Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Bredabe

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What is the problem with anti abortion organizations promoting non abortion options for women in unplanned pregnancies? Obviously I’m not in favor of fraudulent websites claiming to be myoptions like in the above article.

It seems kind of fascistic that you think the government ought to crack down on “rogue agencies” as you call them which are basically just crisis preg organizations that don’t believe in the governments preferred solution here.

My options show all options for an unplanned pregnancy, the difference in my eyes is that my options give medical facts, the alternative or deliberately frightening misinformation from those other places.

My problem with them standing outside the dr's office is three fold. 1/ They are in the way of ppl going in. 2/ The signs are provocative and promote lies 3/ They are meant to be and indeed are, intimidating to some people, lots of ppl even when certain of their decision, would find having a group of ppl standing in their way and holding signs saying those things, are off putting as they are indeed intended to be. Its just the way some women are and these ppl are using that against them when they are at their lowest.
Also given the reports of violets and intimidation from the anti choice organisations in the west every time this issue has come to the fore, some ppl are in fear of ppl from those organisations once they show they are.

Sean.3516

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

When their "advice" does not include all possible they are not acting in the best interests of the women who contact them.

btw did we ever get to the bottom of what the 3516 refers to? I'm still convinced it refers to the verse in Numbers but you will probably deny that again. You can never accuse the anti abortion crowd of being subtle.

What is in the best interest of the woman is different for people who aren’t in favor of abortion than the people who are. Their moral premises are different. Why should their views on the best way forward for these women be silenced?

Bredabe

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What is in the best interest of the woman is different for people who aren’t in favor of abortion than the people who are. Their moral premises are different. Why should their views on the best way forward for these women be silenced?

Its been proven time and again that these agencies are telling lies and misleading woman about their options and the effects of their choices.
That to my view is NOT giving woman all their options for their situation.

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What is in the best interest of the woman is different for people who aren’t in favor of abortion than the people who are. Their moral premises are different. Why should their views on the best way forward for these women be silenced?

what is in the best interests of the women is not dependent on who is providing the advice. Th moral premises of the people providing the advice is irrelevant. They are either acting in the best interests of the pregnant woman or they are not. And crowds like this are not acting in the best interests of the pregnant woman. They are acting in their own best interests.

Sean.3516

Bredabe wrote: »

My options show all options for an unplanned pregnancy, the difference in my eyes is that my options give medical facts, the alternative or deliberately frightening misinformation from those other places.

My problem with them standing outside the dr's office is three fold. 1/ They are in the way of ppl going in. 2/ The signs are provocative and promote lies 3/ They are meant to be and indeed are, intimidating to some people, lots of ppl even when certain of their decision, would find having a group of ppl standing in their way and holding signs saying those things, are off putting as they are indeed intended to be. Its just the way some women are and these ppl are using that against them when they are at their lowest.
Also given the reports of violets and intimidation from the anti choice organisations in the west every time this issue has come to the fore, some ppl are in fear of ppl from those organisations once they show they are.

We’re they blocking the actual entrance? And if they were was the clinic open that day. I thought I heard it mightn’t have been but I may be wrong.
So what if their signs are provocative? Seriously, why would that be in issue. As protesters their objective is to provoke moral introspection in people’s minds. Also there’s this thing called freedom of speech. Which extends to the written word. And as for lies, we’ll thats open to debate and free speech extends to lies so I think it’s a moot point. They weren’t behaving rambunctiously or in a threatening manner. They were peaceful. They aren’t responsible for someone else’s feelings or mental reaction to them. Have you seen the picture from the Galway protest? It was like 7 people and they were the most unthreatening looking group of human’s I’ve ever seen. The image that pro life protesters are all big bad bearded scary bible thumping brutes is patently untrue

Sean.3516

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is in the best interests of the women is not dependent on who is providing the advice. Th moral premises of the people providing the advice is irrelevant. They are either acting in the best interests of the pregnant woman or they are not. And crowds like this are not acting in the best interests of the pregnant woman. They are acting in their own best interests.

What is your definition of the best interest? I think we ought to define the term

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What is your definition of the best interest? I think we ought to define the term

I have no intentions of playing word games with you. It is the best interests of the pregnant woman that is important, not the moral conscious of bible bashers.

amcalester

Sean.3516 wrote: »

We’re they blocking the actual entrance? And if they were was the clinic open that day. I thought I heard it mightn’t have been but I may be wrong.
So what if their signs are provocative? Seriously, why would that be in issue. As protesters their objective is to provoke moral introspection in people’s minds. Also there’s this thing called freedom of speech. Which extends to the written word. And as for lies, we’ll thats open to debate and free speech extends to lies so I think it’s a moot point. They weren’t behaving rambunctiously or in a threatening manner. They were peaceful. They aren’t responsible for someone else’s feelings or mental reaction to them. Have you seen the picture from the Galway protest? It was like 7 people and they were the most unthreatening looking group of human’s I’ve ever seen. The image that pro life protesters are all big bad bearded scary bible thumping brutes is patently untrue

Your argument is the same as one child poking near another but saying “not touching you” over and over.

Technically right but still a **** move.

uptherebels

Sean.3516 wrote: »

New to the thread.

Just wondering what people’s thoughts are the protesting that took place outside a GP’s clinic in Galway. Do u think it should be allowed?

I don’t there’a anything remotely coercive or harrasing about a group of people standing there with signs attempting to persuade people not to go through with an elective procedure they disagree with. As far as I can see, they have the right to stand there with signs to the extent they don’t disrupt public order.

If they want to protest then do it outside the dail, you know where it actually might have an effect.
What use is protesting outside an individual gp's aside from trying to intimidate?

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

New to the thread.

Just wondering what people’s thoughts are the protesting that took place outside a GP’s clinic in Galway. Do u think it should be allowed?

I don’t there’a anything remotely coercive or harrasing about a group of people standing there with signs attempting to persuade people not to go through with an elective procedure they disagree with. As far as I can see, they have the right to stand there with signs to the extent they don’t disrupt public order.

in the interests of honesty you are not new to the thread. You posted on it many times before. Some might say you created this account specifically to post on this thread.

uptherebels

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What is in the best interest of the woman is different for people who aren’t in favor of abortion than the people who are. Their moral premises are different. Why should their views on the best way forward for these women be silenced?

Because it is not for them to decide the best way forward, it is the woman's.
They can air their views all they want, just not in a way that seems impartial.

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What is your definition of the best interest? I think we ought to define the term

The woman's best interest is whatever she decides it is, not what someone else decides for her.

What she needs to reach that decision, is accurate and objective information. Not a limited or biased selection of information designed to push her towards what someone else thinks she should do.

amcalester

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Hi Guys,
New to this thread and new to boards.ie. Basically on here to try and develop my views on this a bit. Basically i’m Pro life up to the point where the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy.

I’m completely open to a good, civil debate and perhaps even changing my mind,
Thanks

Sean.3516 wrote: »

New to the thread.

Just wondering what people’s thoughts are the protesting that took place outside a GP’s clinic in Galway. Do u think it should be allowed?

I don’t there’a anything remotely coercive or harrasing about a group of people standing there with signs attempting to persuade people not to go through with an elective procedure they disagree with. As far as I can see, they have the right to stand there with signs to the extent they don’t disrupt public order.

Top post if from months ago.

New to the thread me hole.

Sean.3516

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I have no intentions of playing word games with you. It is the best interests of the pregnant woman that is important, not the moral conscious of bible bashers.

I’m not interested in playing word games. The premise of the pro life argument is that the fetus is a human worthy of equal consideration to the woman. It might be in the woman’s economic interests to have an abortion. But the position of the protesters is that the fetus’s right to life supersedes this interest. Despite the vote last May, this is still a hot button issue with differing opinions. A 66% majority may entitle the govt to introduce abortion but it doesn’t entitle it to declare the pro choice assertions universally axiomatic and to stamp out differing views.

There’s also freedom of speech to take into account when looking at the information these organizations disseminate.

Sean.3516

amcalester wrote: »

Top post if from months ago.

New to the thread me hole.

I hadn’t been here in ten months. I didn’t remember this was the thread I was on.

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’m not interested in playing word games. The premise of the pro life argument is that the fetus is a human worthy of equal consideration to the woman. It might be in the woman’s economic interests to have an abortion. But the position of the protesters is that the fetus’s right to life supersedes this interest. Despite the vote last May, this is still a hot button issue with differing opinions. A 66% majority may entitle the govt to introduce abortion but it doesn’t entitle it to declare the pro choice assertions universally axiomatic and to stamp out differing views.

There’s also freedom of speech to take into account when looking at the these organizations disseminate.

so you are happy to lie to a woman who is experiencing a crisis pregnancy?

Bredabe

Sean.3516 wrote: »

We’re they blocking the actual entrance? And if they were was the clinic open that day. I thought I heard it mightn’t have been but I may be wrong.
So what if their signs are provocative? Seriously, why would that be in issue. As protesters their objective is to provoke moral introspection in people’s minds. Also there’s this thing called freedom of speech. Which extends to the written word. And as for lies, we’ll thats open to debate and free speech extends to lies so I think it’s a moot point. They weren’t behaving rambunctiously or in a threatening manner. They were peaceful. They aren’t responsible for someone else’s feelings or mental reaction to them. Have you seen the picture from the Galway protest? It was like 7 people and they were the most unthreatening looking group of human’s I’ve ever seen. The image that pro life protesters are all big bad bearded scary bible thumping brutes is patently untrue

In the photo I saw there were three ppl standing in front of what I took to be the door, I cant see if its during working hours or not, but im sure what they were doing what would be legal and get publicity. Also, they have max visibility where they are standing in addition to being in the path of ppl going to the other shops, estates and church not to mention the cars parked there.
As for why ppl would be intimidated by the signs? that is a personal thing and while it wouldn't bother me, there are plenty of ppl it would. especially with the reputation for intimidation groups like this have in the city. Its proven that those tactics are intimidating(its why they are used). While you may think they are innocuous, other ppl may not think that way and they are entitled to be in the same situation without being made feel uncomfortable.
I'm well aware of free speech(I had a pro life campaigner in my family most of the year), its a privilege and should not be used to deliberately bate or upset ppl in the common area.

The very fact that you cant grasp the need for sensitivity in situations like that or recognise other ppl's issues, means you and I have nothing else to talk about.
Blessings

Update. A member went into the practice to agressively voice her displeasure to the reception staff.

amcalester

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I hadn’t been here in ten months. I didn’t remember this was the thread I was on.

Lies make baby Jesus cry.

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I hadn’t been here in ten months. I didn’t remember this was the thread I was on.

6 months, not 10. And it was the only thread you had posted on up until 2 weeks ago

Sean.3516

volchitsa wrote: »

The woman's best interest is whatever she decides it is, not what someone else decides for her.

What she needs to reach that decision, is accurate and objective information. Not a limited or biased selection of information designed to push her towards what someone else thinks she should do.

I’m willing to cede she the ground in the best interests thing. Nobody has the right to force an organization to give them information on abortion. It the prerogative of the organization what info they wish to provide.

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’m not interested in playing word games. The premise of the pro life argument is that the fetus is a human worthy of equal consideration to the woman. It might be in the woman’s economic interests to have an abortion. But the position of the protesters is that the fetus’s right to life supersedes this interest. Despite the vote last May, this is still a hot button issue with differing opinions. A 66% majority may entitle the govt to introduce abortion but it doesn’t entitle it to declare the pro choice assertions universally axiomatic and to stamp out differing views.

There’s also freedom of speech to take into account when looking at the information these organizations disseminate.

Nobody says anti choicers can't keep their views, of course they can. What they can't do is try to inflict them on the rest of us by protesting outside places they don't approve of. It used to be cinemas showing sexy films, or chemists selling contraceptives, now it's HSE clinics. Well it's time to fck off out of other people's lives.

Go home and think whatever you like about abortion, but no, you don't have a right to create public disorder or to intimidate people wanting to avail of a legal procedure. That time is done.

Sean.3516

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

6 months, not 10. And it was the only thread you had posted on up until 2 weeks ago

Who cares? Really. Why does it matter? Oh I’m so so sorry. I just searched for “abortion” on the search bar and clicked on the thread with the most recent posts. I forgot I had been here before during the ref campaign. My sincerest apologies for not declaring myself to you properly. Can we continue with the discussion now?

amcalester

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’m willing to cede she the ground in the best interests thing. Nobody has the right to force an organization to give them information on abortion. It the prerogative of the organization what info they wish to provide.

But dishonest to portray themselves as something they are not.

These organizations do not offer impartial advice but do not clearly state this, some women may be duped.

Pretty disgusting behavior and not very christian but then I find that often those who claim to be the most christian act in the most unchristian ways.

Sean.3516

amcalester wrote: »

Your argument is the same as one child poking near another but saying “not touching you” over and over.

Technically right but still a **** move.

The legal technicality is the sticking point. Are they allowed to do it? Personally I don’t think it’s the most thing efficacious for the pro life mvmt to take this route but the fact is that protests like these will happen more and more in the future.

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Who cares? Really. Why does it matter? Oh I’m so so sorry. I just searched for “abortion” on the search bar and clicked on the thread with the most recent posts. I forgot I had been here before during the ref campaign. My sincerest apologies for not declaring myself to you properly. Can we continue with the now?

You dont really have anything to say that i, and i imagine most here, want to read.

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’m willing to cede she the ground in the best interests thing. Nobody has the right to force an organization to give them information on abortion. It the prerogative of the organization what info they wish to provide.

No, an organisation claiming to provide information for crisis pregnancies should be legally obliged to provide information on all the legal options, not just the options they want the woman to take.

Should an organisation that supplies babies for adoption be allowed to provide a crisis pregnancy helpline that actively pushes women to put their babies up for adoption and provides no information about other choices (and especially no information about their own pro-adoption agenda)?

uptherebels

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The legal technicality is the sticking point. Are they allowed to do it? Personally I don’t think it’s the most thing efficacious for the pro life mvmt to take this route but the fact is that protests like these will happen more and more in the future.

Not for long

Sean.3516

amcalester wrote: »

But dishonest to portray themselves as something they are not.

These organizations do not offer impartial advice but do not clearly state this, some women may be duped.

Pretty disgusting behavior and not very christian but then I find that often those who claim to be the most christian act in the most unchristian ways.

Exactly they don’t offer impartial advice. They don’t promote the solutions they disagree with. And why should they be forced to if they don’t agree with them.

How is it unchristian to try and steer people away from abortion which is definitonally unchristian.

uptherebels

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Who cares? Really. Why does it matter? Oh I’m so so sorry. I just searched for “abortion” on the search bar and clicked on the thread with the most recent posts. I forgot I had been here before during the ref campaign. My sincerest apologies for not declaring myself to you properly. Can we continue with the discussion now?

Lets just say people from a certain side like to be "economical" with the truth.

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Exactly they don’t offer impartial advice. They don’t promote the solutions they disagree with. And why should they be forced to if they don’t agree with them.

How is it unchristian to try and steer people away from abortion which is definitonally unchristian.

So they are not acting in the best interests of the pregnant woman. If they wanted to help her they would provide her with all the information and let her decide what is best for herself. But they dont care what is best for the pregnant woman. Which is decidedly unchristian to me.