Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion, Part Trois
Options
Comments
-
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.
Maybe you could prove the points you made here and in your previous post that the man concerned is not representative of the Pro-Life campaign and the persons you named from that campaign by arranging with/for them for protests outside the man's clinic on Berkeley Road against his "pro-life" activities. You have made it clear in your posts here that he does not represent your version of the Pro-life campaign and your position on abortion.0 -
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.
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.
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.
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.
the answer you claim i know and we all know is only the answer you want it to be. however wanting an answer to be the answer doesn't actually make it the answer. you want people to give you answers to your questions that satisfy your confirmation byass, and then claim we don't answer the questions when you don't get the answer you want. i don't know about others but i'm not going to tellpeople what they want to hear when what they want to hear isn't true either in most cases or all. if people feel shamed when visiting an abortion clinnic then i'd suggest it is nothing to do with protesters.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
aloyisious wrote: »Maybe you could prove the points you made here and in your previous post that the man concerned is not representative of the Pro-Life campaign and the persons you named from that campaign by arranging with/for them for protests outside the man's clinic on Berkeley Road against his "pro-life" activities. You have made it clear in your posts here that he does not represent your version of the Pro-life campaign and your position on abortion.
I’m representative of the pro life campaign and I’ve hassled nobody. You’re representative of the pro repeal campaign and you wouldn’t round house kick somebody who was asking you to not to destroy her property.
You are, rather ridiculously, asking me to prove that all pro life people are NOT stalking women who have had abortions.
Well, it would be much easier for you to prove that they ARE all stalking these girls because it would be a newsworthy item? Go ahead.
Reading this post again. I can’t think of anything more ridiculous then to suggest that pro life people shouldn’t protest abortion providers but should instead protest one loolaa who is not representative of the pro life campaign.
The mind gymnastics that you put yourself through in order to straighten this whole subject out in your own head is totally beyond my comprehension aloyisus and I suspect it’s almost beyond yours.0 -
splinter65 wrote: »I’m representative of the pro life campaign and I’ve hassled nobody. You’re representative of the pro repeal campaign and you wouldn’t round house kick somebody who was asking you to not to destroy her property.
You are, rather ridiculously, asking me to prove that all pro life people are NOT stalking women who have had abortions.
Well, it would be much easier for you to prove that they ARE all stalking these girls because it would be a newsworthy item? Go ahead.
I think the point what's the critical mass of people lying, intimidating, scheming, shaming and being generally despicable that has to be reached before it's admitted that is what's representativeof the pro life campaign. There were near daily examples in the lead up to the referendum, this is at least the third example since the legislation came in.
Noone' s saying that the pro choice campaign is perfect, that there aren't bad people with pro choice views or good people with pro life views. But I'd encourage those people to preach and practice those views in their private life and stay away from the broader, organised campaign because it's a toxic, religion ridden nuthouse for vicious liars and it always has been, in Ireland and abroad.
If you're happy to describe yourself as representative of that off with ya.0 -
Braelyn Sweet Eyelid wrote: »I think the point what's the critical mass of people lying, intimidating, scheming, shaming and being generally despicable that has to be reached before it's admitted that is what's representativeof the pro life campaign. There were near daily examples in the lead up to the referendum, this is at least the third example since the legislation came in.
Noone' s saying that the pro choice campaign is perfect, that there aren't bad people with pro choice views or good people with pro life views. But I'd encourage those people to preach and practice those views in their private life and stay away from the broader, organised campaign because it's a toxic, religion ridden nuthouse for vicious liars and it always has been, in Ireland and abroad.
If appy to describe yourself as representative of that off with ya.
I can produce at least 5 examples of the sheer awfulness of the pro repeal campaign. I’ve already given an example in this thread of violence being meted out to passive pro lifers.
You quote “lying, intimidating, scheming, shaming and being generally despicable” but you don’t give us any examples.
I’m interested to see what you consider to be worse then Jordan Hunt kicking the woman in the head. Give us a look.0 -
Advertisement
-
splinter65 wrote: »I’m interested to see what you consider to be worse then Jordan Hunt kicking the woman in the head. Give us a look.
Uhh... don't open this up to anti-choice behaviors from North America. Anti-choicers murder people there. Jordan Hunt did his mischief in Toronto.0 -
Great. If that's the case, address my follow up points directly.end of the road wrote: »the answer you claim i know and we all know is only the answer you want it to be. however wanting an answer to be the answer doesn't actually make it the answer. you want people to give you answers to your questions that satisfy your confirmation byass, and then claim we don't answer the questions when you don't get the answer you want. i don't know about others but i'm not going to tellpeople what they want to hear when what they want to hear isn't true either in most cases or all.
Ignoring them proves my point.
Which is what you are again reverting to doing.
Again you show your ignorance and lack of empathy.end of the road wrote: »if people feel shamed when visiting an abortion clinnic then i'd suggest it is nothing to do with protesters.
People shame stuff that shouldn't be shameful all the time. Take for simple example: sex.
Your side has very directly claimed that any type of sex outside their narrow ideal is shameful. People like that use shame to try and control behaviour to their liking, including shaming people
If people feel shame for their choices there, it isn't because the action is wrong.
Again, you know why the protesters are there.
But since you will ignore the points as per usual, lets try to go back to another.
Remind us why you object to anti-abortion doctors giving their names and advertising they will not provide abortion services?0 -
Trust me, that's not a good thing for your side.splinter65 wrote: »I’m representative of the pro life campaign
It's a good reason why you guys lost the referendum.0 -
Uhh... don't open this up to anti-choice behaviors from North America. Anti-choicers murder people there. Jordan Hunt did his mischief in Toronto.
kicking someone in the head is a lot more then "mischief" it's serious enough to constitute a serious assalt or even attempted murder and rightly so.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Great. If that's the case, address my follow up points directly.
Ignoring them proves my point.
Which is what you are again reverting to doing.
Again you show your ignorance and lack of empathy.
People shame stuff that shouldn't be shameful all the time. Take for simple example: sex.
Your side has very directly claimed that any type of sex outside their narrow ideal is shameful. People like that use shame to try and control behaviour to their liking, including shaming people
If people feel shame for their choices there, it isn't because the action is wrong.
Again, you know why the protesters are there.
But since you will ignore the points as per usual, lets try to go back to another.
Remind us why you object to anti-abortion doctors giving their names and advertising they will not provide abortion services?
only small elements of my side have claimed that any type of sex outside their ideal is shameful. they are irrelevant ultimately and only represent themselves and whatever other tiny few who may agree with them.
i know why the protesters are there and i've told you such.you want it to be a different reason that they are all there, but what you want and what is actual reality won't always mix.Trust me, that's not a good thing for your side.
It's a good reason why you guys lost the referendum.
we didn't get the correct result in the referendum because people wanted abortion to be availible for FFAS and other serious cases and the current legislation dispite being extreme was all that was availible to achieve that. had we got the correct result then the government would have had to come back with actual reasonable legislation that would have allowed for serious cases but not AOD and i believe that would have got much more support.
but whatever the might have bens we did tell the truth in relation to AOD and that is all one can do. give the information. after that people will do whatever they wish with it.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Advertisement
-
The majority of your side are conservative religious types.end of the road wrote: »only small elements of my side have claimed that any type of sex outside their ideal is shameful.
A person on your side in this very thread did exactly that.
I wager you even thanked his posts.
Edit: It was two posters. And you did:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109055680&postcount=8962
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109005202&postcount=8698
So a good 50 percent of the anti-abortionists here.
It was an example that was easily demonstrable that had a nice ironic ring to remind you of what your side involves.end of the road wrote: »they are irrelevant ultimately and only represent themselves and whatever other tiny few who may agree with them.
My point was that people feel shame and shame others for things that are not and should not be shameful.
The fact that some one feels shame for something does not imply that thing is inherently shameful.
So your unempathic statement:
doesn't hold much water and seems a bit silly.if people feel shamed when visiting an abortion clinnic then i'd suggest it is nothing to do with protesters.
You've told me that, yes. But you have not addressed the follow up points at all. You have not defended your statement. You've just stated it as truth and seem to think that's enough. It's not.end of the road wrote: »i know why the protesters are there and i've told you such.you want it to be a different reason that they are all there, but what you want and what is actual reality won't always mix.
So you keep claiming.end of the road wrote: »we didn't get the correct result in the referendum because people wanted abortion to be availible for FFAS and other serious cases and the current legislation dispite being extreme was all that was availible to achieve that. had we got the correct result then the government would have had to come back with actual reasonable legislation that would have allowed for serious cases but not AOD and i believe that would have got much more support.
but whatever the might have bens we did tell the truth in relation to AOD and that is all one can do. give the information. after that people will do whatever they wish with it.
But...what you want and what is actual reality won't always mix
I keep asking you to back that up with any kind of evidence.
I don't believe you. You have lied and you are extremely evasive and dishonest so I simply will not accept your word or your opinion as truth.
Every time I ask you to support your assertion with facts you ignore the point cause that is the only tactic available to you.
You won't back it up now either. You'll go back to your ignoring and pop back onto the thread later.0 -
The majority of your side are conservative religious types.
in this day and age i would disagree. 10 20 years ago sure.A person on your side in this very thread did exactly that.
I wager you even thanked his posts.
Edit: It was two posters. And you did:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109055680&postcount=8962
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109005202&postcount=8698
the first poster simply got the numbers wrong and the second simply asked a question from what i can see. i didn't see anything within their posts to suggest they were doing as you claim.So a good 50 percent of the anti-abortionists here.
boards is 1 website. so percentages of posters on here being something mean absolutely nothing in the over all scheme of things.It was an example that was easily demonstrable that had a nice ironic ring to remind you of what your side involves.
it's not just elements on my side involved in things that are unexceptible. elements on both sides are at it. most people know this and won't deny it. most people ignore those people so they are irrelevant to either movement. a small few will always try to make out their side are the good guy and the others the big bad monsters but only they buy it.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Lol... Ok...:rolleyes:end of the road wrote: »in this day and age i would disagree. 10 20 years ago sure.
the first poster simply got the numbers wrong and the second simply asked a question from what i can see. i didn't see anything within their posts to suggest they were doing as you claim.
boards is 1 website. so percentages of posters on here being something mean absolutely nothing in the over all scheme of things.
But the people on your side here are demonstrating very dishonest and shady behavior among other things.end of the road wrote: »it's not just elements on my side involved in things that are unexceptible. elements on both sides are at it. most people know this and won't deny it. most people ignore those people so they are irrelevant to either movement. a small few will always try to make out their side are the good guy and the others the big bad monsters but only they buy it.
Like I just asked you to back up your claims for the umpteenth time. Among other points.
You edited out my request and are yet again ignoring it.
Stop doing that.
Go back and address my points.
Don't just cut them out and pretend they don't exist. That doesn't help your position. It doesn't make the points go away.
It makes you look extremely dishonest and cowardly.
It's infuriating that the mods are allowing and defending you using this tactic.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Maybe, if anyone other than yourself had suggested that. Arguing with yourself is far from rational.
Abortion doesn't mean fewer people get pregnant; it means fewer people are forced to remain pregnant against their will.
Maybe fewer people would think of abortion as "killing people" if fewer other people insisted on using such a horribly misleading term as an excuse for forcing women and girls to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
If a government outlaws rape; they aren't forcing you not to rape. They are simply saying that if you rape, you will be held accountable for the consequences.
If a government outlaws intentional homicide (murder); they aren't forcing you not to kill. They are simply saying that if you intentionally kill, you will be held accountable for the consequences.
If you take a condition (a biological process) for example. If the government outlaws haircuts; the government isn't forcing your hair to grow (your hair is growing independently of the law; government policy isn't the impetus behind the biological process of hair growth); they are simply saying that if you do cut your hair, you will be held accountable for the consequences.
In order for somebody to force a biological process to occur, they would have to be the impetus behind the biological process itself. Force means: impetus/energy/compulsion to do something.
It is physically impossible for anyone to force pregnancy on someone unless they directly impregnate them, in the same way that I am not "forcing" grass to grow by not cutting it; the grass is growing independently of my intentions or desires for the grass.0 -
Lol... Ok...
But the people on your side here are demonstrating very dishonest and shady behavior among other things.
Like I just asked you to back up your claims for the umpteenth time. Among other points.
You edited out my request and are yet again ignoring it.
Stop doing that.
Go back and address my points.
Don't just cut them out and pretend they don't exist. That doesn't help your position. It doesn't make the points go away.
It makes you look extremely dishonest and cowardly.
It's infuriating that the mods are allowing and defending you using this tactic.
i am not engaging in any tactics that require allowing or defending. i am simply addressing what i can to the best of my ability and trying to avoid having to go around in circles via constantly adressing what i've already addressed because a poster claims that i didn't address something when i did and the poster didn't like the answer given.
i am satisfied that i have to the best of my ability addressed your points as far as i can do so. if you don't except the answers given then there isn't anything more i can do. i will not be giving you the answers you want to be given that suit your view.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Nonsense and bull****.end of the road wrote: »i am not engaging in any tactics that require allowing or defending. i am simply addressing what i can to the best of my ability and trying to avoid having to go around in circles via constantly adressing what i've already addressed because a poster claims that i didn't address something when i did and the poster didn't like the answer given.
i am satisfied that i have to the best of my ability addressed your points as far as i can do so. if you don't except the answers given then there isn't anything more i can do. i will not be giving you the answers you want to be given that suit your view.
You have not given any answers the points I directed at you.
You only dodge, deflect and ignore.
First and foremost:
Back up you claims about why you lost the referendum.
You keep stating the reasons you think, but you offer nothing and have offered nothing to support it.
You ignore this question every single time. You have not once addressed this.
You constantly ignore it because that is your default tactic. Everyone has called you out on it at this stage.
Address it now. Provide the evidence for your conclusion or point to where in the thread you have specifically done this.0 -
splinter65 wrote: »I’m representative of the pro life campaign and I’ve hassled nobody. You’re representative of the pro repeal campaign and you wouldn’t round house kick somebody who was asking you to not to destroy her property.
You are, rather ridiculously, asking me to prove that all pro life people are NOT stalking women who have had abortions.
Well, it would be much easier for you to prove that they ARE all stalking these girls because it would be a newsworthy item? Go ahead.
Reading this post again. I can’t think of anything more ridiculous then to suggest that pro life people shouldn’t protest abortion providers but should instead protest one loolaa who is not representative of the pro life campaign.
The mind gymnastics that you put yourself through in order to straighten this whole subject out in your own head is totally beyond my comprehension aloyisus and I suspect it’s almost beyond yours.
Actually I'm a bit surprised with your mention of roundhouse kicks, stalking girls or hassling people all of a sudden. They read like an aspersive effort to distract and get away from your earlier stated views on how the gent does not represent you.
Mine was a request to you to stand by your words that the gent in question is not representative of you and the other Pro-life campaign persons you named and to make a stand against him and his activities. The content of your reply show's you have no interest in tackling some-one who claims to represent the Pro-life campaign in clear contradiction of your previous condemnation of his activities.0 -
Fuddyduddy wrote: »If a government outlaws rape; they aren't forcing you not to rape. They are simply saying that if you rape, you will be held accountable for the consequences.
If a government outlaws intentional homicide (murder); they aren't forcing you not to kill. They are simply saying that if you intentionally kill, you will be held accountable for the consequences.
If you take a condition (a biological process) for example. If the government outlaws haircuts; the government isn't forcing your hair to grow (your hair is growing independently of the law; government policy isn't the impetus behind the biological process of hair growth); they are simply saying that if you do cut your hair, you will be held accountable for the consequences.
In order for somebody to force a biological process to occur, they would have to be the impetus behind the biological process itself. Force means: impetus/energy/compulsion to do something.
It is physically impossible for anyone to force pregnancy on someone unless they directly impregnate them, in the same way that I am not "forcing" grass to grow by not cutting it; the grass is growing independently of my intentions or desires for the grass.
Try reading the post you respond to before posting. You are answering something that was not asked. Seems to be symptomatic of the anti choice side.0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »Try reading the post you respond to before posting. You are answering something that was not asked. Seems to be symptomatic of the anti choice side.
Huh?? Nothing was asked in the post I responded to.
"Abortion doesn't mean fewer people get pregnant; it means fewer people are forced to remain pregnant against their will.
Maybe fewer people would think of abortion as "killing people" if fewer other people insisted on using such a horribly misleading term as an excuse for forcing women and girls to carry unwanted pregnancies to term."
Perhaps you should heed your own advice.0 -
Fuddyduddy wrote: »Huh?? Nothing was asked in the post I responded to.
"Abortion doesn't mean fewer people get pregnant; it means fewer people are forced to remain pregnant against their will.
Maybe fewer people would think of abortion as "killing people" if fewer other people insisted on using such a horribly misleading term as an excuse for forcing women and girls to carry unwanted pregnancies to term."
Perhaps you should heed your own advice.
Your post was totally unrelated to the post you responded to.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fuddyduddy wrote: »If a government outlaws rape; they aren't forcing you not to rape. They are simply saying that if you rape, you will be held accountable for the consequences.
If a government outlaws intentional homicide (murder); they aren't forcing you not to kill. They are simply saying that if you intentionally kill, you will be held accountable for the consequences.
If you take a condition (a biological process) for example. If the government outlaws haircuts; the government isn't forcing your hair to grow (your hair is growing independently of the law; government policy isn't the impetus behind the biological process of hair growth); they are simply saying that if you do cut your hair, you will be held accountable for the consequences.
In order for somebody to force a biological process to occur, they would have to be the impetus behind the biological process itself. Force means: impetus/energy/compulsion to do something.
It is physically impossible for anyone to force pregnancy on someone unless they directly impregnate them, in the same way that I am not "forcing" grass to grow by not cutting it; the grass is growing independently of my intentions or desires for the grass.
You’ve completely ignored the word remain and instead focused on pregnant.
Nobody forces a woman to become pregnant (except in cases of rape) but some would force a woman to REMAIN pregnant.0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »Your post was totally unrelated to the post you responded to.
That's irrelevant. I was responding to her use of the word "force".0 -
Fuddyduddy wrote: »That's irrelevant. I was responding to her use of the word "force".
I dont think anybody needs you to explain a common word.0 -
No; she is experiencing the on going bioligcal process of BEING pregnant independent of what the law is. The only thing that changes that is when the abortion occurs.amcalester wrote: »You’ve completely ignored the word remain and instead focused on pregnant.
Nobody forces a woman to become pregnant (except in cases of rape) but some would force a woman to REMAIN pregnant.
She is not being "forced" to remain pregnant, she is pregnant independent of the law. Nothing is stopping her from killing her child even when it is illegal, it simply makes it more difficult and says there will be consequences.
Nobody is "forcing" them to remain pregnant anymore than I'm not forcing a person to remain homeless if I don't let them share my bed, or anymore than the law is not forcing you not to remaining a non rapist by outlawing rape.0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »I dont think anybody needs you to explain a common word.
They obviously do. Saying X is forcing you to do or be a certain way places the responsibilty of that independently existing condition on X.
Force requires being the impetus behind an action. The condition exists. Saying there will be consequences is not the same as forcing someone to remain pregnant (which would be physically impossible unless medical technology was continuously causing pregnancy to intact)0 -
Fuddyduddy wrote: »They obviously do. Saying X is forcing you to do or be a certain way places the responsibilty of that independently existing condition X.
perhaps a simple analogy might penetrate. Imagine you are chained to the ground. There is a lock on the chain. within arms reach is the key for the lock. All you have to do is reach out, get the key and open the lock. Now imagine I physically prevent you from reaching the key. Would you say i am forcing you to remain chained up?0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »perhaps a simple analogy might penetrate. Imagine you are chained to the ground. There is a lock on the chain. within arms reach is the key for the lock. All you have to do is reach out, get the key and open the lock. Now imagine I physically prevent you from reaching the key. Would you say i am forcing you to remain chained up?
You’re presenting a false equivalency. To begin with, making something illegal doesn't guarantee that actions won't happen. In your scenario you've presented a dichotomy between only being free and beige chained. Outlawing pregnancy doesn't eliminate the possibility of killing your child, to suggest so is to create a false dichotomy.
Secondly, you would only be preventing me from being free from the chains. Suggesting you are forcing me to remain in chains simply isn't good or accurate use of language. If you chained me up however you would have caused or "forced" me to be chained up.0 -
Fuddyduddy wrote: »You’re presenting a false equivalency. To begin with, making something illegal doesn't guarantee that actions won't happen. In your scenario you've presented a dichotomy between only being free and beige chained. Outlawing pregnancy doesn't eliminate the possibility of killing your child, to suggest so is to create a false dichotomy.
Secondly, you would only be preventing me from being free from the chains. Suggesting you are forcing me to remain in chains simply isn't good or accurate use of language. If you chained me up however you would have caused or "forced" me to be chained up.
i see you are no different to your compadre as regards the english language so i'll leave it here. No point wasting more of my time on you.0 -
Fuddyduddy wrote: »No; she is experiencing the on going bioligcal process of BEING pregnant independent of what the law is. The only thing that changes that is when the abortion occurs.
She is not being "forced" to remain pregnant, she is pregnant independent of the law. Nothing is stopping her from killing her child even when it is illegal, it simply makes it more difficult and says there will be consequences.
Nobody is "forcing" them to remain pregnant anymore than I'm not forcing a person to remain homeless if I don't let them share my bed, or anymore than the law is not forcing you not to remaining a non rapist by outlawing rape.
Fool yourself however you want, denying a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant access to abortion services is forcing her to remain pregnant.
The bed analogy would only be relevant if you could somehow carry the burden of the pregnancy or were otherwise impacted by the women ending the pregnancy which you obviously aren’t.0 -
Advertisement
-
ohnonotgmail wrote: »i see you are no different to your compadre as regards the english language so i'll leave it here. No point wasting more of my time on you.
Probably a good idea to bow out when you dont have an argument.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement