If the intention is to save the Mother`s life and that outcome then happens, surely that is a good thing. Mind you, there have been cases in the past where Mothers have died so that their child might live. That is love.

I am struggling to see the connection between the bolded two sentences. God's Holy Catholic Church has been responsible for the deaths of uncountable people throughout history. It appears that provided they once get to be born, it doesn't matter what happens then?

In passing, that is just the kind of hyperbolic, twisted language that causes non-Catholics to lose patience with religion. I would estimate the vast majority of atheists don't give a damn whether the RC church survives or not, provided it does not try to interfere with those people who are not interested and have no respect for it.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

murder

realitykeeper wrote: »

pro death lobby

Well I would use the old cliche of "The mask is slipping" but to your credit you did not even bother to don one. As soon as we see abortion being called murder, or the people campaigning for choice in abortion being called things like "pro death" or "pro aborts" and so on......... then we know pretty much instantly we are not dealing with an honest interlocutor open to rational discourse on the topic.

I do not see abortion, at the stages the VAST majority of abortions occur, as even remotely qualifying for the term "murder". Further you will find that most pro-choice campaigners are actually anti-abortion in that they usually support every initiative going on reducing the demand for abortion.

Be it better or more available or cheaper contraception. Better and more importantly EARLIER sexual education in schools. Better and more comprehensive and widely understood support for single parents and people who feel abortion, which they do not want, is the only choice for them and so on.

Yet is it not strange how often we see people against abortion who are also against the very things we campaign for to reduce the need for abortion? Contraception was pretty much frowned upon in catholic circles for some time for example. Sexual education is often resisted, usually under the very weird and baseless guide of "protecting childhood innocence". And actually dispensing advice and information on family planning choices that include not just abortion but their alternatives is something many people seem to take issue with in my experience at least.

The idea that pro choice people are not ALSO anti abortion and pro life is an idea that is generally invented by people, like yourself, who leap to extremists and inaccurate labels rather than rational discourse or arguments. But by all means do not let me stop you......... I am as happy for you to poe the anti choice lobby as the next man. I ENJOY it when the anti abortion speaker has nothing but labels to cling to and can not string an actual anti abortion argument together. So the more posts of this ilk you supply us with, the better I feel.

Delirium

realitykeeper wrote: »

It seems to me that the pro death lobby are not satisfied with the mere slaughter of the innocents. Nothing short of the destruction of God`s Holy Catholic Church will satisfy them. Is that what is really going on here? If the intention is to save the Mother`s life and that outcome then happens, surely that is a good thing. Mind you, there have been cases in the past where Mothers have died so that their child might live. That is love.

I'm guessing 'realitykeeper' is meant to taken as ironic based on that hyperbole.:P

How exactly is someone who thinks that abortion should be available for fatal foetal abnormalities to be viewed as part of the 'pro death' lobby?

gctest50

realitykeeper wrote: »

It seems to me that the pro death lobby are not satisfied with the mere slaughter of the innocents. Nothing short of the destruction of God`s Holy Catholic Church will satisfy them. Is that what is really going on here? ...........

realitykeeper wrote: »

......

God`s Holy Catholic Church

The one that's only been around two wet days so to speak ?

Cos there was no money in the others ?

aloyisious

realitykeeper wrote: »

It seems to me that the pro death lobby are not satisfied with the mere slaughter of the innocents. Nothing short of the destruction of God`s Holy Catholic Church will satisfy them. Is that what is really going on here? If the intention is to save the Mother`s life and that outcome then happens, surely that is a good thing. Mind you, there have been cases in the past where Mothers have died so that their child might live. That is love.

One thing that is relevant to your posts/point of view is: did you come to your conclusions from looking at the issue of abortion solely as a stand-alone medical issue or were your above conclusions reached through information from religious sources?

The issue of abortion has nothing to do with the destruction of what you call GHCC whatsoever. That. IMO, is a totally false thing to introduce into the debate about abortion so I won't follow you down that rabbit-hole.

If you choose to run your life by strictures put to you by your GHCC, that is your choice. That choice doesn't entitle you, nor your GHCC, to run the lives and choose the path of your fellow citizens and the civil laws of our country according to your chosen path, and not theirs. That is simply dictat. I don't agree with your apparent opinion it is ok to have religious dictat rule over the civil laws and rights of your fellow citizens.

Cutting to the chase, the issue of an abortion is what you said previously, the saving of the mother's life first, and that of the newly born [if alive] baby's life secondly.

realitykeeper

looksee wrote: »

I am struggling to see the connection between the bolded two sentences.

I was replying to a previous post. If you refer back to that you will see the connection.

realitykeeper

aloyisious wrote: »

One thing that is relevant to your posts/point of view is: did you come to your conclusions from looking at the issue of abortion solely as a stand-alone medical issue or were your above conclusions reached through information from religious sources?

I made no mention of religion until a previous poster responded to one of my posts with a gratuitous attack on the Catholic Church for no apparent reason.

frag420

realitykeeper wrote: »

I made no mention of religion until a previous poster responded to one of my posts with a gratuitous attack on the Catholic Church for no apparent reason.

Well considering they are full of love for the unborn but happy to cover up the systematic abuse of actual living children and shield the abusers from prosecution I think they are worthy of a gratuitous attack as are those that agree with them!!

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Edit: Didn't take Katie Ascough long...

UCDSU president defends dropping abortion information from freshers' guide

Legal advice, blah de blah, which oddly enough was either never sought before or gave a different answer before.

To quote a p.ie poster,

She also appears to have thought it was a good idea spending eight grand reprinting leaflets in order to avoid a maximum fine of less than half that.

looksee

realitykeeper wrote: »

I was replying to a previous post. If you refer back to that you will see the connection.

Checked it. Nope.

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

To quote a p.ie poster,

Her reference to the legal advisor has left me wondering what the advisor's advice to her predecessor was on the issue and why is there a sudden necessity to change tack on publication contents.