Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

end of the road

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What clinics?

The system we have is the system you said would be best.

i went from the quote from the article posted in post 1382.
article. https://www.irishcentral.com/news/us...bortion-clinic

the specific line.
Quote:
Last week, Fr. Stephen Imbarrato, a pro-life activist known at the “Protest Priest,” led a prayer vigil outside Dr. Jim McShane's abortion clinic in Glasthule, Dún Laoghaire, near Dublin, before performing an exorcism on the facility.

amcalester

end of the road wrote: »

i only saw your post after i posted that post.

Ok, but why are you taking about abortion clinics when you know they don’t exist in Ireland?

And why suggest an “alternative system” when that is pretty much the system we already have.

Are you being purposely disingenuous?

Bannasidhe

end of the road wrote: »

i went from the quote from the article posted in post 1382.
article. https://www.irishcentral.com/news/us...bortion-clinic

the specific line.
Quote:
Last week, Fr. Stephen Imbarrato, a pro-life activist known at the “Protest Priest,” led a prayer vigil outside Dr. Jim McShane's abortion clinic in Glasthule, Dún Laoghaire, near Dublin, before performing an exorcism on the facility.

But a brief google before you posted would have shown you that there is no "Dr. Jim McShane abortion clinic in Glasthule, Dún Laoghaire" - there does appear to be a very large medical practice where Jim McShane is one of many GPs and he specialises in

Minor Surgery
Tongue-Tie Release
Mole Biopsy & Excision
Ingrowing Toenails
Cryotherapy
Hydrocele Drainage
Sports Medicine (Joint Injections, Musculo-Skeletal Complaints)
Occupational Health

He also works with the Leinster rugby and the national Irish team and is the deputy coroner for Dublin. http://sheehanmedicalpractice.com/our-staff

So these zealots set themselves up outside a large but ordinary GP practice and named a doctor who performs minor surgeries but specialises in sports medicine as not only an abortionist but the 'owner' of an abortion clinic and without fact checking you repeat that to make an invalid point.

Bredabe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But a brief google before you posted would have shown you that there is no "Dr. Jim McShane abortion clinic in Glasthule, Dún Laoghaire" - there does appear to be a very large medical practice where Jim McShane is one of many GPs and he specialises in



He also works with the Leinster rugby and the national Irish team and is the deputy coroner for Dublin. http://sheehanmedicalpractice.com/our-staff

So these zealots set themselves up outside a large but ordinary GP practice and named a doctor who performs minor surgeries but specialises in sports medicine as not only an abortionist but the 'owner' of an abortion clinic and without fact checking you repeat that to make an invalid point.

In reality, by performing tongue tie procedures, he enables born babies and young children to feed/eat and speak properly.
A step even further away from 'abortion clinic' then!

amcalester

Bredabe wrote: »

In reality, by performing tongue tie procedures, he enables born babies and young children to feed/eat and speak properly.
A step even further away from 'abortion clinic' then!

Pro-life campaigners tend not to care too much about born children.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

i don't think there would be any point in doing any of that, at least in the case of american pro-lifers as the american pro-life movement does seem to have a vast membership, so there could probably be plenty to replace this priest for example.
the way to deal with the issue is to shut the clinics and move to a system of home abortions in conjunction with gp or hospitals, with the hospitals doing surjical abortions. with no physical infrastructure specifically dedicated to abortion then there isn't anywhere to actually protest. protesting outside somewhere that does a lot of stuff is likely going to be a waste of their time.

The way to deal with disruptive visitors preventing Irish citizens from using the public footpaths and GP's clinics in safety is to cancel their visitor visas and deport them at their own costs, including if necessary a Garda escort on the flight home at their cost as well.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

The way to deal with disruptive visitors preventing Irish citizens from using the public footpaths and GP's clinics in safety is to cancel their visitor visas and deport them at their own costs, including if necessary a Garda escort on the flight home at their cost as well.

i think that in reality it would cost us more to try and recoop the costs from them then it would cost us just to pay the costs of deportation and even a garda escort if one was even available.
i think really we have not got enough gardai available for such escorts because of our refusal to invest in insuring good numbers over the past number of years for which we have reaped what we have sewn.

Igotadose

end of the road wrote: »

i think that in reality it would cost us more to try and recoop the costs from them then it would cost us just to pay the costs of deportation and even a garda escort if one was even available.
i think really we have not got enough gardai available for such escorts because of our refusal to invest in insuring good numbers over the past number of years for which we have reaped what we have sewn.

For this I'm certain they could deputize volunteers and supply them tar and feathers if necessary.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

i think that in reality it would cost us more to try and recoop the costs from them then it would cost us just to pay the costs of deportation and even a garda escort if one was even available.
i think really we have not got enough gardai available for such escorts because of our refusal to invest in insuring good numbers over the past number of years for which we have reaped what we have sewn.

To clear up any confusion, the deportee and not the state would be paying for the early return flight. Presumably they would have come on a return ticket, which can be [date/time; changed at their own cost. Now I'm heading back to the debate without further intervention from foreign troublemakers.

@Igotadose: stick's up volunteers hands.

Kidchameleon

Exclusion zones being banned is something I am not sure will work. In other countries where it was implemented, car parks were targeted. There are videos of women being harassed up the street of abortion clinics. Now before someone accuses me of being pro life again, I am not. I am trying to discuss the best course of action in this situation. I dont want to see women attacked as much as the next poster here

Plumbthedepths

Kidchameleon wrote:

Exclusion zones being banned is something I am not sure will work. In other countries where it was implemented, car parks were targeted. There are videos of women being harassed up the street of abortion clinics. Now before someone accuses me of being pro life again, I am not. I am trying to discuss the best course of action in this situation. I dont want to see women attacked as much as the next poster here

No abortion clinics here so not an issue.

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Exclusion zones being banned is something I am not sure will work. In other countries where it was implemented, car parks were targeted. There are videos of women being harassed up the street of abortion clinics. Now before someone accuses me of being pro life again, I am not. I am trying to discuss the best course of action in this situation. I dont want to see women attacked as much as the next poster here

If some numpty is intent on harassing women going into GP Clinic they should be arrested under current legislation. Few years in jail should soon get the message across.
NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT, 1997

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

(3) Where a person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty, order that the person shall not, for such period as the court may specify, communicate by any means with the other person or that the person shall not approach within such distance as the court shall specify of the place of residence or employment of the other person.

(4) A person who fails to comply with the terms of an order under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.

(5) If on the evidence the court is not satisfied that the person should be convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may nevertheless make an order under subsection (3) upon an application to it in that behalf if, having regard to the evidence, the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice so to do.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec10

If the offender is a non-national who doesn't have leave to remain in Ireland they should be deported and barred from reentering the State.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

To clear up any confusion, the deportee and not the state would be paying for the early return flight. Presumably they would have come on a return ticket, which can be [date/time; changed at their own cost. Now I'm heading back to the debate without further intervention from foreign troublemakers.

@Igotadose: stick's up volunteers hands.

oh no i got what you meant.
i still think it would likely be cheaper and better for us just to pay the cost to deport them then trying to get the money out of them. unless they have a wod of cash in their pocket for which the garda could probably hand it over at the checkin (mind you that probably wouldn't be legal)

Cabaal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Exclusion zones being banned is something I am not sure will work. In other countries where it was implemented, car parks were targeted. There are videos of women being harassed up the street of abortion clinics. Now before someone accuses me of being pro life again, I am not. I am trying to discuss the best course of action in this situation. I dont want to see women attacked as much as the next poster here

So since we don't have "abortion clinics", women are either attending a GP or visiting a hospital.

How exactly are pro-life zealots going to know which women is having an abortion and which women is going for cancer treatment?

Are they going to harass every women?

They'll learn very quickly that the general public won't take too kindly to them harassing random women, all it'll take is one call to Live Line from a women going for cancer treatment who is approached by pro-life zealots and the country will be up in arms.

Also, pro-life zealots harassing women in a hospital carpark would mean they are trespassing and accordingly the hospital security or gardai are well within their rights to remove them.

lazygal

I had to pass by the prolife nutters outside Holles Street last year while pregnant. I was attending for antenatal care. Why should people like me have to deal with these 'sidewalk counsellors' or whatever they like to dress themselves up as? They weren't offering me any help or support or advice, they were getting in the way and annoying everyone.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

There's always an pro-life agenda behind everything.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/kilkenny-hospital-unsuited-to-abortions-say-medics-932314.html

This morning: The Empire Strikes back (or the Irish Times if you want :pac: )


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/gynaecologist-performed-exploratory-work-without-consent-1.3935167

Obstetrician and gynaecologist Prof Ray O’Sullivan says he did not feel he needed to obtain consent before carrying out tests on five women patients last year. The hospital maintains he should have obtained consent, has sought his suspension and has reported the matter to the Medical Council.

Igotadose

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

This morning: The Empire Strikes back (or the Irish Times if you want :pac: )


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/gynaecologist-performed-exploratory-work-without-consent-1.3935167

Obstetrician and gynaecologist Prof Ray O’Sullivan says he did not feel he needed to obtain consent before carrying out tests on five women patients last year. The hospital maintains he should have obtained consent, has sought his suspension and has reported the matter to the Medical Council.

So, one of the signatories to the 'kilkenny hospital unsuitable for abortions' letter, performed unwarranted gynaecological tests on unsuspecting women. How... typical. Have heard numerous stories of the horrors of gynaecology in Ireland from women, stuff that'd have got them struck off and sued into oblivion in the US, if not imprisoned.

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Hotblack Desiato

amcalester wrote: »

It’s not an abortion clinic though, it’s a GP practice.

Shame on Irish Central for falling for that one. Just parroting the propaganda and lies from the zealots.

end of the road

Cabaal wrote: »

So since we don't have "abortion clinics", women are either attending a GP or visiting a hospital.

How exactly are pro-life zealots going to know which women is having an abortion and which women is going for cancer treatment?

Are they going to harass every women?[/QUOTE]


you will have to ask them what their plans are. no point in asking me, i'm not going to know.

Cabaal wrote: »

They'll learn very quickly that the general public won't take too kindly to them harassing random women, all it'll take is one call to Live Line from a women going for cancer treatment who is approached by pro-life zealots and the country will be up in arms.

IMO i cannot see the country as a whole getting up in arms given it doesn't really do the same for any other issues even ones much bigger then this. yes people will discuss it on social media or here or phone into talk shows but the amount of people who would take an active interest in something like this or any other issue IMO are probably the minority. on any issue, in my experience among friends most simply have their view but just get on with their lives.
if the country did get up in arms over issues we would have all of our problems solved by now mind you.

Cabaal wrote: »

Also, pro-life zealots harassing women in a hospital carpark would mean they are trespassing and accordingly the hospital security or gardai are well within their rights to remove them.

exactly so there is nothing to solve here. the laws to deal with this are already there.

.......

end of the road wrote: »

IMO i cannot see the country as a whole getting up in arms given it doesn't really do the same for any other issues even ones much bigger then this. yes people will discuss it on social media or here or phone into talk shows but the amount of people who would take an active interest in something like this or any other issue IMO are probably the minority. on any issue, in my experience among friends most simply have their view but just get on with their lives.

I have to disagree with this.

Every single person in this country has a mother or a sister or an auntie or a daughter or a granny or a female friend or colleague. Women are 50% of the population (slightly more maybe).

If half the population starts getting harassed going to hospital appointments you can be sure that there will be proper outrage. Enough so that the government will be forced to step in to cut it out.

Remarkable that you think people would just sit back and accept the harassment of women in this way. I dont believe we live in a country where harassing women like this is acceptable. At all.

smacl

end of the road wrote: »

IMO i cannot see the country as a whole getting up in arms given it doesn't really do the same for any other issues even ones much bigger then this.

The country as a whole has already got up in arms over the issue of abortion and I would fully expect and congratulate it do so again where it feels that pregnant women are being harassed by foreign zealots attempting to undermine the democratic process. That a foreign religious power is spending money in an attempt to undermine the democratically expressed will of the people of this country is repugnant, should not be tolerated and will not be tolerated.

Plumbthedepths

end of the road wrote:

Are they going to harass every women?

[/quote]


They shouldn't be harassing ANY woman. No justification whatsoever.

amcalester

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Shame on Irish Central for falling for that one. Just parroting the propaganda and lies from the zealots.

Parroted by eotr too.

realitykeeper

uptherebels wrote: »

Did medical misdiagnosis not happen in the past?

Of course, how else could I know it will happen in the future.

volchitsa

realitykeeper wrote: »

Of course, how else could I know it will happen in the future.

We don't normally ban a medical procedure on the grounds that there has been a misdiagnosis or even medical negligence. The usual response is to improve procedures so as to reduce the risk of the misdiagnosis happening again.
That seems to me to be the right approach here too.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

Of course, how else could I know it will happen in the future.

Then your contention the past was better than the future based solely on the potential for misdiagnosis is, to put it mildly, a ridiculous one.

The potential for misdiagnosis exists in pretty much EVERY field of medicine. That does not make the past better than the future there either.

People have literally died from getting treatment they did not actually need, for conditions they did not actually have. Because of misdiagnosis.

Similarly people have died needlessly for NOT getting treatments they did need, for conditions we thought they did not have that they actually did. Again because of misdiagnosis.

Yet over the decades medical progress still makes the present and the future much better than the past. Taking a SINGLE statistic like mis-diagnosis and evaluating the relative merits of the past against the future on it's basis is a patently ridiculous approach to take.

Worse than that though, you do not merely focus on a single cherry picked statistic but you contrive to misrepresent it through the application of hyperbole too with the line "many more such tragedies can be expected". I am not sure what your personal trigger point is for the application of the word "many" but I suggest there will not be that many at all.

Especially if we, as we damn well should be, move to use each tragic case as an education point to reduce the potentials for further cases in the future. I doubt it is possible to EVER reduce that to zero. But zero is still the base ideal we should be working towards. Where exactly are you pulling "many" from?

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

IMO i cannot see the country as a whole getting up in arms given it doesn't really do the same for any other issues even ones much bigger then this. yes people will discuss it on social media or here or phone into talk shows but the amount of people who would take an active interest in something like this or any other issue IMO are probably the minority. on any issue, in my experience among friends most simply have their view but just get on with their lives.
if the country did get up in arms over issues we would have all of our problems solved by now mind you.

Oh I'd say protestors outside GP surgeries intimidating people seeking health care would ignite enough of a fire in people to stand up.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

More generally, I've made the point many times - without a meaningful reply from either side - that neither side is making any noticeable effort to seek out common ground as one would expect of a civil discussion amongst opposing views. Make of that what you will.

What exactly do you mean by "common ground"?

Are you saying that both side should recognise the inherent common ground in their positions and argue from that? Well that's just plain wrong, either or both sides of an argument can be 100% wrong and genuine posters in a civil debate should be open to that possibility.

Are you saying that both sides should approach the common ground that is the correct answer to the debate? Well the correct answer can only be common if both sides are open to approaching it and not just answers they want to be true. And it's hardly one sides fault if the other side isn't interested in honestly coming to the correct conclusion (instead of the conclusion they would like). Of course if you want to accuse both sides of doing that, then you need to explain what that common ground (i.e. correct answer) is and how either or neither side is accepting of it.

Igotadose

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The potential for misdiagnosis exists in pretty much EVERY field of medicine. That does not make the past better than the future there either.

People have literally died from getting treatment they did not actually need, for conditions they did not actually have. Because of misdiagnosis.

A better example is Pap smears and the misdiagnosis scandal last year. We improve due to failures. We've certainly not stopped the program in Ireland, that'd be ridiculous. Perhaps the drive to save costs caused the problem in Ireland, though I don't think so, the real problem there was the lack of accountability at the HSE. There's a subject I think that the majority of the population could get behind. Personally, I'd be in favor of a massive shift to a government-run insurance program, so the cost to Joe public remains the same, but customers can 'vote with their feet' and force out the inept medical providers. Plus the enormous amount of bureaucracy in the HSE would disappear, I've read somewhere that 40% of the HSE budget is administrators, hospitals are run by administrators not doctors, etc.

And from what I can tell anecdotally, the HSE hierarchy is way too tight with the RCC. That's never good, especially for women.

Speaking of bad doctors, looks like Professor Ray O'Sullivan is in increasing amounts of hot water: https://www.thejournal.ie/gynaecologist-kilkenny-consent-4694950-Jun2019/

"In a statement, a spokesperson for the Ireland East Hospital Group confirmed to TheJournal.ie that the group commissioned a review into the incidents and that the report was received last week. "

Igotadose

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I can imagine it's bigger than the George W. Bush Center for Intelligence.

Would "opponents of abortion" be acceptable?

No. It's too limiting. They're opposed to contraception and look down on adoption, too. It's all about removing women's choices and keeping them subjugated to the will of the various religious authorities. Barefoot in the summer, pregnant in the winter.

Reluctantly, as one who regularly gets into slagging debates with them, I'm in agreement that we should stick to Pro-life and pro-choice, and not use terms like 'baby' and 'murder' and 'killing.' When I feel my blood pressure go up due to the lying and slyness, I walk away from the keyboard.

nthclare

Robin has been a moderator of A&A for a long time but I think he's getting softer as time goes by lol

He or she's a tough cookie for sure, but I'd say inside there's a soft interior and I wouldn't take them seriously...

Board's isn't for the sensitive that's for sure...

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Not looking to instaban anyone, quite the opposite in fact. The thinking here is that being a bit more restrictive about language where things are prone to becoming incendiary, posters are less likely to find themselves drawn into a position where they get infracted.

i winky-faced and everything!

but that said (lol)

there is no greater piece of language more prone to incendiary usage.

so if one is in scope the other would seem to be very much so, for precisely the same reasons

tbh, im struggling to see the goal of the change of approach-

- civility (agreed good)
- so that the sides come together and agree something (at best neutral, depending on issues)
- so that the sides must accept mod decisions on the very items up for debate (thereby, somewhat in contradiction to above, ensuring the debate never ends (and possibly can't really happen)

if we're honest before ourselves and god isnt it an actual fact that one side of this particular topic fails on pretty much every accepted rule of good debate on boards and the conversation would be de facto over if the rules over imprecision of important terms, appeals to emotion, begging the question, soapboxing etc were consistently applied?!

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

Pro-choice in this context is specifically pro being allowed to choose to have an abortion where deemed necessary by the woman in question. Rather than truncate the above to 'pro choice' (to have an abortion), they're truncating it to 'Pro' (choice to have an) 'abortion'. I'm of the opinion that this is wrong but that is just my opinion.

'Anti-abortion' is also not a correct replacement for 'Pro-life' as there are those who are against abortion but prioritise the rights of the individual woman. 'Anti-choice', while possibly a fairer description in some respects, allows scope for name-calling and the whole thread turning into a slagging match and getting closed on that basis. Which side of the argument do you think that serves better?

I'm of the opinion that they are not doing that at all, they are using "pro-abortion" to say their opposing side is "in favour of" abortions, full stop. I've never even seen anyone make the case you are here for that term, and given the emotive, and sometimes gory, misinformation spread by the pro-life side about abortion, even if they did come up with it is clear what the implication is.


It is a good point and I accept what you say about 'Anti-abortion', as there are people who are anti-abortion who are pro-choice regardless and I should have realised that myself. However I made the same point about "pro-life" applying to people who are pro-choice too, which would imply that it is equally unsuitable as a label to the pro-life side.


I don't really see how "anti-choice" is more open to insults than any other label. However, I would actually assert the label "pro-birth" as being most accurate anyway. It would also seem to me to have the least basis to start an slagging match?

end of the road

Igotadose wrote: »

No. It's too limiting. They're opposed to contraception and look down on adoption, too. It's all about removing women's choices and keeping them subjugated to the will of the various religious authorities. Barefoot in the summer, pregnant in the winter.

Reluctantly, as one who regularly gets into slagging debates with them, I'm in agreement that we should stick to Pro-life and pro-choice, and not use terms like 'baby' and 'murder' and 'killing.' When I feel my blood pressure go up due to the lying and slyness, I walk away from the keyboard.

nope wrong. "they" as a whole are not as you claim.
some may fit your description but many do not.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't really see how "anti-choice" is more open to insults than any other label. However, I would actually assert the label "pro-birth" as being most accurate anyway. It would also seem to me to have the least basis to start an slagging match?

Accuracy aside and playing Devil's advocate, it is an insult as the stated goal of pro-life advocates is the protection of the unborn. Restricting women's right to choose would be a (cough) unfortunate by-product.

"Pro-birth" might well be a more accurate name (one of many perhaps), but not the one they've chosen. In the interests of civil discourse, we'll stick to the names people have chosen for themselves rather than the ones we might choose for them.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

More generally, I've made the point many times - without a meaningful reply from either side - that neither side is making any noticeable effort to seek out common ground as one would expect of a civil discussion amongst opposing views. Make of that what you will.

Whatever about a consensus in society - and a >66% vote to repeal suggests that we're well on our way to one - as far as online discussion goes, I'm not seeing where common ground can exist.

There must be many No voters (as there was with marriage equality and divorce) who voted for reasons which don't really stand up to any scrutiny, and will sooner or later come to accept the new regime, even if they are uncomfortable with it to a greater or lesser extent.

The campaigners (and you'll notice that on Boards, whatever 'soft No' support was expressed has long melted away) are much more of the 'not an inch' variety and seemingly will never accept 12 weeks never mind any possible future liberalisation.

There is potential for common ground between
- pro-life voters who have come to accept 12 weeks, but no more
- pro-choice voters who are uncomfortable with anything more than the current law

to resist any future change. Hard to see such a coalition being assembled in the real world however, and certainly not online! Those who are still posting about it over a year later clearly tend towards the more hardline position of each camp, and I'd have to include myself in that...

Many people it seems just don't care any more and/or are sick of hearing about it. In a sense they want to go back to the old position of not having to hear about or think about abortion, even though they know they must be happening somewhere (just mostly on this island now instead of on the neighbouring one.)

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even all that aside, pro-life is not a good label for one side of the debate as it assumes that the other side is anti-life, which is clearly inflammatory and wrong.

Well that's the very reason that label was invented.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Many people it seems just don't care any more and/or are sick of hearing about it. In a sense they want to go back to the old position of not having to hear about or think about abortion, even though they know they must be happening somewhere (just mostly on this island now instead of on the neighbouring one.)

I'd suspect there are also many people who voted for repeal who think 'job done' and have moved on.

We also have the issue that if things here become too heated, and the thread devolves into a slagging match, that it discourages those with more moderate views from entering the discussion. The problem with a very polarised discussion is that it ignores the fact that there may be very many people somewhere in the middle ground.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

Accuracy aside and playing Devil's advocate, it is an insult as the stated goal of pro-life advocates is the protection of the unborn. Restricting women's right to choose would be a (cough) unfortunate by-product.

Is calling themselves "Pro-Life" not an insult, as it (at the very least) implies that we are "anti-life"?

I do agree with the continued use of it, as you say, to encourage continued civil discourse, but I do think it should still be recognised that the name chosen by them was done so very carefully so as to lay down the emotive foundation of their argument and disparage their opponents before discussion even begins.

nozzferrahhtoo

I guess the world did the same thing when the word "gay" was used for homosexuality. It is a word meaning happy and carefree and so on. So the opposite of gay is what? Unhappy restricted and depressed?

Daniel Dennett did a semi tongue and cheek play on this. Suggesting that instead of words like atheist and intellectual, we call ourselves "Brights". The implication being the opposite people are what? Dark? Murky?

Pro-choice in context is, as other people have pointed out, at least honest and the opposite is not some contrived insult or diminutive. But if the forum powers that be want us to stick to the established terms so be it. I just hope I remember to use "pro life" here and "anti choice" in every other area of boards.ie

Most of the time however I do not use any label but sentences like "Those campaigning against choice based abortion". So far no mod has taken issue with that.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

if we were anti-choice then we would be across the board on everything.

Linguistically what you just claimed there is total nonsense. Language is contextual. There are many many many words in many many many areas that when used in a given context, have no implications of the sort you describe OUTSIDE that context.

Case in point, if your nonsense was not in fact the nonsense it is, the term "pro life" itself would even suffer from EXACTLY the same issue you just asserted "anti choice" would suffer from.

After all unless you are vegetarian, maybe even vegan..... against all pesticides..... never use paper..... avoid antibiotics..... and much more.... you are not "pro life across the board on everything" either.

But when discussing the topic of abortion and you use the term "pro life" in the context of abortion, people generally know what you mean and do not think your use of that term holds ANY implications for your views outside that context.

Yet, for no reason at all, magically, you assume this is an issue with the term "anti choice"? How odd.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is calling themselves "Pro-Life" not an insult, as it (at the very least) implies that we are "anti-life"?

I do agree with the continued use of it, as you say, to encourage continued civil discourse, but I do think it should still be recognised that the name chosen by them was done so very carefully so as to lay down the emotive foundation of their argument and disparage their opponents before discussion even begins.

Most probably, but then they clearly needed something a bit catchier than SPUC, not least because so many of my generation were walking around in SPUC Off t-shirts first time around.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Most probably, but then they clearly needed something a bit catchier than SPUC, not least because so many of my generation were walking around in SPUC Off t-shirts first time around.

Me! That was me!!

Hotblack Desiato

AFAIK the term "pro-life" in the US goes right back to Roe v. Wade, if not earlier.

Mark Hamill

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I guess the world did the same thing when the word "gay" was used for homosexuality. It is a word meaning happy and carefree and so on. So the opposite of gay is what? Unhappy restricted and depressed?

Daniel Dennett did a semi tongue and cheek play on this. Suggesting that instead of words like atheist and intellectual, we call ourselves "Brights". The implication being the opposite people are what? Dark? Murky?

Pro-choice in context is, as other people have pointed out, at least honest and the opposite is not some contrived insult or diminutive. But if the forum powers that be want us to stick to the established terms so be it. I just hope I remember to use "pro life" here and "anti choice" in every other area of boards.ie

Most of the time however I do not use any label but sentences like "Those campaigning against choice based abortion". So far no mod has taken issue with that.

When gay was first used to describe homosexuals, it was more from it's "bright and showy" meaning, than it's "happy" meaning. Hence the opposite of "gay" was (and is) "straight", which in this context means conventional and serious. (think of the "straight man" in a comedy double act being the serious or composed one).

"Brights" clearly was coined to imply the other side were not.

.......

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"Brights" clearly was coined to imply the other side were not.

The Brights versus the Dims?

the bright, and the light, and the half-bright

nozzferrahhtoo

I think the opposite of Bright that was suggested at the time was "Murky" but I am not sure if memory is right on that one. Maybe it was Dims.

The point being still though that words like "Gay" bring certain connotations to mind, the opposite of which CAN often be a contrived implication about the other side. It does not have to be, or even if it is it might not have been the intention, but it is an effect that can happen either way.

That is why pro choice and anti choice work for me. They are direct opposites without any demeaning implication about the other. Where as "pro life" somehow suggests we are not. Which is not representative at all. While "pro abortion" is also a distortion given most of us pro choice people are actually entirely anti abortion and want to work towards a society where no abortions... ideally.... ever actually happen.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by "common ground"? Are you saying that both side should recognise the inherent common ground in their positions and argue from that?

I'm saying that both sides are talking about the topic, but without making much obvious effort to explore areas where there is agreement on certain basic facts or aspects of the issue, and certainly nothing related to how agreement might be extended to cover other areas.

Instead, the "pro-life" stakes a claim to life itself as the guiding principle, while "pro-choice" stakes a claim to the idea of control as the guiding principle. Control and life are fundamental, but incommensurable, concepts, so with both sides typically arguing from their guiding principle rather than from common ground, there is unlikely ever to be any agreement or development of the discussion.

I've suggested a few times inthread where common ground exists, but neither side took up the suggestions with any enthusiasm and one could certainly imagine reasons why this might be so.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Of course if you want to accuse both sides of doing that, then you need to explain what that common ground (i.e. correct answer) is and how either or neither side is accepting of it.

I'm not sure you understand what "common ground" is - it's basic premises which both sides agree on, or basic similarities concerning the form of the arguments presented on both sides. They do exist in the abortion discussion, but their existence doesn't imply that they're correct any more than two people who happen to agree that that 2+2=5 would be correct either.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"Brights" clearly was coined to imply the other side were not.

That's an unevidenced imputation. The marketing term was dreamed up, self-applied by various people and it was hoped that it would work in the same way as "gay" brightened up things for the LGBT+ community.

Thankfully, very few people ever used the term as it's - quite frankly - embarrassing.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

I'm saying that both sides are talking about the topic, but without making much obvious effort to explore areas where there is agreement on certain basic facts or aspects of the issue, and certainly nothing related to how agreement might be extended to cover other areas.

Instead, the "pro-life" stakes a claim to life itself as the guiding principle, while "pro-choice" stakes a claim to the idea of control as the guiding principle. Control and life are fundamental, but incommensurable, concepts, so with both sides typically arguing from their guiding principle rather than from common ground, there is unlikely ever to be any agreement or development of the discussion.

I've suggested a few times in thread where common ground exists, but neither side took up the suggestions with any enthusiasm and one could certainly imagine reasons why this might be so.

If you are the only one who can see this "common ground" maybe it doesn't exist? Or maybe it is redundant and changes nothing about the discussion to bring it up and discuss on it. Just because you might agree with someone on some tangential issue doesn't mean you can be led to agree with them on the main issue.

I honestly can't think of any basic fact that is already defacto agreed on by both sides that would actually change the discussion if it was more openly pointed out. Can you give an example of some important common ground that is being ignored, as I missed/can't remember your in-thread examples?