Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

splinter65

Is there some suggestion that this man has come to attention before?
Of course I’m anti abortion but if this is true then it’s shockingly bad and he appears to be dangerously unhinged and should have been traced and at least questioned by now.

splinter65

Igotadose wrote: »

HSE won't do a thing. It's hierarchy is full of RCC lackeys and they'll protect whoever the leaker was. Iff the cretin that harassed this woman faces a huge fine and maybe some jail time we might learn the name but not from the HSE

Surely it won’t be up to the HSE. Are the Gardai not dealing with this? Sorry I’m not up to speed on this story.

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

Is there some suggestion that this man has come to attention before?

Yeah he's been operating that fake 'advice' clinic for quite a while now. Was on Liveline a couple of years ago when there was a kerfuffle over that place (from here onwards, but it appears he rang in the previous day too under another identity "Patrick Jameson") https://twitter.com/StevenOMcCarthy/status/1090772577159733248

Was mentioned on this thread a couple of days ago, was mentioned in a NY Times article.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109272274&postcount=9552

An Eamonn Murphy was a candidate for the Christian Centrist Party in 1991 and an independent in 1994

https://irishelectionliterature.com/2010/01/08/eamonn-murphy-independent-1994-european-elections-dublin/#more-3922



Surely this famine would be god's will and Eamonn would be defying god??

splinter65

I think he used to come on the late night shock jock Dublin radio stations back in the early 90s too ranting and raving. He was into self-flagellation? Dangerous weirdo.

volchitsa

splinter65 wrote: »

I think he used to come on the late night shock jock Dublin radio stations back in the early 90s too ranting and raving. He was into self-flagellation? Dangerous weirdo.

Seems like somebody is funding him all the same. Unless he has private means, it's likely to be US prolifers.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

I am shocked that RTÉ have placed the accusation of a lady receiving a crank call for accessing an abortion as one of their lead stories...

What probably happened


The woman told someone she had an abortion.That person told someone else who told a moron that phoned the woman in question.

What RTÉ and Simon Harris want you to think happened

There’s a huge network of conservative Catholic fundamentalists plying their evil trade at the upper echelons of the HSE.

Let’s run a story on this with ZERO evidence other than the fact that a crank call was placed.

Ash.J.Williams

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What on earth are you shyting on about?

The poster is obviously from the same ultra fanatic stock as the Stalker

ohnonotgmail

Kira Warm Public wrote: »

I am shocked that RTÉ have placed the accusation of a lady receiving a crank call for accessing an abortion as one of their lead stories...

What probably happened


The woman told someone she had an abortion.That person told someone else who told a moron that phoned the woman in question.

What RTÉ and Simon Harris want you to think happened

There’s a huge network of conservative Catholic fundamentalists plying their evil trade at the upper echelons of the HSE.

Let’s run a story on this with ZERO evidence other than the fact that a crank call was placed.

try to educate yourself before posting. it was not a crank call.

eviltwin

Kira Warm Public wrote: »

I am shocked that RTÉ have placed the accusation of a lady receiving a crank call for accessing an abortion as one of their lead stories...

What probably happened


The woman told someone she had an abortion.That person told someone else who told a moron that phoned the woman in question.

What RTÉ and Simon Harris want you to think happened

There’s a huge network of conservative Catholic fundamentalists plying their evil trade at the upper echelons of the HSE.

Let’s run a story on this with ZERO evidence other than the fact that a crank call was placed.

She phoned him after getting a text asking her to confirm a date and time for her scan. She had been told at the hospital no scan was required so she rang the number to clarify.

She had the messages posted online showing the number this guy used. It's the one on the bogus My Options website. Call it yourself and he answers.

All of this is in the public domain now so calling the woman a liar or confused or whatever you want to discredit her won't wash.

amcalester

eviltwin wrote: »

She phoned him after getting a text asking her to confirm a date and time for her scan. She had been told at the hospital no scan was required so she rang the number to clarify.

She had the messages posted online showing the number this guy used. It's the one on the bogus My Options website. Call it yourself and he answers.

All of this is in the public domain now so calling the woman a liar or confused or whatever you want to discredit her won't wash.

Kira Warm Public called the debates for the No side and predicted a 65/35 win for No, so my take is that whatever he says the opposite is the truth.

Didn't take too long for one or two to show up and try to put a spin on this, I owe myself a whiskey.

Johnny Red Cab

The no side haven't gone away you know.

splinter65

Johnny Red Cab wrote: »

The no side haven't gone away you know.

That’s not fair. This nutter is no more representative of pro life then Amanda Marcotte is representative of repeal.

King Mob

splinter65 wrote: »

That’s not fair. This nutter is no more representative of pro life then Amanda Marcotte is representative of repeal.

You guys have been saying things like this stuff wouldn't happen and that the anti-abortion side would never engage in harassment. You guys have even intimated that if such things did happen it would be the fault of the person seeking the abortion and that you'd have no sympathy.
I think such behavior is not that far removed from your position.

So if not this nutter, who should be representative of pro life?
The posters here?
If so, your side still does not look very good at all.

Johnny Red Cab

Johnny Red Cab wrote: »

The no side haven't gone away you know.

There will always be a pro life movement.

The same people who were out against divorce, ssm were out campaigning to save the 8th.

Look at the U.S. where the pro life movement still keeps on attending to have abortion made illegal and some members have committed murder and bombings justifiable in their eyes by God, they even call themselves the army of god.

Some of the pro life campaigners that apparently don't support violence have tried to claim that the bombings were carried out by pro choice groups in an effort to damage the pro life cause.

While it's arguable that we have people of the same mentality over here, some posters on here don't believe we do, we thankfully don't have the ease of access to guns that people in the U.S.have.

But one thing is certain is that we will have pro life supporters trying to say that the guy making the calls doesn't represent what pro life actually is or is in any way similar to the people out protesting in front of hospitals or calling the HSE to try and get a list of GP surgeries willing to provide services, and that will be just another example of the bullsh1t that I've come to expect from them.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

That’s not fair. This nutter is no more representative of pro life then Amanda Marcotte is representative of repeal.

Horsesh1t, Just the time taken for me to type my previous post for one of ye to prove me right

splinter65

King Mob wrote: »

You guys have been saying things like this stuff wouldn't happen and that the anti-abortion side would never engage in harassment. You guys have even intimated that if such things did happen it would be the fault of the person seeking the abortion and that you'd have no sympathy.
I think such behavior is not that far removed from your position.

So if not this nutter, who should be representative of pro life?
The posters here?
If so, your side still does not look very good at all.

You think that it’s my position to stalk and threaten a woman who’s had an abortion? Please. Go ahead and point out how you came to this conclusion from my posts.
Actually not just me,ignore me. I’d really appreciate if you could point out examples of the leading pro lifers in Ireland, Dr Patricia Casey, David Quinn, Cora Sherlock, Maria Steen advocating for any measures of any description, any description at all, to be demonstrated towards any person at all associated with the provision or delivery of abortion services
Just one example from each of these four will do.

eviltwin

splinter65 wrote: »

You think that it’s my position to stalk and threaten a woman who’s had an abortion? Please. Go ahead and point out how you came to this conclusion from my posts.
Actually not just me,ignore me. I’d really appreciate if you could point out examples of the leading pro lifers in Ireland, Dr Patricia Casey, David Quinn, Cora Sherlock, Maria Steen advocating for any measures of any description, any description at all, to be demonstrated towards any person at all associated with the provision or delivery of abortion services
Just one example from each of these four will do.

It doesn't have to be extreme to be threatening. Pre referendum there were horrific things said about abortion and the women who have them. We've been called murderers, evil, sluts, told we are bad people, we must be terrible mothers etc on this site alone. I'm sure most of those people wouldn't dream of actually physically harming someone but they don't need to. The emotional damage is often enough and isn't that the point? This woman had her abortion, there was no reason to engage with her beyond trying to shame her. Same as the people outside Drogheda today with their "murder happening here" banners.

splinter65

eviltwin wrote: »

It doesn't have to be extreme to be threatening. Pre referendum there were horrific things said about abortion and the women who have them. We've been called murderers, evil, sluts, told we are bad people, we must be terrible mothers etc on this site alone. I'm sure most of those people wouldn't dream of actually physically harming someone but they don't need to. The emotional damage is often enough and isn't that the point? This woman had her abortion, there was no reason to engage with her beyond trying to shame her. Same as the people outside Drogheda today with their "murder happening here" banners.

But there’s been an equal amount of mud slinging and violence from the other side. It seems it’s only hate speech when it’s anti abortion. There’s examples all over the Internet.
This went viral.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/05/hairstylist-fired-roundhouse-kick-antiabortion-protesters-shoulder-toronto/?utm_term=.95fd7bc7f580

King Mob

splinter65 wrote: »

You think that it’s my position to stalk and threaten a woman who’s had an abortion? Please. Go ahead and point out how you came to this conclusion from my posts.

Again, you guys here were dismissing and justifying such behavior and saying that "you'd have no sympathy".
So your faux outrage is transparent.

We had people here saying that harassment like this wouldn't happen and wasn't a concern.
We had people here saying that people who provide or seek out abortions kinda deserved treatment like that as they were basically murderers.
We had people saying that it was completely ok for anti-abortion campaigners to lie and pretend to be something they weren't for the express purpose of tricking people who might want an abortion. The same person also argued that such people would never abuse their victims personal information.

The list of such justifications goes on and on.
And even if you didn't directly state such things, I have never seen any of you pro lifers jump in and refute the positions of the others. So now jumping in to say that you never agreed with them is kinda transparent as well.

eviltwin

splinter65 wrote: »

But there’s been an equal amount of mud slinging and violence from the other side. It seems it’s only hate speech when it’s anti abortion. There’s examples all over the Internet.
This went viral.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/05/hairstylist-fired-roundhouse-kick-antiabortion-protesters-shoulder-toronto/?utm_term=.95fd7bc7f580

I completely agree and as a pro choice advocate I'm happy to take any name calling that comes my way, par of the course and I'm sure anti abortion campaigners feel the same.

But what I can't and won't accept is the direct targeting of women accessing healthcare who are already vulnerable and don't do anything to encourage this kind of behaviour. And what pickets of hospitals with inflammatory slogans and rouge crisis pregnancy centres do is exactly that.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

I completely agree and as a pro choice advocate I'm happy to take any name calling that comes my way, par of the course and I'm sure anti abortion campaigners feel the same.

But what I can't and won't accept is the direct targeting of women accessing healthcare who are already vulnerable and don't do anything to encourage this kind of behaviour. And what pickets of hospitals with inflammatory slogans and rouge crisis pregnancy centres do is exactly that.

Something which the poster you're replying to has expressed their support for of course in previous posts

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

I completely agree and as a pro choice advocate I'm happy to take any name calling that comes my way, par of the course and I'm sure anti abortion campaigners feel the same.

But what I can't and won't accept is the direct targeting of women accessing healthcare who are already vulnerable and don't do anything to encourage this kind of behaviour. And what pickets of hospitals with inflammatory slogans and rouge crisis pregnancy centres do is exactly that.

simply protesting outside a hospital with banners, a perfectly legitimate act within a democracy even though i and most personally wouldn't do it, does not, directly or indirectly in itself, target women accessing actual forms of health care or abortion on demand. the protest is about the act itself.
if they are physically manhandling or getting in the face of such women, that would be targeting and in that case the gardai can and will become involved, either upon witnessing such actions themselves or being provided with evidence and being called to the scene.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

simply protesting outside a hospital does not, directly or indirectly, target women accessing abortion on demand. if they were physically manhandling or getting in the face of such women, that would be a form of targeting and in that case the gardai can and will become involved.

Hey, so why do they need to protest outside of hospitals/abortion clinics?
Why can't they protest in places away from people seeking abortions but would be far more public and visible?
You were asked this before, but you ignored the question.

I think you ignored the question because you know the answer is that they want to in part intimidate and shame those people.
You just aren't honest enough to admit it.

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

It doesn't have to be extreme to be threatening. Pre referendum there were horrific things said about abortion and the women who have them. We've been called murderers, evil, sluts, told we are bad people, we must be terrible mothers etc on this site alone. I'm sure most of those people wouldn't dream of actually physically harming someone but they don't need to. The emotional damage is often enough and isn't that the point? This woman had her abortion, there was no reason to engage with her beyond trying to shame her. Same as the people outside Drogheda today with their "murder happening here" banners.

i'd suggest that realistically it would have to be extreme to be threatening. otherwise we would be in a situation where simply saying something we don't agree with could be classed as threatening even though there is no threat what soever, which would ultimately be unworkable if it was to come to pass.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

Hey, so why do they need to protest outside of hospitals/abortion clinics?
Why can't they protest in places away from people seeking abortions but would be far more public and visible?
You were asked this before, but you ignored the question.

I think you ignored the question because you know the answer is that they want to in part intimidate and shame those people.
You just aren't honest enough to admit it.

i answered that question earlier in the thread but you didn't like the answer, that's not my fault. anyway, again, people who disagree with something will generally protest outside infrastructure involved in the issue they are protesting against where it exists, as well as government buildings. so given people disagree with abortion, then they are going to protest outside infrastructure involved in the carrying out of abortion. in other countries it's the abortion clinics which receive the protests rather then hospitals, presumably because those protesting disagree with the operators profiting from abortion as well as abortion.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

i answered that question. i told you that people who disagree with something will generally protest outside infrastructure involved in the issue they are protesting against as well as government buildings. so given people disagree with abortion, then they are going to protest outside the infrastructure involved in the carrying out of abortion. mainly it's the abortion clinics which receive the protests rather then hospitals, presumably because those protesting disagree with the operators profiting from abortion as well as abortion.

Yes, that's what you said. But that's not an answer to my question. It's dodging it.
Why do they need to do it in those places.
If they are protesting the "operators profiting from abortion" why not at their headquarters?
Why do none of their highly visible placards and chants mention anything about "operators profiting from abortion"?

You also avoided the points made to you about how just being there and protesting is intimidating. You ran away from that point and never addressed it.

Again, you know why they really protest.
Shame and intimidation.

PopePalpatine

Remember: harassing women is A-OK, but gods (and water cannons) forbid you protest against a massive concert.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, that's what you said. But that's not an answer to my question. It's dodging it.

it is an answer. i'm not going to go around in circles over it, i've answered the question, either except the answer or don't, either way i have answered it and will not engage any further on it.

King Mob wrote: »

Why do they need to do it in those places.

because that is where the abortions are taking place.

King Mob wrote: »

If they are protesting the "operators profiting from abortion" why not at their headquarters?

i presume they do.

King Mob wrote: »

Why do none of their highly visible placards and chants mention anything about "operators profiting from abortion"?

i'd imagine some of them do. perhapse you could ask them if such aren't more visible.

King Mob wrote: »

You also avoided the points made to you about how just being there and protesting is intimidating. You ran away from that point and never addressed it.

i didn't avoid or run away from it. i simply don't believe it is the case so there is nothing to adress as i see it.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you know why they really protest.
Shame and intimidation.

only in your opinion is that the real reason. in reality, it's not the real reason, for most anyway. a tiny few might be protesting in the aim of doing that but a tiny minority is all they are.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

it is an answer. i'm not going to go around in circles over it, i've answered the question, either except the answer or don't, either way i have answered it and will not engage any further on it.

Fine, you have answered it, but you answer is flawed, incomplete and not genuine.
My point remains unaddressed.

And no shock that you are now declaring that you are going to engage with any follow up.
That is your default tactic.
Again, it's mind boggling you think that it fools anyone.

end of the road wrote: »

because that is where the abortions are taking place.

Yes. So? How will protesting there affect anything?
It won't prevent the people providing the abortions from doing so.
It won't grab more attention than having a protest in a more visible area.

It will intimidate and shame people however.

end of the road wrote: »

i didn't avoid or run away from it. i simply don't believe it is the case so there is nothing to adress as i see it.

Yes, you say you don't believe it's the case, but you can't back up that belief.
You know you can't back it up so you ignore the question.
Again, that is your default tactic that has made you a bit of a laughing stock.

end of the road wrote: »

only in your opinion is that the real reason. in reality, it's not the real reason, for most anyway. a tiny few might be protesting in the aim of doing that but a tiny minority is all they are.

But again, you are only saying that it's not true because you think it's not true.
You offer no good reason to come to that conclusion and you ignore every point around it.

Again, you know the answer. Everyone knows the answer.
Those protesters are only interested in intimidating and shaming people.
If they weren't they would protest elsewhere where they would have more impact on the people you falsely claim they wish to target. They would protest where there is more visibility.
There is no benefit to them protesting GPs or individual clinics.
Except that it attempts shames and intimidates people out of the abortions they need.

You yourself have praised efforts to make acquiring abortions more difficult and costly, so such tactics are well in your good books.

I note now that you are reverting to your secondary tactic of multiquoting every line in an attempt to make it more frustrating to reply to you.
Again, this tactic does not reflect well on you.