Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Sean.3516

volchitsa wrote: »

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)?

I disagree. And I’d cite freedom of speech here. For them to be forced to give specific information is compelled speech. Besides do u think some woman could be duped into thinking she can’t have an abortion when it’s been plastered all over the news that she now can? The goal of these groups is to emphasize the options other than abortion

uptherebels

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.

Because your religious beliefs are yours not theirs

volchitsa

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.

IMO the two problems I would have are: first that they are not open about who they are and what options they are not providing, and secondly that they generally want taxpayers' money to provide these partial services.

Like the "Christian" marriage counselling service that wouldn't counsel same sex couples but was outraged about losing their public funding over that.

As long as they provide their selection of Christian services from their own funds, and they are clearly signposted up as being Christian and not prepared to provide certain services, or services to certain members of the community, then I'm probably OK with them being there.

It's the dishonesty of pretending to be linked to the HSE that I think is wrong and unprincipled.

SusieBlue

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.

It’s not impartial if all options aren’t included. It is pushing a self interested agenda that doesn’t have what might be best for the woman at heart.

And to top it all off, they are designing their website and literature in the same manner as the government information sources (you know, the actual official, impartial guide) in an effort to dupe women into thinking they don’t have a Pro Life agenda.

Its disengeous and misleading and the height of arrogance.
And it’s hilarious that you are justifying this behavior under the guise of ‘free speech’ when they are actually lying and misrepresenting themselves in order to get their ‘free speech’ out in the public domain.

Your religion is yours and yours alone and I should not have my decisions and options limited because of your beliefs.

Sean.3516

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

You ppl don’t seem to get it. Pro lifers believe the fetus should have equal consideration when deciding what to do about an unplanned pregnancy they don’t see abortion as a moral option. And are promoting options that would in their view prevent the killing of an innocent life. If this is your premise going into this arguement then yes you’ll come to different conclusions than a pro choice person and yes you’ll recommend a different solution. Why is it ye can’t accept the right of people to disseminate their views?

SusieBlue

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You ppl don’t seem to get it. Pro lifers believe the fetus should have equal consideration when deciding what to do about an unplanned pregnancy they don’t see abortion as a moral option. And are promoting options that would in their view prevent the killing of an innocent life. If this is your premise going into this arguement then yes you’ll come to different conclusions than a pro choice person and yes you’ll recommend a different solution. Why is it ye can’t accept the right of people to disseminate their views?

Maybe the fact that they are trying to disguise themselves as an impartial support service is the problem? Because they aren’t in fact impartial, they are inherently pro life?

Why can’t you accept that that this isn’t a decision for you to make on behalf of everyone else and such decisions should be left to the owner or the uterus in which the fetus resides in?

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You ppl don’t seem to get it. Pro lifers believe the fetus should have equal consideration when deciding what to do about an unplanned pregnancy they don’t see abortion as a moral option. And are promoting options that would in their view prevent the killing of an innocent life. If this is your premise going into this arguement then yes you’ll come to different conclusions than a pro choice person and yes you’ll recommend a different solution. Why is it ye can’t accept the right of people to disseminate their views?

Should they be allowed to lie about any of this? Pretend they are something they are not?

If not, then what do you think of them copying the official HSE site to fool women into thinking they are on the actual HSE site which is south bound to provide all the options?

Do you have a problem with that or not?

Sean.3516

SusieBlue wrote: »

It’s not impartial if all options aren’t included. It is pushing a self interested agenda that doesn’t have what might be best for the woman at heart.

And to top it all off, they are designing their website and literature in the same manner as the government information sources (you know, the actual official, impartial guide) in an effort to dupe women into thinking they don’t have a Pro Life agenda.

Its disengeous and misleading and the height of arrogance.
And it’s hilarious that you are justifying this behavior under the guise of ‘free speech’ when they are actually lying and misrepresenting themselves in order to get their ‘free speech’ out in the public domain.

Your religion is yours and yours alone and I should not have my decisions and options limited because of your beliefs.

First of all I’ve already said I think it’s wrong for them to impersonate the HSE.

Their agenda is directed towards helping to woman and the foetus. You’re making the assumption that what’s best for the woman has been predetermined. It hasn’t been. What I’m saying is that these groups have the right to assist the woman in coming to that determination and to recommend some options and not others. It will always be the prerogative of the woman to determine what’s best at heart.

You just want to legally force these groups to confirm the biases of pro choice women who have crisis pregnancies.

I don’t think they’re obligated to confirm anyone’s biases because they have freedom of speech. And to whole point of free speech is that it extends to everything. Including that which you and the govt disagree with.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

It seems to me that you are dodging the question about the church and it's understanding of science that you introduced in respect to this topic so I don't know why you introduced it. It's like the church sees science has advanced and as it doesn't like what it sees [even though it understands it] it has decided it should be allowed to limit the science and scientists.

The RCC always use the same strategy.

They start off with a strict biblical literalist position but when the evidence against them becomes overwhelming they soften their position i.e. retreat to the next defensible line of trenches...

Flat earth > Round earth, geocentric universe > Heliocentric universe > Non-heliocentric universe, but still all created especially just for us :rolleyes:

Kill teh gheys > homosexual people are sinful > homosexual acts are sinful > it's ok provided you're a bishop and the scandal doesn't get out.


Same with the pro-life crowd vs. social change. Just within the last 25 years their position has shifted dramatically:

All contraception is abhorrent > MAP is abhorrent > MAP is a good alternative to abortion, which is abhorrent > POLDPA is murder > POLDPA is fine, keep the 8th > Maybe we can look at some changes to the 8th allow abortion in rape and incest (Desperation move in last week of campaign.)

I've no doubt in future they'll be pretending that their position is that abortion on demand up to 12 weeks is fine, but any extension of 12 weeks would be abhorrent, etc.

Same old same old.

Sean.3516

SusieBlue wrote: »

Maybe the fact that they are trying to disguise themselves as an impartial support service is the problem? Because they aren’t in fact impartial, they are inherently pro life?

Why can’t you accept that that this isn’t a decision for you to make on behalf of everyone else and such decisions should be left to the owner or the uterus in which the fetus resides in?

I’ve already said that I think it was wrong for them to copy the HSE website. It was like the first thing I said when I came on I believe. I’m talking about organizations seeking to counsel pregnant women towards options other than abortion. There’s no reason they should be legally obliged to be impartial regardless of whether they claim to be or not. Because they have to right to disseminate whatever info they want.

Hotblack Desiato

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I don’t there’a anything remotely coercive or harrasing about a group of people standing there with signs

Why am I not surprised. You'll never walk in the shoes of a woman who needs an abortion.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I forgot I had been here before during the ref campaign.

Join date June 2018, though... we're all adults in here, I think we can join the dots.

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

First of all I’ve already said I think it’s wrong for them to impersonate the HSE.

So why exactly are you defending them, since that is what they were doing?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Their agenda is directed towards helping to woman and the foetus.

No it isn't, it's directed towards preventing abortions, why can't you be honest about that?

Take an example: say the woman was going to go blind, something like that Polish woman who took Poland to the ECHR, well clearly her best interest is probably to have an abortion - so do you think they would tell her to even consider doing so?
You know they wouldn't. Be honest.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You’re making the assumption that what’s best for the woman has been predetermined. It hasn’t been. What I’m saying is that these groups have the right to assist the woman in coming to that determination and to recommend some options and not others. It will always be the prerogative of the woman to determine what’s best at heart.

So in what circumstances would you expect a Catholic prolife group to recommend that a woman should have an abortion?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You just want to legally force these groups to confirm the biases of pro choice women who have crisis pregnancies.

I don’t think they’re obligated to confirm anyone’s biases because they have freedom of speech. And to whole point of free speech is that it extends to everything. Including that which you and the govt disagree with.

Free speech doesn't mean you get to force other people to listen to you though. That's why they don't have to be able to protest outside clinics.

It only means you don't get arrested for saying something yourself - not that you get to organize public protests to force others to listen.

Hotblack Desiato

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Because they have to right to disseminate whatever info they want.

Including lying to vulnerable women, e.g. claming that abortion causes cancer, mental illness or infertility?

Anything that prevents the "bigger sin" is fine, yeah?

SusieBlue

Sean.3516 wrote: »

First of all I’ve already said I think it’s wrong for them to impersonate the HSE.

Their agenda is directed towards helping to woman and the foetus. You’re making the assumption that what’s best for the woman has been predetermined. It hasn’t been. What I’m saying is that these groups have the right to assist the woman in coming to that determination and to recommend some options and not others. It will always be the prerogative of the woman to determine what’s best at heart.

You just want to legally force these groups to confirm the biases of pro choice women who have crisis pregnancies.

I don’t think they’re obligated to confirm anyone’s biases because they have freedom of speech. And to whole point of free speech is that it extends to everything. Including that which you and the govt disagree with.

Yes but the root of the problem is the fact that they are misleading people with their copycat website.
I know you say you disagree with it too, but their impersonating the HSE is actually what people have a problem with, not with them distributing pro-life crisis pregnancy support.

I personally have no problem at all with a pro-life website offering women pro-life options. I don’t think their freedom of speech to do so should be restricted.
My issue is with them not being clear about their motives and disguising their websites and literature as impartial advice when it absolutely isn’t at all.

It should be clear upon visiting a pregnancy crisis support website whether it is impartial (aka, offers info on ALL options, including abortion) or if it is a Pro-Life viewpoint, in which case it won’t.
Both are fine, the pro-life one just needs to be up front about it.
It cannot be denied that it’s ridiculous to suggest they should be allowed to withhold their moral stance while offering a limited amount of options.

At least if they are clear about being pro-life the woman will be able to explore other impartial websites for the info not provided by the pro-life ones.

And for the record, I don’t appreciate your insinuation that my opinion on what’s best for the woman is predetermined.
I am pro choice, not pro abortion. I am in favour of a woman having all options open to her and making that decision for herself without any interference.

Sean.3516

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why am I not surprised. You'll never walk in the shoes of a woman who needs an abortion.



Join date June 2018, though... we're all adults in here, I think we can join the dots.

Tell me why I can’t have an opinion because I’m a man. If that’s what you think then that makes you a sexist. Which would also make you a bad person.

Everyone that’s in favor of giving the govt the right to restrict the flow of information should beware. That same sword can be used against you guys if a anti abortion govt ever gets in.

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Tell me why I can’t have an opinion because I’m a man. If that’s what you think then that makes you a sexist. Which would also make you a bad person.

Everyone that’s in favor of giving the govt the right to restrict the flow of information should beware. That same sword can be used against you guys if a anti abortion govt ever gets in.

This is not what's happening. The objection is that they should not be allowed to lie or to misrepresent their own aims and position. Spreading lies is not increasing the flow of information. You do get that don't you?

Sean.3516

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yes but the root of the problem is the fact that they are misleading people with their copycat website.
I know you say you disagree with it too, but their impersonating the HSE is actually what people have a problem with, not with them distributing pro-life crisis pregnancy support.

I personally have no problem at all with a pro-life website offering women pro-life options. I don’t think their freedom of speech to do so should be restricted.
My issue is with them not being clear about their motives and disguising their websites and literature as impartial advice when it absolutely isn’t at all.

It should be clear upon visiting a pregnancy crisis support website whether it is impartial (aka, offers info on ALL options, including abortion) or if it is a Pro-Life viewpoint, in which case it won’t.
Both are fine, the pro-life one just needs to be up front about it.
It cannot be denied that it’s ridiculous to suggest they should be allowed to withhold their moral stance while offering a limited amount of options.

At least if they are clear about being pro-life the woman will be able to explore other impartial websites for the info not provided by the pro-life ones.

And for the record, I don’t appreciate your insinuation that my opinion on what’s best for the woman is predetermined.
I am pro choice, not pro abortion. I am in favour of a woman having all options open to her and making that decision for herself without any interference.

I agree with the first half of that but I don’t think they should be obliged to have a sign up saying they’re not impartial. They can if they want but I don’t think they should have to.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

actually from what i could see they avoided it like the plague. deflected and dodged in any way they could to get out of saying abortion on demand. the people only endorsed repeal of the 8th and allowing the politicians to legislate. technically they did not endorse anything more then that, it was the government who decided to take a yes vote as an endorsement for the full whack. essentially some were hoodwinked while yes obviously there were many who did want AOD.

Again you claim this, but you offer nothing at all to show that a minority support your side.

Stop avoiding my question.

Show some evidence for you claim.

Sean.3516

volchitsa wrote: »

This is not what's happening. The objection is that they should not be allowed to lie or to misrepresent their own aims and position. Spreading lies is not increasing the flow of information. You do get that don't you?

And I’m saying that anything you think is a lie is covered by free speech whether it’s a lie or not. I’m not in favor of these groups lieing but I don’t want it to be the govts job to decide what’s a lie and what isnt

Sean.3516

volchitsa wrote: »

So why exactly are you defending them, since that is what they were doing?


No it isn't, it's directed towards preventing abortions, why can't you be honest about that?

Take an example: say the woman was going to go blind, something like that Polish woman who took Poland to the ECHR, well clearly her best interest is probably to have an abortion - so do you think they would tell her to even consider doing so?
You know they wouldn't. Be honest.


So in what circumstances would you expect a Catholic prolife group to recommend that a woman should have an abortion?


Free speech doesn't mean you get to force other people to listen to you though. That's why they don't have to be able to protest outside clinics.

It only means you don't get arrested for saying something yourself - not that you get to organize public protests to force others to listen.

Yes their goal is to reduce abortions and therefore the no. of fetuses being killed.

I think anyone who wants to protest should be able to if they can get permission and do it in a non disruptive way.

When I bring up free speech I mean that you should be allowed to set up an organization that counsels women on options other than abortion and the information you provide should not be subject to regulation.

King Mob

Sean.3516 wrote: »

When I bring up free speech I mean that you should be allowed to set up an organization that counsels women on options other than abortion and the information you provide should not be subject to regulation.

And it is acceptable to you for people to be dishonest and deceptive to achieve this goal?

Sean.3516

volchitsa wrote: »

So why exactly are you defending them, since that is what they were doing?


No it isn't, it's directed towards preventing abortions, why can't you be honest about that?

Take an example: say the woman was going to go blind, something like that Polish woman who took Poland to the ECHR, well clearly her best interest is probably to have an abortion - so do you think they would tell her to even consider doing so?
You know they wouldn't. Be honest.


So in what circumstances would you expect a Catholic prolife group to recommend that a woman should have an abortion?


Free speech doesn't mean you get to force other people to listen to you though. That's why they don't have to be able to protest outside clinics.

It only means you don't get arrested for saying something yourself - not that you get to organize public protests to force others to listen.

The circumstances I’d expect a catholic group to recommend a woman have an abortion would be if her life was in danger.

It’s a pretty mainstream pro life belief that abortion should be allowed if there’s a threat to life.

Hotblack Desiato

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Tell me why I can’t have an opinion because I’m a man.

I'm a man. I have an opinion. I don't shout it into people's faces, or tell them lies about how they're going to get a horrible disease (and DESERVE to) and what a horrible nasty person they are

Everyone that’s in favor of giving the govt the right to restrict the flow of information should beware.

Restricting the flow of lies and intimidation is what we're talking about here though.

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

And I’m saying that anything you think is a lie is covered by free speech whether it’s a lie or not. I’m not in favor of these groups lieing but I don’t want it to be the govts job to decide what’s a lie and what isnt

And I say you don't understand what free speech is.

Also, this notion that lies are really hard to identify, and we all have our own truth etc - that's nonsense. There's a difference between facts and opinions.
These groups are lying about facts because their opinions are no longer accepted unquestioningly as they used to be.

By the way, I asked you about your apparent suggestion that they might indeed advise a woman to have an abortion if the circumstances indicated that it was in her best interests : can you tell us in what cases, other than life or death, they might think abortion was in her best interests? Let's say she might go blind due to the pregnancy - would that be enough?

uptherebels

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes their goal is to reduce abortions and therefore the no. of fetuses being killed.

I think anyone who wants to protest should be able to if they can get permission and do it in a non disruptive way.

When I bring up free speech I mean that you should be allowed to set up an organization that counsels women on options other than abortion and the information you provide should not be subject to regulation.

Does that include medical information from people not qualified to give such information?

SusieBlue

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I agree with the first half of that but I don’t think they should be obliged to have a sign up saying they’re not impartial. They can if they want but I don’t think they should have to.

The irony of you harping on about free speech while saying the LoveBoats crowd shouldn’t have to disclose their blatant pro-life stance while giving support to women in the midst of a crisis isn’t lost on me.

The pro-life campaign has proved over and over again that they are liars and cannot be trusted. This is just the latest, and certainly not the last stunt they are going to pull to this effect.

The only saving grace is that the public now see them for exactly what they are and they can’t hide behind their faux concern for all the innocent babbies any more.

Sean.3516

King Mob wrote: »

And it is acceptable to you for people to be dishonest and deceptive to achieve this goal?

Morally it isn’t. But legally yes.

And by the way, it’s not deceptive to recommend someone not have an abortion. It’s not like they’re telling these women that it’s still illegal for them to have an abortion when it’s now legal.

If there are a variety of options available for a person and you recommend that they do what’s morally acceptable to you, that’s not deception. Your not tricking them into thinking your way is the only way.

SusieBlue

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The circumstances I’d expect a catholic group to recommend a woman have an abortion would be if her life was in danger.

It’s a pretty mainstream pro life belief that abortion should be allowed if there’s a threat to life.

Yet the pro-life gang still objected to POLDPA, the very thing that only very recently gave us the power to save women whose lives were in danger(albeit in very limited, unclear circumstances), pre the successful repeal of the 8th amendment.

Go figure. Mustn’t be all that mainstream.

uptherebels

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Morally it isn’t. But legally yes.

And by the way, it’s not deceptive to recommend someone not have an abortion. It’s not like they’re telling these women that it’s still illegal for them to have an abortion when it’s now legal.

If there are a variety of options available for a person and you recommend that they do what’s morally acceptable to you, that’s not deception. Your not tricking them into thinking your way is the only way.

It depends, have you told them you are recommending an option based on religious beliefs and not necessarily what is best for them?

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The circumstances I’d expect a catholic group to recommend a woman have an abortion would be if her life was in danger.

It’s a pretty mainstream pro life belief that abortion should be allowed if there’s a threat to life.

I see you did (sort of) answer my question, but you haven't explained how you can describe this as being in the interests of the woman, when in plenty of instances it is not in her interests to remain pregnant.

"You won't die of it" isn't the same as "it's in your best interests", is it?

So as I said earlier, they aren't acting in her best interests, they are (at best) acting in what they feel are the fetus' best interests, aren't they?