Abortion Protestors...

Leptons

Hey, Newbie first year here. I've lurked every now and then for a little while and have finally decided to come out from the undergrowth, mostly because this has been bugging me for a while.

OK, so the abortion protestors - who were so ingeniously positioned outside John Hume last Friday so that you could barely see their signs because of the glare from the sun - were apparently there to protest an "abortion masterclass", as they call it. A little digging later unearthed that this "masterclass" was a continuation of a series of seminars on the topic of abortion, reproductive health, etc. given to med. students, (If anyone knows anything specific, I'd appreciate the info as this is all I've been able to find out so far.) which I sincerely doubt was expounded the merits of abortion because:

a.) This is Ireland.
b.) The seminars are sponsored by the Crisis Pregnancy Programme - which is specifically designed to talk women out of abortion- and the NHS. Two government run agencies.
c.) This is Ireland.

(If I've gotten any of this wrong feel free to correct me.)

So, my basic questions are:

i.) How does this protest have any kind of validity?

ii.) Why didn't security throw them off campus?

Tesco Massacre

I don't agree with anything they (as in the Youth Defence group. I assume it's them anyway) have to say, but nevertheless they're entitled to say it. I don't think having security throw them off campus would've been the right thing to do.

J.D.R

Wait for the Pro Abortion week. I'm sure the college would be equally tolerant of that

Atomicjuicer

Personally, I think it'd be awesome to go back in time and abort all the pro-choicers

Problem f******g solved.

Leptons

Tesco Massacre wrote: »

I don't agree with anything they (as in the Youth Defence group. I assume it's them anyway) have to say, but nevertheless they're entitled to say it. I don't think having security throw them off campus would've been the right thing to do.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I think they should have been at least moved because they were obstructing the path.

Leptons

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Personally, I think it'd be awesome to go back in time and abort all the pro-choicers

Problem f******g solved.

Know your paradoxes.

Tomk1

A tad ironic, one catholic group protesting against another catholic wing that wants to dictate what a woman can/cannot do with her body, in a collage that trains the men-only club.

- A ripple in a teacup

Alt_Grrr

I have no problem with these people expressing their views in a peaceful manner, no matter how much I disagree with them.

But I do find it hard to explain to people why abortion is illegal in Ireland and we still regularly have anti-abortion protests.

I'm thinking of starting a organisation which demands that wearing a seat belt while driving should be the law, my pro-belt group will lobby politicians and have pushy and aggressive protesting tactics to ensure that we don't change the status quo with regard to seat belts.

Leptons

Tomk1 wrote: »

A tad ironic, one catholic group protesting against another catholic wing that wants to dictate what a woman can/cannot do with her body, in a collage that trains the men-only club.

- A ripple in a teacup

We used to have wars over less than this. :rolleyes:

Leptons

Apparently, the the signs they are using come in two varieties:

a.) Photoshopped images. (In the case of those pictures showing fetuses in the womb.
b.) Pictures taken of a stolen shipment of, almost entirely, miscarried fetal parts. Produced in Wisconsin and delivered to would-be protestors everywhere.

Sorry, this just bugs me.

Seren_

If you have a problem with the signs, let the SU know. As the pro-life soc receive capitation from them. they are who to complain too.

Personally, I think it's funking ridiculous. However, they do have a right to free speech, even if we don't like what they're saying. The intimidation is not on though, and if you have proof that Youth Defence were involved, definitely let them know as YD are not allowed on campus.

J.D.R

Your Text Here wrote: »

If you have a problem with the signs, let the SU know. As the pro-life soc receive capitation from them. they are who to complain too.

Personally, I think it's funking ridiculous. However, they do have a right to free speech, even if we don't like what they're saying. The intimidation is not on though, and if you have proof that Youth Defence were involved, definitely let them know as YD are not allowed on campus.

Who are YD, and how come they're banned?

mickstupp

Leptons wrote: »

So, my basic questions are:

i.) How does this protest have any kind of validity?

ii.) Why didn't security throw them off campus?

I agree with nothing they say, but in my opinion...
i.) Everyone has a right to their opinion.
ii.) See i.)

Leptons wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I think they should have been at least moved because they were obstructing the path.

Now on this point I'd say sure, as long as you move the smokers while you're at it. I'm totally in favour of that.

I personally find people standing around with any sort of sign or poster just as annoying as the people who sell posters. But I'm cranky that way.

Leptons

Your Text Here wrote: »

If you have a problem with the signs, let the SU know. As the pro-life soc receive capitation from them. they are who to complain too.

Personally, I think it's funking ridiculous. However, they do have a right to free speech, even if we don't like what they're saying. The intimidation is not on though, and if you have proof that Youth Defence were involved, definitely let them know as YD are not allowed on campus.

That doesn't surprise me, though how did they manage to get banned from the campus? Oh, it was definitely them, by the way, as shown by this:

http://www.youthdefence.ie/latest-news/abortion-masterclass-students-supportive-of-pro-life-protest/

Is the pro-life soc affiliated with Youth Defence?

Leptons

mickstupp wrote: »

Now on this point I'd say sure, as long as you move the smokers while you're at it. I'm totally in favour of that.

I haven't encountered a ring of smokers blocking the path as I tried to walk to the town, yelling slogans and waving pieces of cardboard. Though, perhaps I haven't been here long enough.

mickstupp

Well that's odd, I regularly find my way in and out of the John Hume building obstructed by a bunch of people in a cloud of noxious smoke. Not something I enjoy having forced down my nostrils. But maybe people have grown entirely too used to that, desensitized even, unlike the relatively rare occurrence of people making annoying noises about whatever it is they believe.

Unfortunately - in my opinion and possibly mine alone - smokers, abortion protesters, and people looking for votes all seem to have a right to obstruct that area and annoy the hell out of those who chose to pass that way. Free speech, public area, etc.

Unfortunately...

Seren_

J.D.R wrote: »

Who are YD, and how come they're banned?

Youth Defence

A thread from 3 years ago outlining an event which got them banned from campus.

Edit: I believe they are banned from campus anyway. I was told at the time of that event that they had been. Things may be different now. I've sent an email to see.

philologos

Firstly:
It's a university. It should function as a market place of ideas and people should be fully entitled to criticise abortion-by-choice. In a society where we should recognise the freedom of conscience for all, it would be fundamentally wrong to kick students off their own campus (I presume it was the pro-life soc). I would hope that other students would stick up for others if their opinion was being suppressed on the campus, even if they disagreed.

Secondly: The NHS were involved in an Irish university? That's a little bit bizarre isn't it? Also, the Crisis Pregnancy Agency exists to talk people out of having abortions? How come they are quite happy to provide information about abortions in the UK to those who ask?

CaoimH_in

They employ huge numbers of Irish nurses (literally by the class load). It's probably in their interest they're educated correctly.

Leptons

philologos wrote: »

Firstly:
It's a university. It should function as a market place of ideas and people should be fully entitled to criticise abortion-by-choice. In a society where we should recognise the freedom of conscience for all, it would be fundamentally wrong to kick students off their own campus (I presume it was the pro-life soc).

Secondly: The NHS were involved in an Irish university? That's a little bit bizarre isn't it? Also, the Crisis Pregnancy Agency exists to talk people out of having abortions? How come they are quite happy to provide information about abortions in the UK to those who ask?

Firstly, from what I've learned it's quite apparent that the protest was at least in part organised by Youth defence, who, as has been pointed out, are banned from the campus. Whether or not the pro-life soc was explicitly involved, I don't know. This alone would be grounds for kicking them of campus.

Regardless, my original point was that they should be kicked off campus, or at least moved by security, because they were purposely obstructing the path.

Secondly, NHS involvement is not bizarre at all. As CaoimH_in pointed out, it's in their interest to have their potential employees educated about the issue. Also, the Crisis Pregnancy Programme is required to provide information regarding abortion abroad because they are government funded. Despite this, one of their main aims is

"A reduction in the number of women with crisis pregnancies who opt for abortion..."

You can read about that here: http://www.crisispregnancy.ie/about.html

philologos

Leptons wrote: »

Firstly, from what I've learned it's quite apparent that the protest was at least in part organised by Youth defence, who, as has been pointed out, are banned from the campus. Whether or not the pro-life soc was explicitly involved, I don't know. This alone would be grounds for kicking them of campus.

Regardless, my original point was that they should be kicked off campus, or at least moved by security, because they were purposely obstructing the path.

Commit fully to your argument, your real objection seems to be that they were out there at all. I think you would have objections irrespective 1) of Youth Defence, or 2) the path. Personally, I was never 100% sold on the approach of the Pro-Life society. That said, I do broadly support pro-life aims, and I do support liberty of speech on campus. It's not the job of security to police speech on campus.

Leptons wrote: »

Secondly, NHS involvement is not bizarre at all. As CaoimH_in pointed out, it's in their interest to have their potential employees educated about the issue. Also, the Crisis Pregnancy Programme is required to provide information regarding abortion abroad because they are government funded. Despite this, one of their main aims is

You can read about that here: http://www.crisispregnancy.ie/about.html

As for the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, I'm actually surprised by that.

As for the NHS, I'm surprised that they would come to the university and spend their resources. Especially given that NUI Maynooth doesn't have a faculty of medicine. At least it didn't when I was there last year.

Leptons

philologos wrote: »

Commit fully to your argument, your real objection seems to be that they were out there at all. I think you would have objections irrespective 1) of Youth Defence, or 2) the path. Personally, I was never 100% sold on the approach of the Pro-Life society. That said, I do broadly support pro-life aims, and I do support liberty of speech on campus. It's not the job of security to police speech on campus.

As for the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, I'm actually surprised by that.

As for the NHS, I'm surprised that they would come to the university and spend their resources. Especially given that NUI Maynooth doesn't have a faculty of medicine. At least it didn't when I was there last year.

Firstly, I have two arguments. My original one, and one that arose in the course of this discussion.

Secondly, I would not have any objections to a non-extremist, unobstructive, non-misleading sign waving, anti-abortion group giving leaflets out about their views, or talking to students, etc.

Thirdly, Maynooth has a lot of biology and chemistry students, who take classes in bio-ethics and health.

Seren_

I think the main problem with the protestors is that they were intimidating. I have no problems with people protesting for what they believe in, that would be rather hypocritical However, they should be considerate of people who are going about their own business.

CaoimH_in

That is the nature of a protest though, I thought, to be a nuisance?

(devils advocate)

philologos

Stick to your original one. It has more meat to it. Leaving aside Youth Defence, and the obstruction of the path argument for a moment. Is your main issue with people openly holding differing opinions to your own? Personally, I think if others in the university want to invite pro-choice speakers / and promote a liberal view of sexuality, I think others should have the liberty to disagree with them. I advocate the liberty of the university to share opinions and beliefs with others, and I openly support the freedom of expression on the university campus. If you wish to engage with them, or engage with them, use the liberty of the university rather than resorting to trying to eject peoples opinions from consideration by force.

That's extreme IMO.

Daemos

Let's not forget, it's not the first time they've done this. Remember referendum day last year?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70735801 , post 22 onwards
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056195211

Unfortunately it seems the Pro-Life group has a higher ratio of nutters than most groups. They're the equivalent of Ultras at football games - a group of loud-mouths who give the rest of the group a bad name. I didn't see them this year but it sounds like they did the same as last year. They're not offering an opinion, they're ramming it down your throat. If they are banned from campus, why weren't they kicked out?

Leptons

philologos wrote: »

Stick to your original one. It has more meat to it. Leaving aside Youth Defence, and the obstruction of the path argument for a moment. Is your main issue with people openly holding differing opinions to your own? Personally, I think if others in the university want to invite pro-choice speakers / and promote a liberal view of sexuality, I think others should have the liberty to disagree with them. I advocate the liberty of the university to share opinions and beliefs with others, and I openly support the freedom of expression on the university campus. If you wish to engage with them, or engage with them, use the liberty of the university rather than resorting to trying to eject peoples opinions from consideration by force.

That's extreme IMO.

No, people holding differing opinions to myself is not my main issue, nor is it my side issue, or any issue at all for that matter. I've said as much already.

A Pro-choice stance is not related to any view of sexuality. It's a reproductive health issue for those with that stance.

Nobody is trying to eject anybody's opinion on anything from consideration by force. Tactics, however, are a different matter.

Daemos

CaoimH_in wrote: »

That is the nature of a protest though, I thought, to be a nuisance?

(devils advocate)

But why? What are they trying to achieve? As someone said earlier they're protesting to maintain a law that AKAIK hasn't come in to question

Leptons

CaoimH_in wrote: »

That is the nature of a protest though, I thought, to be a nuisance?

(devils advocate)

You've a point there.

philologos

Daemos: Last year in that thread, I believe I made much the same argument. I'd be surprised if it was the first time when they used their liberty to share their views on campus. Many other societies have used the same liberty on the campus? No?

Is it really ramming a view down someones throats to hold up a few signs? - Much in the same way as I never considered people who were handing out condoms in the Arts Block on SHAG week as being forceful because I clearly disagreed with their POV on sexuality. It's all about showing grace to other people. If we didn't the university wouldn't have been anywhere near as friendly a place.

Leptons: I disagree with you. A pro-choice view is closely related to a certain view of sexuality from as far as I can tell, that said, I think a pro-life one is too. The two issues are closely related.

Leptons

philologos wrote: »

Leptons: I disagree with you. A pro-choice view is closely related to a certain view of sexuality from as far as I can tell, that said, I think a pro-life one is too. The two issues are closely related.

No, they aren't really. A person who is pro-choice is more likely to have a liberal view of sexuality and a person who is pro-life is more likely to have a conservative view of sexuality. They are only related insomuch as they both arise out of people's conservative or liberal mindsets. They have no direct connection.

Daemos

philologos wrote: »

Daemos: Last year in that thread, I believe I made much the same argument. I'd be surprised if it was the first time when they used their liberty to share their views on campus. Many other societies have used the same liberty on the campus? No?

If YD are banned from campus - and it's clear that this was a YD event - then no, they are not entitled to share their views on campus

Is it really ramming a view down someones throats to hold up a few signs? - Much in the same way as I never considered people who were handing out condoms in the Arts Block on SHAG week as being forceful because I clearly disagreed with their POV on sexuality. It's all about showing grace to other people. If we didn't the university wouldn't have been anywhere near as friendly a place.

Except they weren't just holding up signs. From the sounds of it they were obstructing the entrance to a building, which if true is exactly what they did last year. Forcing people to see what they want them to. That is ramming opinions down someone's throat [which I just realised is a phrase that makes no sense but anyways...]

philologos

Leptons wrote: »

No, they aren't really. A person who is pro-choice is more likely to have a liberal view of sexuality and a person who is pro-life is more likely to have a conservative view of sexuality. They are only related insomuch as they both arise out of people's conservative or liberal mindsets. They have no direct connection.

By and large. It is based on a certain view of sexuality. There's a choice to be made before one gets to the point of deciding whether or not to kill a child in the process.

There's always a risk of unplanned pregnancy and there are precautions that can be taken, contraceptives being one, waiting until one is ready and able to deal with bringing a child into the world should it arise.

I wonder is it more about priorities. Is it that people find that conjugal rights are more important than the right to life? That's quite an unsettling idea, but it's one to consider definitely.

That said, I don't believe that sexuality is a bad thing, in fact it's a beautiful thing in the right context, but in the wrong contexts it can be a whole lot more painful than beautiful. You could say my 2 cents.

I'm a huge advocate of the freedom of the university. I enjoyed that freedom during my time at NUI Maynooth, and if that were to change it would be deeply unfortunate for the university.

Leptons

philologos wrote: »

By and large. It is based on a certain view of sexuality. There's a choice to be made before one gets to the point of deciding whether or not to kill a child in the process.

There's always a risk of unplanned pregnancy and there are precautions that can be taken, contraceptives being one, waiting until one is ready and able to deal with bringing a child into the world should it arise.

I wonder is it more about priorities. Is it that people find that conjugal rights are more important than the right to life? That's quite an unsettling idea, but it's one to consider definitely.

I don't accept your premise.

Also, abstinence education has been demonstrated to be the least effective form of birth control. This, combined with the fact that having children while young lowers future educational prospects and societal prosperity, leads to a bad situation. Therefore, contraceptives. I'm do hope you accept those. I've never heard a valid claim against them.

the_syco

philologos wrote: »

I'm a huge advocate of the freedom of the university. I enjoyed that freedom during my time at NUI Maynooth, and if that were to change it would be deeply unfortunate for the university.

Free to protest, not free to enter the building? I'm surprised YD didn't storm the building as they usually do in these matters.

philologos

Lepton: As I said, it's priorities. Many people value their conjugal rights more highly than the right and liberty to life. If they didn't value them more highly, much of the issues surrounding abortion would be non-existent.

I don't agree that abstinence is impossible, but there is a lot of cultural baggage and pressure surrounding sexuality which one can readily sympathise with.

Personally, I would favour abstinence to contraceptives as I believe that sexuality should be kept within marriage. I think if one isn't going to subscribe to that POV that contraceptives should be used.

the_syco wrote: »

Free to protest, not free to enter the building? I'm surprised YD didn't storm the building as they usually do in these matters.

People were free to enter the building surely? If they were shoving people out, I'd understand your objection.

Leptons

philologos wrote: »

^^ As I said, it's priorities. Many people value their conjugal rights more highly than the right and liberty to life. If they didn't value them more highly, much of the issues surrounding abortion would be non-existent.

I don't agree that abstinence is impossible, but there is a lot of cultural baggage and pressure surrounding sexuality which one can readily sympathise with.

As I said, I don't accept your premise.

Also, cultural baggage and pressure? It's called puberty and it's not cultural.

philologos

I don't accept that presupposition. The one that suggests that it is impossible / non-beneficial to abstain as a young person. That simply isn't really true. I do accept that people won't do so, and in such cases contraceptives are the only option, but at the same time I do think there is something defective about the common understanding of sexuality in many Western societies. Indeed, so defective that we're willing to compromise the very definition of life in order to keep it going.

I welcome people questioning that notion, because I feel it to be destructive. It's definitely cultural baggage that has emerged from the ethical blurred lines that we've created in Western societies. Believe it or not, not everyone accepts the liberal Western view of sexuality.

Barr125

Ok, does anyone know for definite whether the YD is not allowed on the campus, because I've been informed, by the a member of YD themselves, they attended the student week last year and quote ''got on very well with the students in NUIM.''

-.-

philologos

Daemos wrote: »

If YD are banned from campus - and it's clear that this was a YD event - then no, they are not entitled to share their views on campusExcept they weren't just holding up signs. From the sounds of it they were obstructing the entrance to a building, which if true is exactly what they did last year. Forcing people to see what they want them to. That is ramming opinions down someone's throat [which I just realised is a phrase that makes no sense but anyways...]

As for obstruction. That term requires a bit more definition. Were they simply standing outside the building, or were they actively stopping people from going in?

If it is the former, that's not obstruction.

nozzferrahhtoo

Leptons wrote: »

Apparently, the the signs they are using come in two varieties:

I have never really understood the need to show these pictures. I guess it substitutes for their lack of any arguments on the subject. However I fail to see how the fact abortion does not LOOK pretty has anything to do with the morality of the procedure.

Would it make sense, for example, to protest against open heart surgery by showing photos of just how bloody and unappealing the procedure looks? Trust me, it is one of the least attractive things you will witness. Yet no one is stupid enough to claim the practice is immoral because pictures of the practice are distasteful.

Further I rather expect if I showed distasteful pictures of people being dismembered, operated on, or otherwise undergoing some kind of gory and bloody practice that I would quickly be arrested for breach of the peace and for exposing children to disturbing imagery. I would likely not get away with protesting against religious extremism by showing images of decapitated prisoners or against anti contraception people by showing images of some people who have died from AIDS.

Why anti choice protesters are exempt from such therefore is rather opaque to me. By all means practice free speech, but do it under the same laws and rules of decorum that the rest of us adhere to or are forced to adhere to.

I guess the issue with them is that they have no "speech" to practice freely and the images are all they have. I have on occasion gone up and asked people brandishing such photos what their positions actually are. Not in Maynooth, but around the Central bank in Dublin. Their response has been invariably "Just look at the pictures!!!!" which they repeat over and over as I ask them to adumbrate their position verbally.

However all that said I would not be in favor of booting them off the campus entirely. If they are causing obstruction however I would be all for moving them aside slightly.

philologos wrote: »

Commit fully to your argument, your real objection seems to be that they were out there at all.

How typically disingenuous of you. The user has described at length what his objections are. You do not get to brush them all aside, ignore them, and assign your own imagined positions to the user. Though straw manning peoples position in order to find something easier to attack is often your tactic all across boards.ie and no one is a stranger to seeing this from you by now I think.

philologos wrote: »

Stick to your original one. It has more meat to it.

Again you do not get to dictate to other users what their arguments are, should be, or have to be. It would serve you better to control what others points are so you can attack them better, but ignoring a users actual points in favor of the ones you can deal with is not helpful here. You attempt to paint the user as being someone who simply can not handle others having opinions different to his own is pretty poor. But as I said it is much easier for you to attack such a fantasy than deal with the users actual concerns.

philologos wrote: »

Lepton: As I said, it's priorities. Many people value their conjugal rights more highly than the right and liberty to life.

Another straw man attempt to paint the other side in a poor light. You know well, and have been told often, that "right to life" is not the issue at all but that the other side see no reason as to why the fetus even HAS a right to life.

So you want to paint it that they value X more than Y in a situation where the people you are painting do not even recognise that there IS a "Y" to value. For the third time in this post however I have to point out that this tactic of attacking easy straw men while ignoring peoples actual position is pretty poor form.

Daemos

philologos wrote: »

As for obstruction. That term requires a bit more definition. Were they simply standing outside the building, or were they actively stopping people from going in?

If it is the former, that's not obstruction.

I can't say, I didn't see it myself. I'm just going on what others have said and on what I saw last year. And a dozen people standing around an entrance with big signs, regardless of whether they're actively stopping people going in, is obstruction IMO

CaoimH_in

Daemos wrote: »

But why? What are they trying to achieve? As someone said earlier they're protesting to maintain a law that AKAIK hasn't come in to question

*nature of protests in general.

banquo

Oh good, an abortion thread.

These always end well.

2ndcoming

The thing that always irks me about the topic is that the pro-life side, without generalising too much, are much more likely to have to have quite a conservative outlook and lifestyle and as such are far less likely to ever be in the situation where they have to give real consideration to the issue in their own lives.

I think any group that feel so strongly, nearly to the point of militancy, about any issue that for the most part is none of their business, are just over-bearing right wing quasi-fascists, but hey I'm a big bleeeedin' lefty so what do I know?!

There. That should throw the cat amongst the pigeons.

Effluo

Abortions for some, miniature american flags for others

Alt_Grrr

banquo wrote: »

Oh good, an abortion thread.

These always end well.

I thought we finally reached the bottom of the abortion issue the last few times. It seems not.

Maybe boards.ie/the web in general isn't the best place to have an enlightened and informed debate on this topic maybe they should have one some night in a lecture hall.

I say this because the greatest crime these days online is to disagree with someone. and maybe being in the same room might make some people behave like adults.

Not that I'm accusing anyone of this at the moment, but we've have enough of these threads to guess where its going.

Leptons

Alt_Grrr wrote: »

I say this because the greatest crime these days online is to disagree with someone. and maybe being in the same room might make some people behave like adults.

Are you disparaging the noble tradition of keyboard warring? :cool:

Ostrom

YD were banned after hijacking the James McINerney debate four years ago if I remember?

Also because of their well documented militancy and heavy-handedness (evidence on request), anti-homosexuality and multiple public guises.

Norrdeth

Closing...3, 2, 1.