Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

robarmstrong

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

some ppl try to avoid the reality.

Yes, the pro-life individuals who fail to comprehend the 8th was repealed, abortion was legislated for and their efforts are nothing more than harassment/intimidation tactics of vulnerable women are most definitely trying to avoid the reality that abortion is now here and our women don't have to be shunted across the waters in shame.

Beechwoodspark

robarmstrong wrote: »

Yes, the pro-life individuals who fail to comprehend the 8th was repealed, abortion was legislated for and their efforts are nothing more than harassment/intimidation tactics of vulnerable women are most definitely trying to avoid the reality that abortion is now here and our women don't have to be shunted across the waters in shame.

1/3 of Irish ppl voted against it and are campaigning actively to restrict abortion. Some want a complete ban and are campaigning for such.

Legal protests are a cornerstone of Irish democracy thankfully.

Igotadose

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

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.

But, you out and out lied about being devil's advocate. So, why should we believe your anecdotes? Falso in uno, falso in omnibus.

Don't feel bad - this is a common denominator for the pro-life crowd: lying.

Beechwoodspark

Igotadose wrote: »

But, you out and out lied about being devil's advocate. So, why should we believe your anecdotes? Falso in uno, falso in omnibus.

Don't feel bad - this is a common denominator for the pro-life crowd: lying.

I “played devils advocate”. It’s a standard debating term. Look it up. You might learn something!

ohnonotgmail

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

1/3 of Irish ppl voted against it and are canpaigning actively to restrict abortion. Some want a complete ban and are campaigning for such.

And 2/3 of irish people voted for it. which number do you think is bigger? Which number holds sway with the government?

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Legal protests are a cornerstone of Irish democracy thankfully.

what is legal about harassing people trying to access legal medical procedures?

ohnonotgmail

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I “played devils advocate”. It’s a standard debating term. Look it up. You might learn something!

No you said you were playing devils advocate when you weren't. You were lying.

robarmstrong

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

1/3 of Irish ppl voted against it and are canpaigning actively to restrict abortion. Some want a complete ban and are campaigning for such.

Legal protests are a cornerstone of Irish democracy thankfully.

2/3 of Irish people voted for it, successfully defeating the pro-life campaign to actively restrict abortion.

How do you restrict what is already repealed and legislated?

This "campaigning actively" you're talking about is nothing other than harassment and intimidation. Tell me, do you consider the pro-life "campaign" of sitting outside maternity hospitals (where women could potentially be going through miscarriages, FFA or extremely risk-laden pregnancies) with graphic and disgusting images is not harassment and intimidation?

Beechwoodspark

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No you said you were playing devils advocate when you weren't. You were lying.

I was not. YOU are misunderstanding a debating term. Go off and google it and come back to us then and tell us what you’ve learned.

amcalester

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I “played devils advocate”. It’s a standard debating term. Look it up. You might learn something!

In order to play devils advocate one generally argues against their own beliefs or opinion.

That is not what you were doing.

ohnonotgmail

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I was not. You are misunderstanding a debating term. Go off and google it and come back to us then and tell us what you’ve learned.

we all know what the term devils advocate means. But to help you out here it is

In common parlance, the term devil's advocate describes someone who, given a certain point of view, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.

I have bolded the important part. You did not take a position you do not agree with. You took a position you do agree with. that is not playing devils advocate.

Beechwoodspark

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we all know what the term devils advocate means. But to help you out here it is






I have bolded the important part. You did not take a position you do not agree with. You took a position you do agree with. that is not playing devils advocate.

“Does not necessarily agree with.”

ohnonotgmail

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

“Does not necessarily agree with.”

if you take a position you do absolutely agree with you cannot say you are taking a position you do not necessarily agree with.

Beechwoodspark

And also. Note the rest of the quote you posted above

“(or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.”

I really hope you are learning something here!

ohnonotgmail

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

And also. Note the rest of the quote you posted above

“(or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.”

I really hope you are learning something here!

You were not doing it for the sake of the debate. You tried to fool people that you were doing that but given your subsequent posts you were clearly not doing that. You were lying.

Beechwoodspark

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You were not doing it for the sake of the debate. You tried to fool people that you were doing that but given your subsequent posts you were clearly not doing that. You were lying.

Not at all. I was playing devils advocate.

Not engaging with you again on this. You’ve made your point and I’ve made mine.

ohnonotgmail

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Not at all. I was playing devil advocate.

You were lying.

Beechwoodspark

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You were lying.

Not at all. I was playing devils advocate.

Not engaging with you again on this. You’ve made your point and I’ve made mine.

ohnonotgmail

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Not at all. I was playing devils advocate.

Not engaging with you again on this. You’ve made your point and I’ve made mine.

Your cards have been marked. All the regular posters know now what you are like.

Hannibal_Smith

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

1/3 of Irish ppl voted against it and are campaigning actively to restrict abortion. Some want a complete ban and are campaigning for such.

Legal protests are a cornerstone of Irish democracy thankfully.

People 'protesting' outside health centres are just showing themselves up.

Beechwoodspark

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Your cards have been marked. All the regular posters know now what you are like.

What am I like so? Enlighten us oh wise one

oldrnwisr

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.

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.

OK, first off, let's deal with the idea of harassment. In your initial post you said:

"Devils advocate and all- If it saves even one life then maybe it’s worth it"


This was in response to Odhinn's summary of the SOR podcast:

"RTE - "Today" with Sean O Rourke had a journalist on who had gone undercover with an anti-abortion group. Their plan is to target women attending facilities where abortions are carried out. They've been told to home in on women who look "upset" etc and try to refer them to anti-abortion run facilities. Fairly vile stuff - podcast should be up later."

So, what you condoned here is, in fact, harassment. So your later comment about not being in favour of harassment rings hollow. Harassment, by the way, not being screaming or shouting, but "behaviour that annoys or upsets someone."


Second, holding some signs with anti-abortion messages outside a hospital, clinic or other building while not engaging anyone is a protest. Engaging somebody trying to enter a hospital and trying to persuade them against a particular course of action, when that person has not solicited any advice is, by definition, harassment.




Next, you say:

"Giving information or holding a protest is not harassment"


Providing information, like say leaflets on a table which any person may freely choose to pick up or not, is not harassment. Stopping someone and giving them unsolicited information is harassment.


More importantly in this debate, however, the provision of false and misleading information is an underhand practice which should never be condoned. It should be pointed out that the recent flurry of activity in this thread is, in part, due to the story of the HSE's court action against a bogus website attempting to redirect women to anti-abortiong groups. Not only was this website posing as a HSE website in order to ensnare less aware women, but the information it contained was false and misleading. It contained a section on "Risks of Abortion", which among other claims alleged that:

• abortion leads to a 4x risk of breast cancer
• abortion leads to depression and regret
• abortion leads to ovarian cancer

All of these claims are false. If you have to resort to such dishonest and underhand tactics to put forward your case then perhaps you shouldn't make your case in the first place.


Providing false information when the person may not be inclined to receive any kind of information is ,without doubt, harassment.






Finally, you said in your inital post that:

"If it saves even one life then maybe it’s worth it"

and later you said:

"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."


Now, we know from the statistics that approximately 94% of all abortions are performed before 12 weeks (the legal limit we've set), and we know from embryology that 12 weeks is before the point at which synaptogenesis first occurs. So, at this point there is no consciousness, no brainwaves, no electrical connections. So what characteristics does the foetus possess at say 6 weeks, or 8 weeks or 10 weeks, that makes it a life?




**NOTE: The myoptions.website site has been taken down by court order but the information that it previously contained is still available in the form of source code from the Google cache which I have linked above.

Beechwoodspark

I don’t condone harassment of persons

I don’t condone misinformation or graphic imagery etc

BUT and it’s a big BUT - I would gladly fight to support the right to legally protest in this country.

As Evelyn Beatrice hall said “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

amcalester

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I don’t condone harassment of persons

I don’t condone misinformation or graphic imagery etc

BUT and it’s a big BUT - I would gladly fight to support the right to legally protest in this country.

As Evelyn Beatrice hall said “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

So will you call the activities highlighted above for what they are? Harassment?

Monife

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I don’t condone harassment of persons

I don’t condone misinformation or graphic imagery etc

BUT and it’s a big BUT - I would gladly fight to support the right to legally protest in this country.

As Evelyn Beatrice hall said “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

Did you even read the previous post? Your comments imply that your clearly do condone harassment, or you have a very loose term of what harassment actually is.

Beechwoodspark

amcalester wrote: »

So will you call the activities highlighted above for what they are? Harassment?

That sounds like it may construe harassment but general information services or legal protesting nearby is not.

amcalester

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

That sounds like it may construe harassment but general information services or legal protesting nearby is not.

That’s not an answer.

volchitsa

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

That sounds like it may construe harassment but general information services or legal protesting nearby is not.

Assuming the general information needs to be factually accurate information, and that you agree that the groups shouldn't be allowed to approach women unsolicited (as that would be harrassment), what sort of "general information services" or "legal protesting" - and how nearby, exactly - are you proposing should be allowed that could not be construed as harrassment?

Beechwoodspark

volchitsa wrote: »

Assuming the general information needs to be factually accurate information, and that you agree that the groups shouldn't be allowed to approach women unsolicited (as that would be harrassment), what sort of "general information services" or "legal protesting" - and how nearby, exactly - are you proposing should be allowed that could not be construed as harrassment?

Let the legal eagles hammer that out and let the courts rule on it. I’m not in anyway an expert on it

oldrnwisr

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I don’t condone harassment of persons

I don’t condone misinformation or graphic imagery etc

BUT and it’s a big BUT - I would gladly fight to support the right to legally protest in this country.

As Evelyn Beatrice hall said “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

OK, you say you don't condone harassment of people or false information or graphic imagery. So what, for you, constitutes a legal protest?


Should it be allowed inside hospitals? What about just outside hospitals? What if people stand right outside the door as people enter the hospitals holding massive placards. Should there be a size limit on the placards? Should there be regulations of what is allowed to be printed on the placards (you state above that misinformation and graphic imagery shouldn't be allowed)? What form should this "general provision of information" take? Should these groups be allowed to represent themselves as "impartial" or official in the way that myoptions.website did?



You see, you came into this thread suggesting that the ends justified the means regarding approaching women in hospital car parks. You then described your aversion to the idea of exclusion zones under the guise of censorship. However, you have, in the post quoted above, established that there are limits on the right of legal protest. So what exactly are these limits? You originally took exception to people who were annoyed with the idea of women being stopped in hospital car parks by anti-abortion groups and yet you acknowledge that protests must operate within limits? Can you not see the mixed message here?

SusieBlue

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I don’t condone harassment of persons

I don’t condone misinformation or graphic imagery etc

BUT and it’s a big BUT - I would gladly fight to support the right to legally protest in this country.

As Evelyn Beatrice hall said “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

Its not what you say, its where you say it.
So you should protest at government buildings and stop condoning the harassment of vulnerable, upset women who are minding their own business.

By targeting upset looking women outside maternity hospitals its proves that there is no actual interest in giving information or saving "lives", its simply a scare tactic used to shame and intimidate women.

EVERYONE in this country has a right to go about getting medical care in peace.
You have no right to interfere whatsoever, even if you are simply just "spreading information".