Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

The white supremacists who wanted to stop black children being allowed into "white" schools in the US would have thought that described them to a T.

Doesn't mean it's true though. What they are doing is as important as why they think they are doing it, and intimidating and demeaning women at a vulnerable moment in their lives makes that a dubious call.

fair point but that is why i said the majority rather then all. there will always be small individuals and even fringe groups who are not out for the common good. however i don't believe the majority of pro-life are anything other then good people who wish to right a wrong.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

fair point but that is why i said the majority rather then all. there will always be small fringe groups who are not out for the common good. however i don't believe the majority of pro-life are anything other then good people who wish to right a wrong.

I'm sure that among those white supremacists in the 1960s there were lots of basically decent people too though. They were the product of their upbringing.
Very much like Irish Catholics, or even ex Catholics, are the product of ours.

So yes, I agree, but it still doesn't make it right. People protesting because they don't like someone else having a right is retrograde and in this case anti women.

We saw that prolifers can't make a solid case for banning abortion, that's why they resorted to so many lies and all the fear mongering about babies being killed right up to birth and even after. So it really doesn't matter what they think they are defending, what they are actually doing is deluding themselves about reality.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

yes . as i see it, the majority of people get involved in protest movements for reasons of good. they feel strongly about the issue and want to change things. they care and want to bring about the greater good.

But how do you know this when you don't go to the protests?
How you reconcile this with the harassment and intimidation that does happen in places in America etc. ? Are you saying that no harassement from these protests ever takes place?

How come, if you feel so strongly against abortion, and the protesters are so noble and effective, why do you not go to them?

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm sure that among those white supremacists in the 1960s there were lots of basically decent people too though. They were the product of their upbringing.
Very much like Irish Catholics, or even ex Catholics, are the product of ours.

So yes, I agree, but it still doesn't make it right. People protesting because they don't like someone else having a right is retrograde and in this case anti women.

We saw that prolifers can't make a solid case for banning abortion, that's why they resorted to so many lies and all the fear mongering about babies being killed right up to birth and even after. So it really doesn't matter what they think they are defending, what they are actually doing is deluding themselves about reality.

being against abortion on demand is not anti women, it's pro women. unborn women are the victims of abortion as well.
pro-lifers made an absolutely solid case to ban abortion bar certain circumstances, and i am satisfied that this is the case.
people not willing to except the reality of the barbarity and cruelty of abortion on demand is not the fault of pro-life. pro-life can only put the message across. after that, those who do not wish to listen have to live with what they vote for. pro-life's consciences are clear.

King Mob wrote: »

But how do you know this when you don't go to the protests?
How you reconcile this with the harassment and intimidation that does happen in places in America etc. ? Are you saying that no harassement from these protests ever takes place?

How come, if you feel so strongly against abortion, and the protesters are so noble and effective, why do you not go to them?

i personally don't believe the harassment is anywhere near what is being claimed within the US .
there have been serious incidents that go beyond harassment but i think those have been carried out by fringe individuals and groups who just want to engage in violence, for which abortion is convenient.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

fair point but that is why i said the majority rather then all. there will always be small individuals and even fringe groups who are not out for the common good. however i don't believe the majority of pro-life are anything other then good people who wish to right a wrong.

Stop saying they wish to right a wrong when they have NO authority to make such a judgment on behalf of another person, least of all a TOTAL stranger.
Repeating the statement ad nauseum doesn’t make it accurate or true.

You are being extremely offensive to those reading who may have had terminations.
They did not and do need the guidance of you and your LoveBoat cohorts to make their own choices for their own lives.

You have an extremely superior, self righteous attitude if you believe that any person should have to justify their private medical care to you. They don’t and thankfully they never will.

You’re simply embarrassing yourself at this stage.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

being against abortion on demand is not anti women, it's pro women. unborn women are the victims of abortion as well.
pro-lifers made an absolutely solid case to ban abortion bar certain circumstances, and i am satisfied that this is the case.
people not willing to except the reality of the barbarity and cruelty of abortion on demand is not the fault of pro-life. pro-life can only put the message across. after that, those who do not wish to listen have to live with what they vote for. pro-life's consciences are clear.






i personally don't believe the harassment is anywhere near what is being claimed within the US .
there have been serious incidents that go beyond harassment but i think those have been carried out by fringe individuals and groups who just want to engage in violence, for which abortion is convenient.

Nope it's as bad as claimed their Christian nut jobs actually classified as a terrorist organization.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

being
i personally don't believe the harassment is anywhere near what is being claimed within the US .
there have been serious incidents that go beyond harassment but i think those have been carried out by fringe individuals and groups who just want to engage in violence, for which abortion is convenient.

Have you evidence for this?
Why do you believe that there is less harassment than is claimed? Are the people claiming harassment not genuine?

Also you seem to have missed my other question.
Why do you not participate in the protests yourself?

If you intend on avoiding the question as usual, please at least say so. It would save a lot of bother.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

being against abortion on demand is not anti women, it's pro women. unborn women are the victims of abortion as well.
pro-lifers made an absolutely solid case to ban abortion bar certain circumstances, and i am satisfied that this is the case.

Deciding when a woman can and cannot have an abortion including believing that women who have been raped should be forced to give birth to the child of their rapist is about as anti woman as you can get.
If they had such a solid case, they wouldn't have had to resort to lies, scaremongering and filibustering in an attempt to persuade people of said case.

King Mob

uptherebels wrote: »

Deciding when a woman can and cannot have an abortion including believing that women who have been raped should be forced to give birth to the child of their rapist is about as anti woman as you can get.
If they had such a solid case, they wouldn't have had to resort to lies, scaremongering and filibustering in an attempt to persuade people of said case.

End maintains that the anti abortion campaign never lied about anything. Himself included.
When shown evidence of these lies, he suddenly finds those facts irrelevant to the discussion and does not respond.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

Stop saying they wish to right a wrong when they have NO authority to make such a judgment on behalf of another person, least of all a TOTAL stranger.
Repeating the statement ad nauseum doesn’t make it accurate or true.

You are being extremely offensive to those reading who may have had terminations.
They did not and do need the guidance of you and your LoveBoat cohorts to make their own choices for their own lives.

You have an extremely superior, self righteous attitude if you believe that any person should have to justify their private medical care to you. They don’t and thankfully they never will.

You’re simply embarrassing yourself at this stage.

while i won't and don't specifically go out of my way to offend anyone and never would, i make no appology for stating the realities of abortion on demand.
the ending of a healthy unborn human being's life is a billion times more offensive then me having a viewpoint as i see it, and i will never make any apollogy for believing the unnecessary ending of a life is wrong.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

Have you evidence for this?
Why do you believe that there is less harassment than is claimed? Are the people claiming harassment not genuine?

i am sure they may be genuine in that they believe on a personal basis that harassment has taken place, but may not realisz that in reality it may not have been harassment.

King Mob wrote: »

Also you seem to have missed my other question.
Why do you not participate in the protests yourself?

If you intend on avoiding the question as usual, please at least say so. It would save a lot of bother.

because i don't specifically agree with the protests. however i absolutely support their right to do so and i agree with the aim they have of ending abortion on demand.

King Mob wrote: »

End maintains that the anti abortion campaign never lied about anything. Himself included.
When shown evidence of these lies, he suddenly finds those facts irrelevant to the discussion and does not respond.

because apart from the odd campeigner, i don't believe pro-life in general lied. so i don't believe that it would be worth it for me to respond to simply say i don't agree all the time.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

being against abortion on demand is not anti women, it's pro women. unborn women are the victims of abortion as well.
pro-lifers made an absolutely solid case to ban abortion bar certain circumstances, and i am satisfied that this is the case.
people not willing to except the reality of the barbarity and cruelty of abortion on demand is not the fault of pro-life. pro-life can only put the message across. after that, those who do not wish to listen have to live with what they vote for. pro-life's consciences are clear.






i personally don't believe the harassment is anywhere near what is being claimed within the US .
there have been serious incidents that go beyond harassment but i think those have been carried out by fringe individuals and groups who just want to engage in violence, for which abortion is convenient.

Another link for you reporting that harassment is actually increasing in the U.S.
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1I82K1

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

i am sure they may be genuine in that they believe on a personal basis that harassment has taken place, but may not realisz that in reality it may not have been harassment.



because i don't specifically agree with the protests. however i absolutely support their right to do so and i agree with the aim they have of ending abortion on demand.



because apart from the odd campeigner, i don't believe pro-life in general lied. so i don't believe that it would be worth it for me to respond to simply say i don't agree all the time.

The odd campaigner, your being selective again, the whole campaign and anyone they had talking on their behalf lied.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

i am sure they may be genuine in that they believe on a personal basis that harassment has taken place, but may not realisz that in reality it may not have been harassment.

Firstly, any evidence for this?

Secondly, if that can be the case, isnt it also possible that maybe your personal bias is making you deny harassment that is taking place?

end of the road wrote: »

because i don't specifically agree with the protests.

Why not?

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

No no I don’t support that at all. The RCC is not a public service that everyone is entitled to avail of at all. It’s a private club that you are not obliged to join but if you join you have to obey the rules.

Well they need to GTF out of state-funded schools, then.

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

Nobody said you can’t hand out condoms on the street outside a church if you want. Knock yourself out. Hand them out and tubes of lube if it makes you happy.
But you won’t be coming into the church to hand them out.
You hand out your condoms and I’ll hand out my leaflets and we’ll all be happy.
But you can’t come into the church (private property) and put items that are contrary to Church law on the notice board.
Regarding the RCC and SSM the Sacrament of Matrimony is for Catholics only with some small allowances. As the RCC rules doesn’t allow for SSM then the church is of course going to refuse you the sacrament.
A priest is not obliged to marry anyone he deems not suitable for marriage, you are not entitled to demand a priest marry you and the priest is exempt from the Eqaulity Act in his regard.

This is either very stupid, or deliberately missing the point.

Nobody is talking about coming into church property, etc.

But we non-catholics have a right to free speech, whether your church likes it or not - and this is a right we can only exercise in quite recent years.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

being against abortion on demand is not anti women, it's pro women. unborn women are the victims of abortion as well.

I know what the argument is, I didn't say prolife didn't have any, I said they weren't solid. Like this one. I don't wish to rerun the interminable referendum discussions yet again just because you still don't see why this is a point that will work to convince the already converted.

However, from what appears to be a reflex action I find I cannot stop myself from pointing out that the argument works just as well as an explanation for why banning women from having access to contraception would not be anti women because it protects unconceived women who should have the same rights as other women. :rolleyes:

People looked at both sides closely and decided that they did not accept your fundamental premise that the rights of the unborn can reasonably be used to reduce the rights of the born. The rest of your edifice of arguments collapses unless you can convince 50+% of the population that the unborn need/deserve these rights more than the born need theirs.

So let's not go down that rabbit hole again in this thread. Maybe start a new one when you have some new arguments that we haven't seen before? I'd genuinely be very interested. I just don't think there are any, until new research comes out proving that 12 week old foetuses are writing poetry in their mother's womb or something.

end of the road wrote: »

pro-lifers made an absolutely solid case to ban abortion bar certain circumstances, and i am satisfied that this is the case.
people not willing to except the reality of the barbarity and cruelty of abortion on demand is not the fault of pro-life. pro-life can only put the message across. after that, those who do not wish to listen have to live with what they vote for. pro-life's consciences are clear.

Well, clearly they failed to convince anything like a majority of the population. That's called having failed to make your case. By normal measures of success in debates anyway. It's a measure of the logical weakness of the prolife position that you are unable to learn from your failure to convince and are reacting as though you had somehow been prevented from making your case or something. Blaming the electorate for not being convinced by it is poor form. Seriously.


But if we can get back to the current question, about why, having failed to make their case on the nation's media in a structured manner when given all necessary airtime etc, they should now be allowed to engage in low-level intimidatory tactics against vulnerable women and couples as a roundabout way of trying to achieve what they failed to convince the electorate to vote for, well, you haven't even tried to make that case yet.
You're still stuck at trying to rerun the referendum. You need to move on from that.

King Mob

I believe the next move will be to repeat the claims that the anti abortion side failed because of other reasons not of their doing.
Last time there were claims of the government lying about the referendum and the media being part of the big conspiracy to legalise abortion.

Just going to premptively point out that none of that has been in anyway outlined or detailed anx certainly not substaniated.

Oh. Also the claim that the anti abortion side actually did win as they were in fact also against the 8th. The belief being that the majority of people are actually against abortion, they just voted down the 8th for some reason.

Basically the reason can't be that their claims and arguments are bad. That would just be impossible...

robarmstrong

robarmstrong wrote: »

EOTR - if you say "abortion is murder", you're saying that it's the unlawful killing of another human being, correct?

Except abortion is legal and legislated for, with the definition of human being not applying to those who are unborn.

How is it murder? Is it a fact that it's murder (i.e it is defined and set out in the constitution or law that terminating an unborn is murder) or is it your opinion that it is murder?

If it is in fact murder, how come we aren't arresting all of these murderers?

you seemed to have missed this bit EOTR.

I'll post it again for you.

If the pro-life campaign didn't lie for the most part, how do you explain Ronan Mullen? The fake nurse? What about this instance directly from yourself -

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105874755&postcount=4775

a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term and they will push hard for that.

aloyisious

splinter65 wrote: »

If your parents brought you to be baptized and you’re now annoyed that they did then should you not be directing your annoyance at your parents and not the priest?
That’s like being annoyed at the beautician because your parents brought you to have your ears pierced. Ludicrous.
If I join Ballygobacwards Golf Club then there’s no obligation on me to ever go near the Club again. If I never turn up to play a round of golf or go to a meeting or have a drink in the bar then no one is going to chase me about it. Oh my membership will be terminated if I don’t pay my “dues” but if I do I will still be a member.
It’s the same in the church. No one is chasing you to participate.
If you don’t want to be a Catholic then just don’t be one. Adults who present themselves to the priest for sacraments must want to be Catholics otherwise why would they?

Thank you for not answering the question I put to you. Your attempt at derision fell flat.

.......

EOTR must be the most famous poster on boards.ie at this stage with the same tired old tactics of stating opinion as fact, never backing up what they say, running and hiding when the contradictions are pointed out, refusing to engage when people point out the flaws in their argument.

Hard to believe that so long after the referendum the same poster is still trotting out the same old guff.

Although maybe not so hard to believe, if its not possible by law to subjugate women through denial of basic medical care, the fall back position for the anti women crew is fear, harassment and intimidation.

aloyisious

splinter65 wrote: »

Approaching someone going into a public building and hassling them and possibly frightening them is totally unacceptable and if you see someone doing that you should take it upon yourself to stand up and be counted by intervening. The person doing the hassling needs to be excluded from any further protests or pickets.
I haven’t heard of anyone currently protesting abortions here in Ireland doing that though, if you see it you should go to the defense of the person being hassled immediately.
Respectfully standing on a public street with banners and leaflets however is totally acceptable and anyone that wants to protest anything that they think is wrong is free to do so.

I have politely but firmly stopped women protestors at Christian prayer sessions hassling women attending clinics on Berkeley Rd in Dublin in the past.

Getting back to the question I put to you and which you turned back to me: using your terminology, will you stop the hassler at the protest from hassling women attending public buildings?

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

while i won't and don't specifically go out of my way to offend anyone and never would, i make no appology for stating the realities of abortion on demand.
the ending of a healthy unborn human being's life is a billion times more offensive then me having a viewpoint as i see it, and i will never make any apollogy for believing the unnecessary ending of a life is wrong.

Others do not share this belief and this country gives them the democratic freedom to do so. Your opinion is no more valid nor pertinent than theirs.
Stop imposing on their lives with your soapboxing.

We are all aware of the realities of abortion on demand, no one more so than the woman trying to actually walk into the clinic to procure the service.
She doesn't need your opinion or your interference.

You are entitled to find it offensive, but you aren't entitled to involve yourself in someone else's choice.
"Right" & "wrong" is a matter of opinion.
You have no more right to interfere in a woman's private medical matters than she does in yours.

Give others the respect you would expect yourself.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

i am sure they may be genuine in that they believe on a personal basis that harassment has taken place, but may not realisz that in reality it may not have been harassment.

If a person is feeling harassed they are feeling harassed for a reason, you do not get to dictate how other people interpret levels of harassment. If I follow you around with graphic posters and invade what you interpret as your personal space, I have absolutely no right to tell you that your interpretation of harassment is unjustified.

Any suggestion otherwise is pig-ignorant, this has been explained to you numerous times so please acknowledge that it is not within your remit to determine someone's justification for feeling harassed.

SusieBlue

robarmstrong wrote: »

If a person is feeling harassed they are feeling harassed for a reason, you do not get to dictate how other people interpret levels of harassment. If I follow you around with graphic posters and invade what you interpret as your personal space, I have absolutely no right to tell you that your interpretation of harassment is unjustified.

Any suggestion otherwise is pig-ignorant, this has been explained to you numerous times so please acknowledge that it is not within your remit to determine someone's justification for feeling harassed.

EOTR has a propensity to assume how others interpret things on a regular basis.
I recall him making several statements in the run up to the referendum that women who think they need abortions, actually don't need them, they just don't realise it. (can quote if necessary)
He was unfortunately unable to explain how he, as a stranger, could possibly know or determine that they "didn't really need the abortion", but still upheld his claim even so, by repeating it several times over.

I wouldn't be holding my breath on a satisfactory response if I were you.

volchitsa

robarmstrong wrote: »

If a person is feeling harassed they are feeling harassed for a reason, you do not get to dictate how other people interpret levels of harassment. If I follow you around with graphic posters and invade what you interpret as your personal space, I have absolutely no right to tell you that your interpretation of harassment is unjustified.

Any suggestion otherwise is pig-ignorant, this has been explained to you numerous times so please acknowledge that it is not within your remit to determine someone's justification for feeling harassed.

Especially when the reason for not believing that it is harassment seems to be because that level of harassment is justified due to the nature of the issue!

It might be harassment if it were about a different subject - how ln earth does that work?

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well they need to GTF out of state-funded schools, then.

presumably they will do that when it is shown that in actual fact the majority of people are not catholic. while a majority continue to tick the catholic box on the census form then i'd imagine the cc feel they have a perfect mandate to remain involved. as i have said before, if a majority of people want the cc out of schools hospitals etc then they need to show this to be the case. while they continue not to do so then they can't be surprised the cc remain involved.

SusieBlue wrote: »

EOTR has a propensity to assume how others interpret things on a regular basis.
I recall him making several statements in the run up to the referendum that women who think they need abortions, actually don't need them, they just don't realise it. (can quote if necessary)
He was unfortunately unable to explain how he, as a stranger, could possibly know or determine that they "didn't really need the abortion", but still upheld his claim even so, by repeating it several times over.

I wouldn't be holding my breath on a satisfactory response if I were you.

the poster you quoted is on ignore so he won't be getting a response to anything he writes from me.

.......

end of the road wrote: »

the poster you quoted is on ignore so he won't be getting a response to anything he writes from me.

We should all take a leaf out of your book.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

presumably they will do that when it is shown that in actual fact the majority of people are not catholic. while a majority continue to tick the catholic box on the census form then i'd imagine the cc feel they have a perfect mandate to remain involved. as i have said before, if a majority of people want the cc out of schools hospitals etc then they need to show this to be the case. while they continue not to do so then they can't be surprised the cc remain involved.



the poster you quoted is on ignore so he won't be getting a response to anything he writes from me.

Hi, you seem to have missed my post again.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110005234&postcount=165

ohnonotgmail

King Mob wrote: »

Hi, you seem to have missed my post again.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110005234&postcount=165

He hasn't responded to anything i've asked either. He must have a lot of us on ignore.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

Firstly, any evidence for this?

Secondly, if that can be the case, isnt it also possible that maybe your personal bias is making you deny harassment that is taking place?

no i believe that would not be possible.

King Mob wrote: »

Why not?

because i don't think simply protesting will achieve anything in itself. simply handing out information would probably do a lot more i think.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He hasn't responded to anything i've asked either. He must have a lot of us on ignore.

i have only 1 poster on ignore and that is the one i stated as such.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

no i believe that would not be possible.

Ok, why do you think it's impossible?
Why is it possible for them, but not for you?

Also I asked if you had any evidence to back up you claim. I assume that since you ignored the point, the answer is "no".

end of the road wrote: »

because i don't think simply protesting will achieve anything in itself. simply handing out information would probably do a lot more i think.

So you hand out information?
Why would they protest if it doesn't achieve anything?

robarmstrong

....... wrote: »

We should all take a leaf out of your book.

He has me on ignore because it's his way of weasling out of moderator action.

Please feel free to quote my posts to him and encourage him to answer them. He probably won't though as it is a direct contradiction of things he has previously said.

ohnonotgmail

King Mob wrote: »

Why would they protest if it doesn't achieve anything?

ah you dont have me on ignore, you are just ignoring me. an important semantic difference.

.......

robarmstrong wrote: »

He has me on ignore because it's his way of weasling out of moderator action.

Please feel free to quote my posts to him and encourage him to answer them. He probably won't though as it is a direct contradiction of things he has previously said.

I have long ago stopped trying to convince the most famous and most protected poster on boards.ie to post in good faith.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, why do you think it's impossible?
Why is it possible for them, but not for you?

Also I asked if you had any evidence to back up you claim. I assume that since you ignored the point, the answer is "no".


So you hand out information?
Why would they protest if it doesn't achieve anything?

no i personally don't hand out information. that should be obvious given i said i don't attend the protests. so i wouldn't be attending the areas in the first place. perhapse those protesting feel it may achieve something hence they do it.

robarmstrong

You still haven't answered King Mob's request for you to provide evidence to back up your claim, could you please do so?

Everyone please follow the charter and report EOTR for breaching the aspect of failure to substantiate a claim after request to do so. I have a link to their posts ignoring the request to make things easier for robindch's procedure and provide him/her with reports that follow robindch's request.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

no i personally don't hand out information.

So why do you not hand out information if you think it's helpful to your cause?

And why would the protesters think that they are achieving something when you know they aren't?
Maybe they have another motive?

Also again, you seem to have missed parts of my post, which is strange as you quoted it in full.

Ok, why do you think it's impossible?
Why is it possible for them, but not for you?

And again, since you have no response to the other point, we can take it as agreement that you have zero evidence to support your claim that people harassed at abortion clinics are exaggerating.
They are being harassed.

Plumbthedepths

end of the road wrote:

no i personally don't hand out information. that should be obvious given i said i don't attend the protests. so i wouldn't be attending the areas in the first place. perhapse those protesting feel it may achieve something hence they do it.

robarmstrong wrote:

Everyone please follow the charter and report EOTR for breaching the aspect of failure to substantiate a claim after request to do so. I have a link to their posts ignoring the request to make things easier for robindch's procedure and provide him/her with reports that follow robindch's request.

Any chance ETOR you could do as suggested above and follow the charter?

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

So why do you not hand out information if you think it's helpful to your cause?

because i don't, and i don't have time even if i decided i wished to do so.

King Mob wrote: »

And why would the protesters think that they are achieving something when you know they aren't?
Maybe they have another motive?

i don't know for definite that they aren't achieving something. i simply don't believe myself they would ultimately achieve something. only those taking part in the protest will know for definite how their protest is going and whether it is working. perhapse they feel the protest will achieve something.

King Mob wrote: »

Also again, you seem to have missed parts of my post, which is strange as you quoted it in full.



And again, since you have no response to the other point, we can take it as agreement that you have zero evidence to support your claim that people harassed at abortion clinics are exaggerating.
They are being harassed.

i haven't missed any of it. however i have no further answer to give as i believe i have given the best answer i can give on the matter. i don't believe simply giving out information is harassment. if someone is screaming in someone's face then sure, and the law can and will deal with that.

robarmstrong

You were asked for evidence, you either give evidence or you do not give evidence, if the latter applies to you, you confirm that you have no evidence to substantiate your claim.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

because i don't, and i don't have time even if i decided i wished to do so.

Ah, you don't have time.
Right...

end of the road wrote: »

i don't know for definite that they aren't achieving something. i simply don't believe myself they would ultimately achieve something.

So why do you think that?

end of the road wrote: »

i haven't missed any of it. however i have no further answer to give as i believe i have given the best answer i can give on the matter.

Ok, that's not a genuine answer.
If that is the case, just say so. Don't ignore the point or the question.

But either way, you have not answered it at all or in the slightest, never might to the best of your ability.

You have not said why you think it's impossible that your bias (and lack of any first hand knowledge of the matter) doesn't influence your judgment on whether or not something is harassment.
You claim that people who say they are harassed at these protests are exaggerating because of their bias. (without evidence or attempting to explain how, mind.)

So if it is possible that they are overplaying what is harassment, you are just as capable of downplaying it.
You have not done anything to address this.
I think it's because you can't.

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe simply giving out information is harassment. if someone is screaming in someone's face then sure, and the law can and will deal with that.

But there's two problems with that.
First, as you've admitted by ignoring points, you can't show that the reports of harassment are being exaggerated, so harassment is taking place.
Secondly, you are applying a false dichotomy.
"Giving out leaflets" and "screaming in peoples faces" aren't the only two options.
There's ways to harass people that skirt around the legally actionable definition of the word.
There's way to harass people that are not adequately prevented by the law.
There's some things people do that are by their nature intimidating or harassing, such as holding up graphic and gore placards.
There's things that aren't harassment in the strictest, but designed to shame and make people nervous about obtaining their medical care.
There's things that I'm sure you'd laugh off as nothing, but to some (especially those without your privileges) can be very distressing.

These things happen. Denying they happen shows either profound ignorance or profound dishonesty.

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

Where have I not accepted the democratic decision? Of course I accept it.

Yet here you are, supporting those who attempt to intimidate women and doctors exercising their democratically-endorsed right to carry out legal abortions in Ireland.

Laws can be and are, overturned if the people will it. And they will.

Need I remind you - 66% of voters voted for repeal less than a year ago, and demographic trends (exit polls showed over-65s were the only age group to vote No, and narrowly at that) mean that support for legal abortion in Ireland is only going to increase over time.
Delusional to think that is going to be overturned.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

Ah, you don't have time.
Right...

yes that's correct.

King Mob wrote: »

So why do you think that?

because i think we are not far enough into AOD for enough people to see what they really voted for.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, that's not a genuine answer.
If that is the case, just say so. Don't ignore the point or the question.

But either way, you have not answered it at all or in the slightest, never might to the best of your ability.

You have not said why you think it's impossible that your bias (and lack of any first hand knowledge of the matter) doesn't influence your judgment on whether or not something is harassment.

because on issues like this i examine them objectively rather then using bias. i believe using personal bias is not a good way to examine any issue.

King Mob wrote: »

You claim that people who say they are harassed at these protests are exaggerating because of their bias. (without evidence or attempting to explain how, mind.)

that is not what i stated. what i did say, was that i personally don't believe that harassment is happening as much as it is said to be . that i do recognise that those claiming harassment likely do genuinely believe they were harassed but what they believe to be something, may not, and in some cases won't, constitute what they are claiming. so it is my sentence about claiming that something constitutes harassment that may not, is why i believe what i stated.

King Mob wrote: »

So if it is possible that they are overplaying what is harassment, you are just as capable of downplaying it.
You have not done anything to address this.
I think it's because you can't.

i wouldn't downplay harassment and i have said that where there is harassment going on, the law can and will deal with it.

King Mob wrote: »

But there's two problems with that.
First, as you've admitted by ignoring points, you can't show that the reports of harassment are being exaggerated, so harassment is taking place.
Secondly, you are applying a false dichotomy.
"Giving out leaflets" and "screaming in peoples faces" aren't the only two options.
There's ways to harass people that skirt around the legally actionable definition of the word.
There's way to harass people that are not adequately prevented by the law.
There's some things people do that are by their nature intimidating or harassing, such as holding up graphic and gore placards.
There's things that aren't harassment in the strictest, but designed to shame and make people nervous about obtaining their medical care.
There's things that I'm sure you'd laugh off as nothing, but to some (especially those without your privileges) can be very distressing.

These things happen. Denying they happen shows either profound ignorance or profound dishonesty.

i never denied they happen. i said that i don't personally believe they happen as much.

.......

end of the road wrote: »

because i think we are not far enough into AOD for enough people to see what they really voted for.

What did they "really" vote for?

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

because i think we are not far enough into AOD for enough people to see what they really voted for.

....... wrote: »

What did they "really" vote for?

And here was me thinking that we voted to allow the government to legislate on abortion. Is that not what we voted for?

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

And here was me thinking that we voted to allow the government to legislate on abortion. Is that not what we voted for?

yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

yes that's correct.

That's fine. Not like anyone's dying or anything...

end of the road wrote: »

because i think we are not far enough into AOD for enough people to see what they really voted for.

This isn't really an answer to my question. I asked you to explain why you think that the protesters persist in protesting when it's obviously not effective?
Is it possible that they have another objective?

end of the road wrote: »

because on issues like this i examine them objectively rather then using bias. i believe using personal bias is not a good way to examine any issue.

But people who are harassed are also doing this. You are accusing them of being biased and exaggerating.
You just claiming you are always unbiased is not an argument to show you are not. You posting history shows you are not unbiased and use your personal bias a lot. You are using your personal bias in this very point.

end of the road wrote: »

that is not what i stated. what i did say, was that i personally don't believe that harassment is happening as much as it is said to be . that i do recognise that those claiming harassment likely do genuinely believe they were harassed but what they believe to be something, may not, and in some cases won't, constitute what they are claiming. so it is my sentence about claiming that something constitutes harassment that may not, is why i believe what i stated.

i wouldn't downplay harassment and i have said that where there is harassment going on, the law can and will deal with it.

That sounds exactly like you are downplaying it.
But please detail what exactly you mean.
Please point to an example of a report you examined and show how the person is incorrect when they call it harassment.
A link to the source of the example would be great.

end of the road wrote: »

i never denied they happen. i said that i don't personally believe they happen as much.

Ok, but you've admitted that you have zero evidence for this. What are you using to reach this conclusion?

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

There was never any suggestion of a vote on the legislation. So to suggest that anybody voted on that basis is a lie. Unless of course you can provide a source for your contention, in which case i will withdraw that remark.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

You have claimed this before and I asked you to substantiate it many times. You failed to do so. You ignored the points.
Yet you are bringing this claim back up.

So this point is simply rejected as unsupported assertion.