Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

uptherebels

DubInMeath wrote: »

Sure we all know that the only reason you'd be upset coming or going to a hospital or gp surgery, would be if you wanted an abortion especially if your a woman.

I've got cancer fecken happy days why would I be looking worried or upset.

Funny thing is that the anti choicers spent so much time telling us that women would be using abortion as contraception and getting them for lifestyle choices and stuff, yet they are saying that women going for abortions will be upset?

SusieBlue

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

See my original post on this. Maybe it’ll save a few lives

It won't save any lives. What it will do is exploit vulnerable women, and distress others who are going through an already upsetting experience.

People have a right to procure legal medical procedures without interference and harassment from members of the general public who disagree with their choice of medical procedure.

Their target audience is anyone who looks upset, so without a doubt couples who are going through a natural miscarriage or who may have just gotten an awful diagnosis for a wanted pregnancy will also be earmarked by these self important loonies.
Do you think that's acceptable?
How would you feel if you got awful news like that and were approached by that group to try to talk you out of getting an abortion, when you weren't even going to have one in the first place????

But hey, its just a few traumatised women, its just a bit of interfering in other people's medical care, its just intimidating people who've just gotten some awful news about a wanted baby, all worth it right????
To "save" a life????

This attitude turns my stomach. Other people's medical care is none of your concern.

Bredabe

I have a condition that makes me irritable, this means I go to the hospital to have my twice yearly bloods done. This requires me to have fasted for 24 hours as well as stand in rail/cold for almost and hour for a bus to wait another few hours to be seen.

You bet I look upset when I leave, one of those types approaching me would just turn this into a slapping match/bloodshed. I dont believe any jury in the country would convict me in such circumstances.

They best have a clear criteria for who they approach or that senerio WILL happen and probably more than once.

Odhinn

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

See my original post on this. Maybe it’ll save a few lives

No. It may even cause more damage if somebody finds their loved one being harassed by these headers at a time of crisis.

.......

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

See my original post on this. Maybe it’ll save a few lives

By that logic imprisoning pregnant women might save a few lives - so why dont we do that?

Threatening them with jail time might save a few lives too eh? Oh hang on, we just voted against having that as the case.

What a disgusting view, thats its ok to harrass and intimidate women because YOU think that it might save a few lives.

What about the lives of the actual born living women who are being harrassed? They mean nothing I suppose.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

I suppose the notion that anti-abortion (or Pro-Life if you like) people are OK with the waiting period up to the 12th week doesn't surprise you. How do you read that acceptance, what it envisages and how it affects what you see in the womb?

i don't really read anything into it tbh.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

i don't really read anything into it tbh.

So, suddenly you have no opinion on a significant aspect of the abortion law?
Whistling and avoiding eye contact eh?

So much for your sig, then. Truth only when it suits you, would be a better description it seems.

Beechwoodspark

....... wrote: »

By that logic imprisoning pregnant women might save a few lives - so why dont we do that?

Threatening them with jail time might save a few lives too eh? Oh hang on, we just voted against having that as the case.

What a disgusting view, thats its ok to harrass and intimidate women because YOU think that it might save a few lives.

What about the lives of the actual born living women who are being harrassed? They mean nothing I suppose.

Sorry but I am for the right to protest, the right of free expression, the right to freedom of assembly in this country. Basic human rights.

I am NOT for exclusion zones aka censorship zones. Ireland is edging towards a very dark police state if we allow “exclusion zones” in this country.

And yes, ppl offering advice and assistance to women contemplating abortion, may save some lives also.

There are two lives involved. The unborn and the mother. Some ppl who are pro choice want to avoid that awkward fact.

eviltwin

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Sorry but I am for the right to protest, the right of free expression, the right to freedom of assembly in this country. Basic human rights.

I am NOT for exclusion zones aka censorship zones. Ireland is edging towards a very dark police state if we allow “exclusion zones” in this country.

And yes, ppl offering advice and assistance to women contemplating abortion, may save some lives also.

There are two lives involved. The unborn and the mother. Some ppl who are pro choice want to avoid that awkward fact.

This isn't protest, this is the direct targeting and interference with women using these services

That's harassment

Hannibal_Smith

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Sorry but I am for the right to protest, the right of free expression, the right to freedom of assembly in this country. Basic human rights.

I am NOT for exclusion zones aka censorship zones. Ireland is edging towards a very dark police state if we allow “exclusion zones” in this country.

And yes, ppl offering advice and assistance to women contemplating abortion, may save some lives also.

There are two lives involved. The unborn and the mother. Some ppl who are pro choice want to avoid that awkward fact.

Everyone has the right to protest. But why not protest outside the HSE or outside Dail Eireann. Harrassing people seeking medical help is just so low. Its making it personal to the people in a crisis.

Im not a fan of exclusion zones. They shouldnt be needed. But unfortunately some have lost all sense of common decency and forced it to be considered.

SusieBlue

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Sorry but I am for the right to protest, the right of free expression, the right to freedom of assembly in this country. Basic human rights.

I am NOT for exclusion zones aka censorship zones. Ireland is edging towards a very dark police state if we allow “exclusion zones” in this country.

And yes, ppl offering advice and assistance to women contemplating abortion, may save some lives also.

There are two lives involved. The unborn and the mother. Some ppl who are pro choice want to avoid that awkward fact.

If you want to protest, protest to the people who can change the law.
Protest at the Dail and at TD offices.

There is absolutely no need to harass, intimidate and interfere with women who are procuring a legal medical procedure.

What about the woman’s right to obtain medical care? Or her right to privacy? Or her right to go about her business in peace?
Those rights are far superior to your right to moan about not agreeing with her choice.

It’s not your place and it’s not your business.

The fact that these protests are at hospitals & not government buildings and specifically target upset looking woman categorically proves they have NO interest in ‘saving’ the unborn, their sole purpose there is to cause disruption, cast judgment and shame women.

It’s indefensible and despicable and the fact that you and others are defending it by passing it off as some noble group trying to ‘save’ lives is disgraceful.

Igotadose

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Sorry but I am for the right to protest, the right of free expression, the right to freedom of assembly in this country. Basic human rights.

I am NOT for exclusion zones aka censorship zones. Ireland is edging towards a very dark police state if we allow “exclusion zones” in this country.

And yes, ppl offering advice and assistance to women contemplating abortion, may save some lives also.

There are two lives involved. The unborn and the mother. Some ppl who are pro choice want to avoid that awkward fact.

So you actually weren't just playing devil's advocate as you claimed earlier. Thanks for clarifying that.

And, where are 'exclusion zones' known as censorship zones? You have the right to protest, sure, but harassment's harassment and that's what you're advocating for.

The 'awkward fact's' irrelevant. You desire to harass women. Sorry, can't support that. Go protest in front of the Dail.

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

This isn't protest, this is the direct targeting and interference with women using these services

That's harassment

not automatically. providing information is providing information. nothing more. if someone is screaming at someone or trying to grab them then that is harassment and the gardai can and will deal with it. but providing information is not harassment or intimidation or anything else.

amcalester

end of the road wrote: »

not automatically. providing information is providing information. nothing more. if someone is screaming at someone or trying to grab them then that is harassment and the gardai can and will deal with it. but providing information is not harassment or intimidation or anything else.

Actually, grabbing someone would be assault not harassment. Screaming could likely be assault too.

Providing the information is not the issue, it’s the aggressive and intimidating tactics being used that cross the line into harassment

Credit Checker Moose

As said if someone wants to protest, go stand outside the Dail. Send a letter to Simon Harris or to the Taoiseach.

I am in favour of exclusion zones. If anyone has a problem go whinge to Strasbourg.

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

not automatically. providing information is providing information. nothing more. if someone is screaming at someone or trying to grab them then that is harassment and the gardai can and will deal with it. but providing information is not harassment or intimidation or anything else.

So are we to believe that any woman not interested in talking will be left alone then? Pull the other one.

You are either completely naive or just being deliberately disingenuous. Is the pavement outside a GP or hospital really the appropriate setting for an information exchange? Is the day of her appointment the appropriate time? Can you guarantee these people won't abuse or insult these women? Are you involved in this group or something like it?

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

not automatically. providing information is providing information. nothing more. if someone is screaming at someone or trying to grab them then that is harassment and the gardai can and will deal with it. but providing information is not harassment or intimidation or anything else.

Providing information to those who request it is totally fine.
Pushing it and forcing it on people who are simply going about their business is unacceptable.

end of the road

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

As said if someone wants to protest, go stand outside the Dail. Send a letter to Simon Harris or to the Taoiseach.

I am in favour of exclusion zones. If anyone has a problem go whinge to Strasbourg.

you may be in favour of them but they don't work. i haven't heard of any country that has ended protests against abortion via the method of exclusion zones. we certainly won't be that country.

eviltwin wrote: »

So are we to believe that any woman not interested in talking will be left alone then? Pull the other one.

You are either completely naive or just being deliberately disingenuous. Is the pavement outside a GP or hospital really the appropriate setting for an information exchange? Is the day of her appointment the appropriate time? Can you guarantee these people won't abuse or insult these women? Are you involved in this group or something like it?

i am not involved in any groups, campaigns or protests.
however i have no problem with information being exchanged anywhere as long as those doing it are respectful, and if not, i have full confidence in the gardai and current laws. full confidents that they are 100% able to deal with the person or persons sufficiently.

amcalester

end of the road wrote: »

i have full confidence in the gardai and current laws. full confidents that they are 100% able to deal with the person or persons sufficiently.

This is a typical end o cop out, because later he can claim these protestors weren’t engaging in harassment because the Gardai didn’t prosecute.

Bredabe

Bredabe wrote: »

I have a condition that makes me irritable, this means I go to the hospital to have my twice yearly bloods done. This requires me to have fasted for 24 hours as well as stand in rail/cold for almost and hour for a bus to wait another few hours to be seen.

You bet I look upset when I leave, one of those types approaching me would just turn this into a slapping match/bloodshed. I dont believe any jury in the country would convict me in such circumstances.

They best have a clear criteria for who they approach or that senerio WILL happen and probably more than once.

Remember to use your head in a situation like this.

Failing that elbows or knees, hands can break to easily against a thick skull.

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

not automatically. providing information is providing information. nothing more. if someone is screaming at someone or trying to grab them then that is harassment and the gardai can and will deal with it. but providing information is not harassment or intimidation or anything else.

:pac: are you saying the protesters and spray paint in the Longford clinic is 'providing information'? Brilliant

end of the road

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

are you saying the protesters and spray paint in the Longford clinic is 'providing information'? Brilliant

no, but of course you know that, so i'm not sure why you asked?

King Mob

Because you are pretending the targeting and harassment of women is also "just providing information."

That is at least as silly as suggesting that graffiti is also "just providing information".

Your position is so ridiculous and dishonest that such a suggestion, while mocking and illustrative, is also in line with your statements.

Also a reminder that you said that these protesters were not seeking to target women.
Any comment on that?

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

Because you are pretending the targeting and harassment of women is also "just providing information."

i'm not. i just don't believe that providing information is harassment. if it was we'd all be before the courts.

King Mob wrote: »

That is at least as silly as suggesting that graffiti is also "just providing information".

it's not as graffiti is criminal damage where as provision of information is simply provision of information.

King Mob wrote: »

Your position is so ridiculous and dishonest that such a suggestion, while mocking and illustrative, is also in line with your statements.

i disagree that it's ridiculous or dishonest. i believe it is honest and a viable position to hold.

King Mob wrote: »

Also a reminder that you said that these protesters were not seeking to target women.
Any comment on that?

i said the majority of protesters, and i stand by that. i believe there are plenty of sufficient laws to deal with the few that are out to cause trouble.

Beechwoodspark

Folks let’s get one thing clear

Giving information or holding a protest is not harassment.

Harassment would be something akin to screaming and roaring at someone specifically. Or else long term stalking/creeping them. I am not in favor of that whatsoever.

Neither am I for graphic posters/graphic language.

But I do think ppl should be free to assemble and protest outside TDs offices, Leinster House, public entrances to hospitals/clinics etc and I think the constitution will back that right up.

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

no, but of course you know that, so i'm not sure why you asked?

Then what information are you talking about? Sounds like youre trying to squeeze protesting into providing information

nozzferrahhtoo

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

There are two lives involved. The unborn and the mother. Some ppl who are pro choice want to avoid that awkward fact.

I have not met a single person who tries to avoid it. I have met MANY people myself included who do not just read too much into it.

When I get meat killed to make a steak there is two "lives" involved. That of the cow too. But the fact a "life" is involved does not seem to stay the hand of any meat eaters.

Simply throwing out the word "life" or "lives" says nothing in other words. A fetus being aborted, usually almost always before 12 weeks of gestation as it happens is less of a "life" by just about every measure of utility than that cow.

So your error here is in thinking people not reading too much into your rhetoric are "avoiding" that rhetoric. The opposite is likely true. They engage with it and understand it much more than you appear to.

Beechwoodspark

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have not met a single person who tries to avoid it. I have met MANY people myself included who do not just read too much into it.

When I get meat killed to make a steak there is two "lives" involved. That of the cow too. But the fact a "life" is involved does not seem to stay the hand of any meat eaters.

Simply throwing out the word "life" or "lives" says nothing in other words. A fetus being aborted, usually almost always before 12 weeks of gestation as it happens is less of a "life" by just about every measure of utility than that cow.

So your error here is in thinking people not reading too much into your rhetoric are "avoiding" that rhetoric. The opposite is likely true. They engage with it and understand it much more than you appear to.

I personally have met many pro choice ppl who try to dismiss, deny, or ignore that there is a viable life involved in abortion. I also have witnessed pro choice ppl laughing and joking about it. So I stand by my original comments -some ppl try to avoid the reality.

ohnonotgmail

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Folks let’s get one thing clear

Giving information or holding a protest is not harassment.

Harassment would be something akin to screaming and roaring at someone specifically. Or else long term stalking/creeping them. I am not in favor of that whatsoever.

Neither am I for graphic posters/graphic language.

But I do think ppl should be free to assemble and protest outside TDs offices, Leinster House, public entrances to hospitals/clinics etc and I think the constitution will back that right up.

Approaching somebody who is already upset with the intention of adding to it IS harrassment

smacl

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Giving information or holding a protest is not harassment.

Foisting unwanted and deliberately upsetting misinformation on vulnerable women seeking medical attention is however harassment and morally repugnant. The pro-life brigade seem to operate primarily through bullying and deceit.