Alan Shatter condemns "bullyboy" anti-abortion posters, See Mod warning post #25

Death and Taxes

I'm no fan of Alan Shatter but this anti choice gang are disgusting!
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/shatter-condemns-bullyboy-posters-in-antiabortion-row-3324970.html

Posters containing bloodied photographs and the slogan "Every Child Matters Except to Alan Shatter" – with the words "Stop Abortion" underneath – were placed adjacent to a creche as well as the upmarket Wesley College School.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1213/1224327804841.html


The posters were customised versions of Fine Gael’s children’s referendum campaign posters, which carried the slogan “Every child matters”.

The original image of a boy holding a teddy bear was covered over with a graphic image of a gloved hand holding what appear to be the legs of a bloodied foetus.

Death and Taxes

Dean09 wrote: »

I'm not sticking up for them by any means but, "Anti woman"??
Where'd you get that from??

Last time I checked only women could get pregnant, anti choice in that regard is anti woman, these cnuts are no better than the taliban in how they view women, imo:mad:

El Guapo!

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Last time I checked only women could get pregnant, anti choice in that regard is anti woman, these cnuts are no better than the taliban in how they view women, imo:mad:

Bit of a leap there I think.
Like I said, I'm not supporting them at all but I just hate the way people jump in with the sensational sexism claims.
By your logic, only men can wear condoms, the Catholic Church is against condoms, therefore the Catholic Church is anti-men.
Makes no sense at all and it only belittles your argument in my opinion.


EDIT; And just to clarify my position.....I think the people in the story with the placards are imbeciles.

Ghandee

Dean09 wrote: »

Bit of a leap there I think.
Like I said, I'm not supporting them at all but I just hate the way people jump in with the sensational sexism claims.
By your logic, only men can wear condoms, the Catholic Church is against condoms, therefore the Catholic Church is anti-men.
Makes no sense at all and it only belittles your argument in my opinion.


EDIT; And just to clarify my position.....I think the people in the story with the placards are imbeciles.

But the catholic church aren't just anti-condom, they're anti-contraceptive.

This takes in condoms, pills, diaphragms, coils, etc etc. (anti-recreational riding?)

Edit, and also just to clarify, I think the people holding the placards are just as big a bunch of imbeciles as half of the fùckwits we have in the dail supposedly 'running the country' (into the gutter)

tolosenc

Dean09 wrote: »

Bit of a leap there I think.
Like I said, I'm not supporting them at all but I just hate the way people jump in with the sensational sexism claims.
By your logic, only men can wear condoms, the Catholic Church is against condoms, therefore the Catholic Church is anti-men.
Makes no sense at all and it only belittles your argument in my opinion.


EDIT; And just to clarify my position.....I think the people in the story with the placards are imbeciles.

It's got very little to do with abortion or choice, and absolutely everything to do with controlling women, and shaming those hussies who go out and have sex. Imagine! People riding for a purpose other than procreation. It'll never catch on.

El Guapo!

Ghandee wrote: »

But the catholic church aren't just anti-condom, they're anti-contraceptive.

This takes in condoms, pills, diaphragms, coils, etc etc.

True. That wasn't the best example, but you get my point. Making the leap that anti abortion means you're anti women is ridiculous. It's just trying to tar the pro life camp with the sexism brush. It's trying to label them all sexists so as to discredit their argument.
Now I wouldn't be a big fan of the pro life people myself but I don't think it's right to label them "anti women".

El Guapo!

tolosenc wrote: »

........and absolutely everything to do with controlling women....

Oh come on!
Do you honestly believe that?!
Stop playing the sexism card and making out that the whole world is against women. It's like the way some extreme feminists go out looking to be insulted so they can scream "Sexist!" in someone's face.

tin79

Antiabor sounds like a lush tropical island somewhere in the Indian ocean.

Where is this Antiabor place anyway?

GalwayGuy2

were placed adjacent to a creche

Fu-kin animals:mad:

Leftist

Dean09 wrote: »

It's like the way some extreme feminists go out looking to be insulted so they can scream "Sexist!" in someone's face.

I've never heard of anyone doing that outside of a viz cartoon.

Typical boards. A thread title that's a link to a webpage and arguments from both sides based in hysterical country parish logic.

What these clowns did was a disgrace.

telekon

Jesus Christ, I hate that term "anti-abortion".

Who the hell is "pro-abortion"?!

philologos

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Last time I checked only women could get pregnant, anti choice in that regard is anti woman, these cnuts are no better than the taliban in how they view women, imo:mad:

Groan. Not all pro-lifers are represented by these posters. Not all women are pro-choice. Being pro-life is not anti-woman at all. Considering that abortion-by-choice is used to facilitate gendercide you should be as concerned as I am actually.

upstairs for coffee

Not surprising though is it? If Pro-Choice tried utilising propaganda like that, there would be war.

Also read over the weekend that the Anti-Choice campaign has received more funding from American firms, surely the word of God would be enough to convince people not to support Pro-Choice :rolleyes:

Ok, I'm being pedantic but these Anti-Choice people have the characteristics of militants. Even worse than the Unionists up North.

upstairs for coffee

philologos wrote: »

Considering that abortion-by-choice is used to facilitate gendercide you should be as concerned as I am actually.

Do you have any proof to back this statement up?

Pompey Magnus

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Do you have any proof to back this statement up?

Read up on Sex selective abortion.

philologos

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Do you have any proof to back this statement up?

There's a few articles on it, one here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9103831/In-the-third-world-unwanted-baby-girls-disappear.-Its-called-gendercide.-And-its-happening-in-this-country-too.html

If you need more just type 'gendercide' or 'gender-selective abortion'.

For all this talk of pro-women many of those aborted by gendercide or not are female.

Leftist

philipogogs, please stay on the topic of the thread, this isn't about the right to abortion or your religious teachings.

lukesmom

Poster turned my stomach. Why do they use such graphic images. Animals

Shankly88

All shatter seems to do is condemn things instead of taking any action he is pure useless. I'm not for abortion outside of health reasons but them posters are a disgrace and not fair especially to women who may be suffering depression from having a previous abortion.

upstairs for coffee

philologos wrote: »

There's a few articles on it, one here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9103831/In-the-third-world-unwanted-baby-girls-disappear.-Its-called-gendercide.-And-its-happening-in-this-country-too.html

If you need more just type 'gendercide' or 'gender-selective abortion'.

For all this talk of pro-women many of those aborted by gendercide or not are female.

I don't see how you can claim gendercide from one article that sites a few examples. I'd also love to know what religion etc of the couples who chose to terminate based on gender were.

And even still, it is their choice. Even though I do not agree with their choice on this occasion who am I to govern that their choice is wrong?

philologos

Leftist wrote: »

philipogogs, please stay on the topic of the thread, this isn't about the right to abortion or your religious teachings.

The OP has lumped all pro-lifers into one category. I think that's worthy of discussion. Oh and this is about the right to abort.

ciaran12

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Last time I checked only women could get pregnant, anti choice in that regard is anti woman, these cnuts are no better than the taliban in how they view women, imo:mad:

I'm a pro-life atheist. Also, I do quite a lot of charity work, I'll even be volunteering this evening, and expect to be doing quite a lot more over christmas.

The reason I'm pro-life, is simply that I happen to believe life begins at conception. After that, I can't really choose my stance on anything, if I believe the unborn baby is alive, then the Universal Declaration of Human Rights kinda decides my position for me.

Just as if you decide that life doesn't begin until consciousness, then the UDHR (and basic empathy for others) would dictate that you fight for Woman's rights.

Am I a 'cnut' and 'no better than the taliban'?

It really annoys me how people on BOTH sides of this argument fail to even TRY and see things from the other perspective

It's clear that you've made a decision regarding whether or not the foetus is a human, and have taken a position accordingly. It's even very admirable that you are also fighting for human rights in accordance with your views. But ffs, at least try and accept that not EVERYBODY on the other side of the argument is 'anti-woman'

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that people would differ over when life begins. I do hope that we can eventually reach consensus, but I wouldn't be too surprised if that never happened.

The point is, the only question that matters is whether or not the foetus has a right to life. It's easy to see how people can have varying views on that, and our existing principles mean that once that decision is made, your stance on abortion is decided. So I won't call you a bad person for being pro-choice. I'll call you a good person for standing up for human rights. I'll also say that in my view, you're fighting for the wrong side, and I hope you change your mind.

philologos

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

I don't see how you can claim gendercide from one article that sites a few examples. I'd also love to know what religion etc of the couples who chose to terminate based on gender were.

And even still, it is their choice. Even though I do not agree with their choice on this occasion who am I to govern that their choice is wrong?

There's many more. I linked to one as an example.
Please read my posts first.

Pro-choice means the right to choose for any reason even if they want a boy rather than a girl.

The more sensible approach is to legislate on need such as serious risk to life or health of the mother.

I think the State should govern a serious life or death issue. Who are you to say that life should be destroyed to a child on the basis of a mere choice?

K-9

Stick to the thread topic please which means this isn't a general debate on abortion, it's about graphic posters outsides schools etc.

BidillyBo

Can people not just mind their own business if you don't like abortion fantastic don't have one.If everyone would just stop worrying about what other people were doing the whole time allot of things would be allot easier

K-9

Just to repeat that this isn't an abortion debate thread, it's about the posters outside schools, don't waste your time making points about anti/pro women/choice.

Death and Taxes

It takes a particularly sick or evil mind to place posters like that outside schools, creches, or indeed any public place.
No thought was given to the effect on children, to the effect on pregnant women, or the effect on those who have suffered miscarraige/stillbirth.

philologos

In one sense I think the poster shouldn't have been displayed, it is horrific. But it is only horrific for much the same reason as abortion-by-choice is horrific. It should never be witnessed or be a reality in society.

Its interesting to notice from a pro-choice perspective that discussing or displaying the procedure seems to be wrong. How can one know what to choose if they aren't informed about what will happen to them and to the unborn child?

I've copied this post I case it vanishes again.

ciaran12

Putting up posters like that near schools and creches is absolutely insane and I'd agree with those here who've called for legal action against whoever's responsible.

It's important though to recognise that not all pro-life advocates are a part of that sort of thing

suicide_circus

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Not surprising though is it? If Pro-Choice tried utilising propaganda like that, there would be war.

Yes...Pro-Choice would never try to exploit a tragedy...................

philologos

philologos wrote: »

In one sense I think the poster shouldn't have been displayed, it is horrific. But it is only horrific for much the same reason as abortion-by-choice is horrific. It should never be witnessed or be a reality in society.

Its interesting to notice from a pro-choice perspective that discussing or displaying the procedure seems to be wrong. How can one know what to choose if they aren't informed about what will happen to them and to the unborn child?

I've copied this post I case it vanishes again.

Some anti choice propaganda is taken from miscarriages or the fake/doctored images that guy released in the 80s. I think it was the 80s.

Secondly, we don't wave around pictures of open heart surgery on the streets because it's common fcuking decency. We also don't wave around pictures of the up close parts of childbirth because we don't need that shoved in our faces either. "That looks gross so it must be wrong" is not logic.
If people want to learn what happens then they can go find out from themselves without misleading sensationalistic nonsense.

And NOT in front of children

Leftist

that's odd, my post disappeared...

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

Some anti choice propaganda is taken from miscarriages or the fake/doctored images that guy released in the 80s. I think it was the 80s.

Secondly, we don't wave around pictures of open heart surgery on the streets because it's common fcuking decency. We also don't wave around pictures of the up close parts of childbirth because we don't need that shoved in our faces either. "That looks gross so it must be wrong" is not logic.
If people want to learn what happens then they can go find out from themselves without misleading sensationalistic nonsense.

And NOT in front of children

I agree they shouldn't be displayed in public. I think abortion is horrific.

I do think it the injustice that abortion-by-choice is should be made light.

What I find interesting though is that pro-choice activists don't encourage awareness of what happens to mother and child in that procedure. I don't think abortion-by-choice should exist so I guess that I have justification for wanting no mention of it.

It is a barbaric procedure which destroys human life. I think that should be made clear. We should be trying to move past this rather than furthering it.

ciaran12

philologos wrote: »

In one sense I think the poster shouldn't have been displayed, it is horrific. But it is only horrific for much the same reason as abortion-by-choice is horrific. It should never be witnessed or be a reality in society.

Its interesting to notice from a pro-choice perspective that discussing or displaying the procedure seems to be wrong. How can one know what to choose if they aren't informed about what will happen to them and to the unborn child?

I've copied this post I case it vanishes again.

Hmmm.. I think I'd have to agree that in some cases using photos of the procedure is justified, as it's an attempt at showing an uncomfortable reality.

Children should not be exposed to those images though. Also, I'm not sure anyone's opinion can ever be changed in either direction by extreme/shock tactics like that.
If I wanted to change someone's mind about abortion I wouldn't try to do it by shoving grotesque pictures in their face. Just as they wouldn't have a hope of changing my mind by yelling about ovary ownership.
It takes more meaningful discussion to change someone's mind on this. Any extreme tactics just tend to drive people further in the opposite direction, and take the debate away from the real issues.

So these posters should not have been used in this case. And even if I don't think these images should be actually hidden from the public, I don't think they're a very useful tool in getting a pro-life message across. The debate will always end up about the images themselves rather than what they represent

EDIT: Nevermind, just saw your last post Philologos, I think we seem to be of roughly the same mind after all!

Zulu

WileyCoyote wrote: »

It takes a particularly sick or evil mind....

So after ciaran12's honest and considerate post, you can only insult these people as sick or evil?

It's time to take a look in the mirror WileyCoyote. Intolerance isn't nice no matter what way it cuts.

Leftist

philologos wrote: »

I agree they shouldn't be displayed in public. I think abortion is horrific.

I do think it the injustice that abortion-by-choice is should be made light.

What I find interesting though is that pro-choice activists don't encourage awareness of what happens to mother and child in that procedure. I don't think abortion-by-choice should exist so I guess that I have justification for wanting no mention of it.

It is a barbaric procedure which destroys human life. I think that should be made clear. We should be trying to move past this rather than furthering it.

who's going around putting pro-choice for abortion on demand posters outside anywhere let alone schools? this has nothing to do with the abortion debate. This is religious fanatics pushing their agenda with complete disregard, even for kids.

K-9

philologos wrote: »

I've copied this post I case it vanishes again.

Leftist wrote: »

that's odd, my post disappeared...

Stick to the thread topic which after 2 warnings now and a notice in the title, posters should be perfectly clear on.

Zulu

bluewolf wrote: »

Some anti choice propaganda...

Why descend into petty name calling bluewolf? Whats "anti choice" about considering the choice of the father? Whats "anti choice" about considering the choice of the child.

...but once we only concern ourselves with the woman's choice (one of the 3 choices) we're "pro choice". Propaganda indeed.

Leftist

K-9 wrote: »

Stick to the thread topic which after 2 warnings now and a notice in the title, posters should be perfectly clear on.

that is exactly what I'm talking about..

the action of putting these posters in public and outside sensitive areas and the agenda that compels the people to do that.

What is hard to understand about that?

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I agree they shouldn't be displayed in public. I think abortion is horrific.

I do think it the injustice that abortion-by-choice is should be made light.

What I find interesting though is that pro-choice activists don't encourage awareness of what happens to mother and child in that procedure. I don't think abortion-by-choice should exist so I guess that I have justification for wanting no mention of it.

It is a barbaric procedure which destroys human life. I think that should be made clear. We should be trying to move past this rather than furthering it.

Some women are fine. Some women are not. Neither tends to be shouted about due to stigma of the whole thing. There are women who have posted about telling "friends" who promptly turned on them and reacted aggressively.
Counselling services are available to women going through it which is well known enough

o1s1n

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yes...Pro-Choice would never try to exploit a tragedy...................

So if an abortion could have saved the life of a mother, yet they were denied one - pointing this out as an example of why legistlation needs to be changed is exploitative?

How exactly are we meant to act upon tragedies then so that they don't happen again? Just ignore them at least we be accused of exploiting a situation?

I think the likes of Youth Defense freaked out regarding what happened recently, recoiled in fear as it renders the term 'pro life' meaningless, then sat down to work out how best to retort.

Their result? 'oh, how dare you exploit a tragedy!'

It's a good one as it relies heavily on emotion (like most of their arguements). Reminds me of when you're debating with a religious person and they fall back on faith and emotional responses.

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

Why descend into petty name calling bluewolf?

I don't see the need to be civil to or about the ones who display grotesque pictures on o'connell street or at creches.

I also don't see how it's "petty name calling", I haven't called them a thing.

philologos

K-9 wrote: »

Stick to the thread topic which after 2 warnings now and a notice in the title, posters should be perfectly clear on.

Its impossible to discuss this topic without reference to the ethics behind abortion.

I'll probably be taking this to Feedback. This is the last post I'll make in this thread.

General Zod

The people behind Youth Defence and all its fellow astroturf front organisations that originate from the same grubby office on Capel St. are a bunch of right-wing fanatics who want women barefoot and pregnant.

Zulu

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't see the need to be civil to or about the ones who display grotesque pictures on o'connell street or at creches.

And yet not all "anti abortion" partake in these actions. Why won't you consider being civil to me?

Tabnabs

philologos wrote: »

Its interesting to notice from a pro-choice perspective that discussing or displaying the procedure seems to be wrong. How can one know what to choose if they aren't informed about what will happen to them and to the unborn child?

I have absolutely no wish to see heart transplant images or caesarean section pictures, does that make these procedures wrong as well?

starbelgrade

Whoever made that poster took the phrase "cut and paste" a bit too literally.

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

And yet not all "anti abortion" partake in these actions. Why won't you consider being civil to me?

I didn't say they did. I said anti choice propaganda. Not "all those awful evil prolifers are actually anti choice".

K-9

philologos wrote: »

Its impossible to discuss this topic without reference to the ethics behind abortion.

I'll probably be taking this to Feedback. This is the last post I'll make in this thread.

Well others can post perfectly fine without referring to the wider issues so it doesn't seem impossible at all. Feedback is open to you or pm me if you have any issues.

LookingFor

Slightly OT, but just got a an automated telephone call telling me how abortion was destroying families across Ireland. I hung up at that point. But first time I've had, or even heard or someone, getting one of those automated political spam calls. They're very common in the US but could do without it being imported here.

CroatoanCat

philologos wrote: »

In one sense I think the poster shouldn't have been displayed, it is horrific. But it is only horrific for much the same reason as abortion-by-choice is horrific. It should never be witnessed or be a reality in society.

Its interesting to notice from a pro-choice perspective that discussing or displaying the procedure seems to be wrong. How can one know what to choose if they aren't informed about what will happen to them and to the unborn child?

I've copied this post I case it vanishes again.

I'm pro-choice and have no difficulty in discussions or displays of the procedure of abortion. I do have a general difficulty with the tendency of anti-choice campaigners to use images of aborted foetuses of late gestation when, in fact, the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester - I understand almost 90% of abortions in the UK are conducted where the pregancy is of less than ten weeks duration.

Of course, if one is of the view that human life begins at conception, an image of an aborted six-week old embryo and an image of an aborted 22-week old foetus will be equally horrific. For people in the middle ground, which I imagine constitues the majority of people in this country, there is most likely a difference. An embryo of six weeks gestation certainly does lnot look the same as a 20-week foetus. A policy of using images of aborted foetuses of late gestation does not reflect the reality that most abortions take place well within the first trimester.

In this particular instance, using images of an aborted foetus to intimidate and traduce a named politican is a loathsome practice.