Youth Defence, Rally For Life, Tomorrow... Rage...

Suaimhneach

These people are running a demonstration tomorrow stating they're "Saving babies lives and mothers mental health".

This video sums up their attitude I think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWscldMzwcM

I'm attending a counter-rally if anyone wants to come.

The rage these guys causes in me is unreal. Their moral righteousness and indignation that people would want a choice is beyond what I can handle. When will it be that Ireland is not run by people like this?

Turtwig

That video was lacking in quality on so many levels...

magicbastarder

Suaimhneach wrote: »

The rage these guys causes in me is unreal. Their moral righteousness and indignation that people would want a choice is beyond what I can handle.

they believe that abortion is murder. whether or not you believe in that analysis, if you accept that their views are sincere, would you accept that their protests are a moral requirement stemming from their beliefs?

efb

The people, united, will never beat the foetus!

goingpostal

magicbastarder wrote: »

they believe that abortion is murder. whether or not you believe in that analysis, if you accept that their views are sincere, would you accept that their protests are a moral requirement stemming from their beliefs?

Their beliefs about abortion being murder are plain old wrong. Therefore, any actions that are predicated on that belief are also wrong.

goose2005

goingpostal wrote: »

Their beliefs about abortion being murder are plain old wrong. Therefore, any actions that are predicated on that belief are also wrong.

I am not a christian. But I don't buy into the view that believing that a foetus - - a developing human organism - is not a human being with equal legal rights as a post-birth human being, is an indefensible position. Ultimately, it's not very clear why some entities (great apes and other intelligent animals) are not entitled to personhood while others (e.h. people in comas lacking consciousness) are considered persons. It's ludicrous to believe many religious ideas, but it's not ludicrous to believe that a foetus is a person. We have very little idea what consciousness is or what a "person" is - do a dog's thoughts give it a right to life?

Just because idiots posit an idea, does not make it necessarily wrong. Abortion has nothing to do with choice, religion, or feminism; it's only really a question for biologists and philosophers.If it's a human, killing him/her is murder; if it's not, then it's no different to squashing a fly.

magicbastarder

goingpostal wrote: »

Their beliefs about abortion being murder are plain old wrong.

you're getting ahead of the issue. they disagree with you. do you accept that if they disagree with you, that they should protest?

MungBean

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're getting ahead of the issue. they disagree with you. do you accept that if they disagree with you, that they should protest?

Disagreeing is one thing, accusing someone of murder is another. Should they think it shouldnt be legalised then they have every right to protest in favour of that, but they have absolutely no right to brand women who have had abortions murderers or to try and force their beliefs on others using hate filled propaganda.

magicbastarder

but if you think it is murder, then you think people who do it are murderers.

MungBean

magicbastarder wrote: »

but if you think it is murder, then you think people who do it are murderers.

An individuals personnel opinions does not give them the right to brand anyone else a criminal because they disagree with their actions when those actions cant be deemed illegal by law.

Abortion isnt an easy thing for a woman to go through and having a bunch of idiots calling you a murderer doesnt make it any easier. The fact that people go to such lengths to vilify people with opposite beliefs just goes to show how little moral credibility they have in the first place.

magicbastarder

Skunkle wrote: »

An individuals personnel opinions does not give them the right to brand anyone else a criminal because they disagree with their actions when those actions cant be deemed illegal by law.

two things - those actions *are* illegal, in this country at least, and second, personal opinions are really all any of us have to go on...

magicbastarder

my point is, if you have decided that a foetus is a human being, what options are open to you?
is it more heinous to ignore an act you consider murder, or to protest it?

Pygmalion

Skunkle wrote: »

An individuals personnel opinions does not give them the right to brand anyone else a criminal because they disagree with their actions when those actions cant be deemed illegal by law.

People do exactly this all the time with politicians, bankers, and any other group they don't like (Most of the time I hear "a bunch of thieves" it's not in reference to people actually deemed thieves by the law)

Furthermore, abortion can and is deemed illegal by law in this country, it just happens to be legal for someone to travel abroad to commit an act that is illegal in this state.

Abortion isnt an easy thing for a woman to go through and having a bunch of idiots calling you a murderer doesnt make it any easier. The fact that people go to such lengths to vilify people with opposite beliefs just goes to show how little moral credibility they have in the first place.

I'll agree it's not an easy thing to go through and that accusations can only make it harder, but these people genuinely believe that abortion is murder.
If you believed that people were committing murder you'd be outspoken too, it's not just a case of people disliking people with different beliefs.

MungBean

magicbastarder wrote: »

two things - those actions *are* illegal, in this country at least, and second, personal opinions are really all any of us have to go on...

The actions of those women are not illegal. If they were they would be convicted. They travelled (legally) to a state where abortion is legal and had it done there. What about those actions are illegal ? Nothing.

And personal opinions are exactly that personal. If I hated a minority and thought they should all be removed from Ireland, do I have the right to start a campaign to try and deport them all ? Of course not because its just my opinion, its not law and its not based on ANYTHING but what I personally think.

You have no right to publicly call anyone murderers because you personally think they are. Would you go on public record and call someone (by name) a murderer for having an abortion ? No you wouldn't, why ? Because they cant be deemed by the state to have committed the crime of murder and you would be prosecuted for slander.

Pygmalion

Skunkle wrote: »

And personal opinions are exactly that personal. If I hated a minority and thought they should all be removed from Ireland, do I have the right to start a campaign to try and deport them all ? Of course not because its just my opinion, its not law and its not based on ANYTHING but what I personally think.

Yeah, you actually do have that right, unless you push it far enough to count as an incitement to hatred or violence.
There are groups that campaign for things like this to happen already, they just generally don't get much public attention.

MungBean

Pygmalion wrote: »

People do exactly this all the time with politicians, bankers, and any other group they don't like (Most of the time I hear "a bunch of thieves" it's not in reference to people actually deemed thieves by the law)

People say things all the time about politicians, You go on record and accuse a woman TD who has had an abortion of murder and see what happens. An accusation of murder is far more serious than flippant comments about politicians being thieves.

Furthermore, abortion can and is deemed illegal by law in this country, it just happens to be legal for someone to travel abroad to commit an act that is illegal in this state.

It is illegal to carry out the act in Ireland not for an irish person to have it done elsewhere. Theres nothing illegal about an Irish woman travelling to England to have an abortion.

I'll agree it's not an easy thing to go through and that accusations can only make it harder, but these people genuinely believe that abortion is murder.
If you believed that people were committing murder you'd be outspoken too, it's not just a case of people disliking people with different beliefs.

No, if I believed it to be murder I would protest it and make it known that I was against it. I would not be so cruel or ignorant as to call a young girl who has had an abortion (legally) a murderer.

MungBean

Pygmalion wrote: »

Yeah, you actually do have that right, unless you push it far enough to count as an incitement to hatred or violence.
There are groups that campaign for things like this to happen already, they just generally don't get much public attention.

And what better way to incite hatred than by claiming people to be murderers of unborn children ?

Robert ninja

"You're not a human being until you're in my phonebook." - Bill Hicks

Pygmalion

Skunkle wrote: »

People say things all the time about politicians, You go on record and accuse a woman TD who has had an abortion of murder and see what happens. An accusation of murder is far more serious than flippant comments about politicians being thieves.

So you're now saying that it is acceptable to accuse someone of a crime they're not technically guilty of based only on personal opinion, but only in some cases?
I'm not saying that's wrong, after all pretty much all of this is just opinion, and not objective fact, but just pointing out it's not as black-and-white as originally portrayed and where to draw the line is fuzzy.

In this case had their actions been committed in this state they would have been a criminal, so to call them such is not a huge leap or entirely illogical, although it is technically untrue.
It's also accusing them of a worse crime than they'd actually be guilty of, but again, is that really much further past this imaginary line than accusing an innocent(-ish) politician of a crime?

It is illegal to carry out the act in Ireland not for an irish person to have it done elsewhere. Theres nothing illegal about an Irish woman travelling to England to have an abortion.

Indeed, but the action they carried out is illegal under Irish law, they simply took advantage of a loophole around it.
It's not a huge jump, and they aren't simply pulling the accusations out of the air.

No, if I believed it to be murder I would protest it and make it known that I was against it. I would not be so cruel or ignorant as to call a young girl who has had an abortion (legally) a murderer.

If you believed it was murder and made it known that you believed so, would you not be at least indirectly calling everyone who has had an abortion a murderer?

delta_bravo

Suaimhneach wrote: »

These people are running a demonstration tomorrow stating they're "Saving babies lives and mothers mental health".

This video sums up their attitude I think:

I'm attending a counter-rally if anyone wants to come.

The rage these guys causes in me is unreal. Their moral righteousness and indignation that people would want a choice is beyond what I can handle. When will it be that Ireland is not run by people like this?

The country is not run by people like this. It is run by people too afraid to lose votes they sit on the fence and say nothing on the matter.

While I don't agree with most of their tactics at least they have the balls to stand by their convictions.

The idea of a counter rally sounds a bit stupid. Let them have their rally and focus on lobbying for pro choice if you are that way inclined rather than disrupting a dissenting voice

Dades

Suaimhneach wrote: »

The rage these guys causes in me is unreal. Their moral righteousness and indignation that people would want a choice is beyond what I can handle. When will it be that Ireland is not run by people like this?

The rage? They believe really strongly in something and are having a rally - just like you guys.

And don't assume I take a certain stance just because I say this.

MungBean

Pygmalion wrote: »

So you're now saying that it is acceptable to accuse someone of a crime they're not technically guilty of based only on personal opinion, but only in some cases?
I'm not saying that's wrong, after all pretty much all of this is just opinion, and not objective fact, but just pointing out it's not as black-and-white as originally portrayed and where to draw the line is fuzzy.

As I've already said, flippant remarks about the credibility of politicians is not the same as accusing a person of murder.

In this case had their actions been committed in this state they would have been a criminal, so to call them such is not a huge leap or entirely illogical, although it is technically untrue.
It's also accusing them of a worse crime than they'd actually be guilty of, but again, is that really much further past this imaginary line than accusing an innocent(-ish) politician of a crime?

The actions of those women are in no way illegal. To say if this was there and that was this is pointless. Its either illegal or its not. And its not illegal. And nobody is outright accusing a politician of a crime when questioning their actions. To actually accuse a politician of theft for a specific action is a very serious thing to do and isnt done without substantial evidence of a crime being committed.

Indeed, but the action they carried out is illegal under Irish law, they simply took advantage of a loophole around it.
It's not a huge jump, and they aren't simply pulling the accusations out of the air.

Its not a loophole. Its just not permitted here but permitted in the UK. The anti-abortion law in Ireland refers to acts carried out in the state of Ireland. It doesn't refer to the actions of Irish citizens no matter where they are.

If you believed it was murder and made it known that you believed so, would you not be at least indirectly calling everyone who has had an abortion a murderer?

I never said I would make it known I thought it was murder, I said I'd make it known I was against it. Whether I thought personally that it should be classed as murder is something that I'd keep to myself. I dont think my personal opinions should be voiced when those opinions would be of great harm to vulnerable people. This campaign claims its trying to protect womens mental health, great start by telling every woman who has had an abortion that they have murdered their child. Top notch work.

Pygmalion

Skunkle wrote: »

As I've already said, flippant remarks about the credibility of politicians is not the same as accusing a person of murder.

They aren't exactly the same, but as I said, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and your original claim was that accusing people of crimes is not to be done without support from the law.
You've now gone back on that a bit, but you haven't said where the line should be drawn and why.

The actions of those women are in no way illegal. To say if this was there and that was this is pointless.
Its either illegal or its not. And its not illegal.

I never said it was illegal, I said it's not a huge jump to make the accusation; these people aren't formally accusing the women of murderer in a court of law, they're saying that they personally think their actions to be murder, and think the law should be updated to reflect this.
These people would surely be the first to acknowledge that the women can't be charged with anything, that's part of why they're being so vocal.

And nobody is outright accusing a politician of a crime when questioning their actions. To actually accuse a politician of theft for a specific action is a very serious thing to do and isnt done without substantial evidence of a crime being committed.

People outright accuse them of theft for specific actions all the time, they just don't do so formally and don't seek a criminal investigation into the matter, because they know their claims are based on opinion and not current legislation.

Its not a loophole. Its just not permitted here but permitted in the UK. The anti-abortion law in Ireland refers to acts carried out in the state of Ireland. It doesn't refer to the actions of Irish citizens no matter where they are.

Is it not a loop-hole? It's a specific exception to the law, which allows Irish citizens the right to commit acts that are illegal in this state.
If that doesn't count as a loop-hole to you then I'll change my wording and call it a controversial recent exception.

And again, I never said that a crime was technically committed, but the state has clear reservations about abortion and it's a crime here.
So I said, and I imagine I'll have to say this again throughout this conversation, that it isn't a huge leap to accuse these women.

I never said I would make it known I thought it was murder, I said I'd make it known I was against it. Whether I thought personally that it should be classed as murder is something that I'd keep to myself. I dont think my personal opinions should be voiced when those opinions would be of great harm to vulnerable people.

If you actually believed these people to have gotten away with committing murder you presumably wouldn't be worried about harming them or how vulnerable they were.
So I doubt you'd keep it quiet to avoid offending them.

This campaign claims its trying to protect womens mental health, great start by telling every woman who has had an abortion that they have murdered their child. Top notch work.

I said nothing specifically about this campaign, and in no way tried to defend it, but you claimed that they don't have the right to express their opinion on the practice.
The opinion being that women who commit abortions are murderers.

Zombrex

Skunkle wrote: »

An individuals personnel opinions does not give them the right to brand anyone else a criminal because they disagree with their actions when those actions cant be deemed illegal by law.

Sure it does, that his how laws get made and changed in the first place.

I agree with abortion for early term fetuses, but I think saying that those who don't, those who believe a person with rights begins at conception don't have a right to express this view is a bit silly.

How happy would you be if someone said you cannot call for abortion to be legal?

By all means have the counter protest, but the aim should be to put over the other side of the debate, not simply to drown out the anti-abortion group in the hope that they shut up and go away. No one should ever fear debate. The right to express an opinion, any opinion, is what free society is based upon.

MungBean

Wicknight wrote: »

Sure it does, that his how laws get made and changed in the first place.

I agree with abortion for early term fetuses, but I think saying that those who don't, those who believe a person with rights begins at conception don't have a right to express this view is a bit silly.

How happy would you be if someone said you cannot call for abortion to be legal?

By all means have the counter protest, but the aim should be to put over the other side of the debate, not simply to drown out the anti-abortion group in the hope that they shut up and go away. No one should ever fear debate. The right to express an opinion, any opinion, is what free society is based upon.

I have only commented on anti-abortion groups accusation of murder. I have stated clearly that they have every right to protest something they feel strongly about. I have not mentioned once that I will be attending a counter protest. I have no problem with people expressing opinions but accusations of murder against a young woman who has not committed the crime is going too far.

Abortion in Ireland is illegal, to have it done in the UK is not. To accuse someone availing of a legal procedure to remove an early term foetus of "Murdering their own unborn child" goes far beyond expressing opinion.

Laws get made to protect people, this law wasnt put into place because of protests calling young women murderers. It was put into place to protect unborn children.

If these people believe a foetus is a human being then they're being perfectly consistent. And, not only are they being perfectly consistent, they have the conviction to show that consistency with protests. I'm not sure what the problem is...

Zillah

goose2005 wrote: »

Abortion has nothing to do with choice, religion, or feminism

It's actually a huge issue for feminists. The right to control their own bodies is basically one of the biggest issues for feminism. Sex, marriage, rape, abortion...men have been telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies since the dawn of time.

if it's not, then it's no different to squashing a fly.

I hate people who casually kill insects.

gvn wrote: »

If these people believe a foetus is a human being then they're being perfectly consistent. And, not only are they being perfectly consistent, they have the conviction to show that consistency with protests. I'm not sure what the problem is...

I think pro-lifers engender rage in people because for every one that is genuinely trying to protect the life of a real human being, there's another pig-headed conservative furious that some slut is defying tradition.

MungBean

Pygmalion wrote: »

They aren't exactly the same, but as I said, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and your original claim was that accusing people of crimes is not to be done without support from the law.
You've now gone back on that a bit, but you haven't said where the line should be drawn and why.

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the fact that its almost like the way you think it is. I havent gone back on anything I have only clarified my position as you didnt seem to be able to understand that calling the government thieves for bailing out the banks or whatnot is different than calling a young woman a murderer. If you cant grasp it then we are at a standstill and repeating the same point wont get us anywhere.

I never said it was illegal, I said it's not a huge jump to make the accusation; these people aren't formally accusing the women of murderer in a court of law, they're saying that they personally think their actions to be murder, and think the law should be updated to reflect this.
These people would surely be the first to acknowledge that the women can't be charged with anything, that's part of why they're being so vocal.

One again your argument hinges on "Its not a huge jump" its almost the way it is. Its not the way it is so your point is worthless and your argument absurd. If they are the first to acknowledge that the women cant be charged with anything and still call it murder then they are seriously confused as to what murder actually is.

Is it not a loop-hole? It's a specific exception to the law, which allows Irish citizens the right to commit acts that are illegal in this state.
If that doesn't count as a loop-hole to you then I'll change my wording and call it a controversial recent exception.

Its not an exception to the law it has nothing to do with the law hence its not a loophole. I dont see it as such anyway but arguing about whether or not something is a loophole isnt the point of it. The point is its not in any way illegal. Owning and carrying a gun in America isnt a loophole to the Irish law about not carrying a gun here. Its just two different laws. Fact that I did it in America has absolutely nothing to do with whats acceptable here. Same as abortion.

And again, I never said that a crime was technically committed, but the state has clear reservations about abortion and it's a crime here.
So I said, and I imagine I'll have to say this again throughout this conversation, that it isn't a huge leap to accuse these women.

And once again we're back to "Its not a huge leap", its almost the way it is. A pointless argument in other words.

I said nothing specifically about this campaign, and in no way tried to defend it, but you claimed that they don't have the right to express their opinion on the practice.
The opinion being that women who commit abortions are murderers.

Wrong. I said they have every right to protest an voice their opinions but they didnt have the right to accuse people of murder who havent committed murder.

We seem to be going in circles so I dont think this discussion will result in anything and theres no need to continue it.

Zombrex

Skunkle wrote: »

"Murdering their own unborn child" goes far beyond expressing opinion.

No it doesn't, that is exactly what it is.

If someone went to a country where it is legal to carry out an act that is illegal here and that you believe is immoral, would you have any trouble saying that to the person when they got back?

If someone for example went and slept with a child prostitute in a country where that is legal and then came back here would you have any trouble saying that what they did was "child rape"?

Or would you say Well it was legal where he did it, so shouldn't say anything about it?

The former I would imagine, and rightly so.

MungBean

Wicknight wrote: »

No it doesn't, that is exactly what it is.

If someone went to a country where it is legal to carry out an act that is illegal here and that you believe is immoral, would you have any trouble saying that to the person when they got back?

If someone for example went and slept with a child prostitute in a country where that is legal and then came back here would you have any trouble saying that what they did was "child rape"?

Or would you say Well it was legal where he did it, so shouldn't say anything about it?

The former I would imagine, and rightly so.

Theres no country on the planet that considers child rape acceptable but the majority of the civilized world considers abortion to be acceptable. Equating it with child rape in order to push your view is pathetic.

If you had of said prostitution, drug use then no I wouldnt have a problem as they broke no law in Ireland and did absolutely nothing wrong.

Zombrex

Skunkle wrote: »

Theres no country on the planet that considers child rape acceptable but the majority of the civilized world considers abortion to be acceptable. Equating it with child rape in order to push your view is pathetic.

You some what missing the point of the hypothetical (perhaps on purpose to avoid answering it)

Can I take it that it wouldn't matter whether it was legal or illegal in the other country, when the person got back to Ireland you would have no trouble telling them that they raped a child? And that someone else saying that there was nothing wrong with it would mean very little to you, nor prevent you from saying there was.

Skunkle

Skunkle wrote: »

Theres no country on the planet that considers child rape acceptable but the majority of the civilized world considers abortion to be acceptable. Equating it with child rape in order to push your view is pathetic.

If you had of said prostitution, drug use then no I wouldnt have a problem as they broke no law in Ireland and did absolutely nothing wrong.

He wasn't equating anything...

Do you think what's right and wrong necessarily depends on the law's (of a given country) definition of what's right and wrong?

MungBean

Wicknight wrote: »

You some what missing the point of the hypothetical (perhaps on purpose to avoid answering it)

Can I take it that it wouldn't matter whether it was legal or illegal in the other country, when the person got back to Ireland you would have no trouble telling them that they raped a child? And that someone else saying that there was nothing wrong with it would mean very little to you, nor prevent you from saying there was.

I answered it regards drug use or prostitution. No I dont see it as wrong. When you use the analogy of child rape you infer that the person doing it is a paedophile and when he returns home he will be a danger to children. Or rape of any kind, its a violent act that shows the person is a danger to society. Women who have abortions arent a threat to anyone else.

Pygmalion

Skunkle wrote: »

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the fact that its almost like the way you think it is. I havent gone back on anything I have only clarified my position as you didnt seem to be able to understand that calling the government thieves for bailing out the banks or whatnot is different than calling a young woman a murderer. If you cant grasp it then we are at a standstill and repeating the same point wont get us anywhere.

No, your original statement was "An individuals personnel opinions does not give them the right to brand anyone else a criminal because they disagree with their actions when those actions cant be deemed illegal by law."

That is exactly what's happening in both these cases.
You then said that it's ok to do brand someone else a criminal in some cases (i.e. calling members of government thieves) but not others (i.e. calling women who have abortions murderers).
That is what I was referring to as back-pedalling.

They aren't the exact same circumstances, but your original statement applies equally to both of them.
If you believe that it's inherently wrong to brand someone as being a criminal based on personal opinion alone then both of these situations should be unacceptable.
If you believe that it's not wrong to do so then neither of these should be unacceptable.
If you believe that it's right under certain circumstances then outline those circumstances, pointing out that they aren't the exact same circumstances doesn't help.
Perhaps you believe that accusing someone of a violent crime should be unacceptable, but not to accuse someone of a white-collar crime, it's a reasonable position to hold, but the position you actually expressed is a much more simplified, black-and-white position.

One again your argument hinges on "Its not a huge jump" its almost the way it is. Its not the way it is so your point is worthless and your argument absurd. If they are the first to acknowledge that the women cant be charged with anything and still call it murder then they are seriously confused as to what murder actually is.

My argument hinges on the fact that they're expressing their opinions of the case and not formally claiming that the women have broken a law.
Saying that "it's not a huge jump" was to highlight that they have a reason to hold those opinions, not to imply that their opinions are correct or that the right to express their opinions should in any way depend on how reasonable the opinions are.

Its not an exception to the law it has nothing to do with the law hence its not a loophole. I dont see it as such anyway but arguing about whether or not something is a loophole isnt the point of it.

Agreed, I'll accept my wording was bad.

The point is its not in any way illegal. Owning and carrying a gun in America isnt a loophole to the Irish law about not carrying a gun here. Its just two different laws. Fact that I did it in America has absolutely nothing to do with whats acceptable here. Same as abortion.

If people wished to hold a public protest and claim that in their opinion these people should be considered criminals though, they should be allowed to do so, although they probably wouldn't get much support.

And once again we're back to "Its not a huge leap", its almost the way it is. A pointless argument in other words.

No, once again we're back to "This is why they might hold these opinions".
The fact that "it's not a huge leap" has no bearing on whether they have a legal right to express these opinions.
If they believed that women who commit abortions are secretly FBI agents they'd still have the right to express their views publicly, and I'd still be defending them, although I wouldn't be claiming that it's understandable for them to hold such beliefs.

Wrong. I said they have every right to protest an voice their opinions but they didnt have the right to accuse people of murder who havent committed murder.

It is their opinion that abortion is equivalent to murder.
You don't agree with their right to voice their opinions, you at most agree with their right to voice some opinions.

Zombrex

Skunkle wrote: »

When you use the analogy of child rape you infer that the person doing it is a paedophile and when he returns home he will be a danger to children.

Ok, imagine that when the person arrives home they have a heart attack and die in the airport, so they are no longer a danger to children.

Now, would you say that person raped a child while they were abroad? Or would you say that we should not judge that person by our moral standards because where they were what they did was not that big a deal?

Skunkle wrote: »

Or rape of any kind, its a violent act that shows the person is a danger to society. Women who have abortions arent a threat to anyone else.

So raping a child (by our understanding of child rape) in a foreign country is only bad because you might come back here and rape an Irish child? If you aren't or can't do that, then it is fine? Really?

King of Kings

I'm non religious, i'm not youth defense , I have had friends who have had abortions but i think it to be wrong. I won't scream "murderer" in somebodys face but I believe that abortion is murder
I claim the right to protest that view as you would your own view.

what is wrong with that.

I want people to appreciate my view and perhaps change the views of others.
i will do this by an occasional march.

what is your issue? I put up with a host of trade unions, socalists etc.. marching am I not entitled my day?or maybe it's a democrasy for the trendy liberal guradians readers only?

MungBean

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, imagine that when the person arrives home they have a heart attack and die in the airport, so they are no longer a danger to children.

Now, would you say that person raped a child while they were abroad? Or would you say that we should not judge that person by our moral standards because where they were what they did was not that big a deal?

Lets clear this up, your talking about something thats clear cut. If that child was forced to have sex then its rape. Regardless of whether the law says its ok. The definition of rape is forced intercourse. So would it be rape ? Of course it would. Would it be right ? No. Regardless of whether he lives or dies or where he committed the act its rape.

So raping a child (by our understanding of child rape) in a foreign country is only bad because you might come back here and rape an Irish child? If you aren't or can't do that, then it is fine? Really?

I dont know what way your mind works for you to have gotten that out of what I said, I really dont.

Forget about rape (something regarded wrong by the entire world) and give me an example more in line with abortion (something considered ok by the majority of the world).

SWK

Here's my one step program for seperating the bat-**** crazy pro-lifers from the relatively sane. Ask them their opinion on contraception. If they are against that as well they are living in another century.

Pygmalion

Skunkle wrote: »

If that child was forced to have sex then its rape.

According to the laws of most countries it's a lot trickier than this.
In Ireland having sex with a minor is statutory rape even if the child consents, as they're assumed to young to be mature enough to give informed consent.

Regardless of whether he lives or dies or where he committed the act its rape.

His point was that people who believe abortion is murder would be saying the exact same thing about murder.

Forget about rape (something regarded wrong by the entire world) and give me an example more in line with abortion (something considered ok by the majority of the world).

Whether or not examples fall exactly in line with the specifics here has very little to do with whether these people should be allowed to make their claims.

Skunkle

Skunkle wrote: »

Lets clear this up, your talking about something thats clear cut. If that child was forced to have sex then its rape. Regardless of whether the law says its ok. The definition of rape is forced intercourse. So would it be rape ? Of course it would. Would it be right ? No. Regardless of whether he lives or dies or where he committed the act its rape.

Exactly. It doesn't matter if the law defines child rape as legal or illegal: it's still wrong. You admit this.

If a person views a foetus as a human, then the killing of that foetus is murder regardless of whether it's legal or illegal. This is analogous with the above, and to remain consistent you should admit as much.

Dades

Bottom line is none of this is clear cut. You can't really blame one side for holding an opinion and acting on it. Even if that opinion is contrary to yours.

MungBean

gvn wrote: »

Exactly. It doesn't matter if the law defines child rape as legal or illegal: it's still wrong. You admit this.

If a person views a foetus as a human, then the killing of that foetus is murder regardless of whether it's legal or illegal. This is analogous with the above, and to remain consistent you should admit as much.

This is not whats in question here. Its not about what a person perceives to be wrong regardless of the law. Its what a person has a right to call someone when they have broken no law.

I've had this rape thing thrown at me as "proof" of that argument.

Prostitution and drug use are two things that are not widely considered wrong when availed of in other countries yet are not legal here. One nil to me, I win ? Of course not because it doesnt actually matter. What matters is whether the people who avail of those services can be held to account for them here.

What your saying is that a person has every right to call another person anything they want aslong as they think it to be true regardless of whether it is or not. If I used that logic on boards how long would it take me to get banned ?

Robert ninja

Prevention of life is not murder. Digging up the seed of a tree is not cutting a tree down. Halting the process of assembling a car in a factory is not crashing that car into a wall at full speed. Very clear differences here. All men are mass murderers for jacking off if it's not the case, plain and simple.

If the 'child' wasn't even given the chance to live/be born then it also wasn't even given the chance to be 'killed'. Even for the non-crazy pro lifers and the honest ones, I still think they just haven't gotten past thinking about the cute baby faces and feeling sad for POTENTIAL LIFE. I think if they really do care about things living they should focus any real effort (if they have any) on helping things that are ACTUALLY alive. Too much suffering to be spent on things that may possibly be alive soon (as in 7 months of pregnancy for one life, where feck knows how many african kids died in AGONY from starvation).

Pygmalion

Skunkle wrote: »

Prostitution and drug use are two things that are not widely considered wrong when availed of in other countries yet are not legal here. One nil to me, I win ? Of course not because it doesnt actually matter. What matters is whether the people who avail of those services can be held to account for them here.

If by "held account for them" you mean held criminally liable then they cannot.
They aren't free from criticism by people who disapprove though.

What your saying is that a person has every right to call another person anything they want aslong as they think it to be true regardless of whether it is or not. If I used that logic on boards how long would it take me to get banned ?

Boards.ie isn't a public service, it's a private forum with it's own rules.
In general you do have the right to make such claims in public places or on websites you own (assuming the provider of the web host you use and the ISP that carries the data don't object).

Pygmalion

Robert ninja wrote: »

Prevention of life is not murder. Digging up the seed of a tree is not cutting a tree down. Halting the process of assembling a car in a factory is not crashing that car into a wall at full speed. Very clear differences here. All men are mass murderers for jacking off if it's not the case, plain and simple.

I'm sure most people here would agree with you, but claiming that people shouldn't be allowed to publicly associate abortion with murder is an entirely different thing.

MungBean

Pygmalion wrote: »

If by "held account for them" you mean held criminally liable then they cannot.
They aren't free from criticism by people who disapprove though.

Boards.ie isn't a public service, it's a private forum with it's own rules.
In general you do have the right to make such claims in public places or on websites you own (assuming the provider of the web host you use and the ISP that carries the data don't object).

This isnt gonna go anywhere I suppose. Just as people think it wrong to have abortions I think it wrong to call it murder.

I agree with their right to protest but I think it wrong to use the term murder. I hope you'll respect my right to protest it.

And the OP's right to be enraged about it.

Robert ninja

They have the right to go ahead an associate it with murder if they like, along with all the other tools who associate violence and video games, but they lend themselves to being associated with being retarded and flat out wrong. It's not wrong to say I think X is murder. But the only thing that is murder is murder.

"Ever notice how pro lifers are the kinda people you wouldn't wanna fu3k anyway?" - George Carlin

MungBean

Robert ninja wrote: »

They have the right to go ahead an associate it with murder if they like, along with all the other tools who associate violence and video games, but they lend themselves to being associated with being retarded and flat out wrong. It's not wrong to say I think X is murder. But the only thing that is murder is murder.

"Ever notice how pro lifers are the kinda people you wouldn't wanna fu3k anyway?" - George Carlin

Seeing as they have a right to call some women’s actions murder simply because they think its murder. I assume we have every right to call anyone with that opinion an idiot simply because thats what we think. I dont see any difference anyway.

Pygmalion

Robert ninja wrote: »

They have the right to go ahead an associate it with murder if they like, along with all the other tools who associate violence and video games, but they lend themselves to being associated with being retarded and flat out wrong.

Skunkle wrote: »

Seeing as they have a right to call some women’s actions murder simply because they think its murder. I assume we have every right to call anyone with that opinion an idiot simply because thats what we think. I dont see any difference anyway.

Exactly, we do have the right to call people who believe it idiots, retarded and flat out wrong.

That's the great thing about freedom of expression, it works both ways.

strobe

Robert ninja wrote: »

the only thing that is murder is murder.

.

Galvasean

So wait an elephant and a zebra who listen to techno music said something about abortion...


Hmm... time for bed methinks.