Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Dick phelan

Oh god here it is again another feckin abortion thread in AH listen i would say that both the pro life and pro choice sides pick information and things that suite their side and agenda seriously we have enough of these threads we get it most people in AH are pro choice and think all pro lifers are religious nuts no need to make new threads to make the same points

lazygal

conorhal wrote: »

Your the one that's confused, or should I say, being dishonest. Did you request an abortion? Did your doctor reccomend an abortion?

This legislation is for abortions, not c-sections, abortions without term limits. If the patent demands an abortion, that's what this legislation entitles them to, not a c-section.
It's these kind of semantic attempts to deny the reality of this legislation that sicken me.

My doctor recommended my pregnancy be aborted/terminated by c-section. She didn't recommend killing my baby. How do you think later term abortion of pregnancy is carried out? Its by c-section or induced labour, which can in itself lead to emergency c-section. Nature can abort a pregnancy at any stage.
Abortion of pregnancy is without limits-because a risk to life can occur when a foetus is 12, 24 or 39 weeks' gestation. Do you think we should deny lifesaving treatment in the form of abortion of pregnancy, at a certain point, meaning two lives may be lost?

Dravokivich

Laneyh wrote: »

And where does it say more should be done to protect from rape ?

I understand that protecting the child is their objective but I fail to see anything on the poster which alludes to protecting women

I wasn't expecting to see this either as I say there is only one objective

They are saying by using abortion you would treating the child as the part of the problem, while the problem is how did that child get there in the first place, which is the rape of the woman. The abortion doesn't prevent the rape. Which is why it eh... "Won't make women safer..."

It's pointing towards causes to the problem, not to the affects of it. Which a pregnancy from rape is.

conorhal

lazygal wrote: »

My doctor recommended my pregnancy be aborted/terminated by c-section. She didn't recommend killing my baby. How do you think later term abortion of pregnancy is carried out? Its by c-section or induced labour, which can in itself lead to emergency c-section. Nature can abort a pregnancy at any stage.
Abortion of pregnancy is without limits-because a risk to life can occur when a foetus is 12, 24 or 39 weeks' gestation. Do you think we should deny lifesaving treatment in the form of abortion of pregnancy, at a certain point, meaning two lives may be lost?

Again you're just attempting to spoof. If an abortion is mandated that REQUIRES the deliberate termination of the life of the foetus.
Your baby wasn't aborted, it was delived prematurely with the intent of saving the life of your child.
Tell me, where does this legislation make reference to prematurely delivering a viable foetus?
Delivery is delivery, the circumstances my differ but the intent of the outcome is the same, saving a child, abortion is the opposite, what pro-abort campaigners are claiming is that IF in the course of an abortion that the job gets botched, then we might think about giving some small token $h1t about the baby.

humanji

Dravokivich wrote: »

They are saying by using abortion you would treating the child as the part of the problem, while the problem is how did that child get there in the first place, which is the rape of the woman. The abortion doesn't prevent the rape. Which is why it eh... "Won't make women safer..."

It's pointing towards causes to the problem, not to the affects of it. Which a pregnancy from rape is.

If it was an ordinary group who created the posters, then you may be right. But this is Youth Defence. They don't give a **** about anything but their own agenda and treat everyone as enemies unless they agree 100% with them. They don't care about rape victims and they don't care about preventing rape. They only want the laws to reflect their own ideals.

lazygal

conorhal wrote: »

Again you're just attempting to spoof. If an abortion is mandated that REQUIRES the deliberate termination of the life of the foetus.
Your baby wasn't aborted, it was delived prematurely with the intent of saving the life of your child.
Tell me, where does this legislation make reference to prematurely delivering a viable foetus?
Delivery is delivery, the circumstances my differ but the intent of the outcome is the same, saving a child, abortion is the opposite, what pro-abort campaigners are claiming is that IF in the course of an abortion that the job gets botched, then we might think about giving some small token $h1t about the baby.

You are wrong. Plain wrong. And you say pro abortion like its a bad thing. Aborting my pregnacy before natural delivery saved my life and that of my child. I'm pro abortion - and proud of the fact.

I'm really going to enjoy seeing the footstamping and howls of outrage from the likes of YD when this Bill is passed by a massive majority.

Sarky

conorhal wrote: »

Again you're just attempting to spoof. If an abortion is mandated that REQUIRES the deliberate termination of the life of the foetus.
Your baby wasn't aborted, it was delived prematurely with the intent of saving the life of your child.
Tell me, where does this legislation make reference to prematurely delivering a viable foetus?
Delivery is delivery, the circumstances my differ but the intent of the outcome is the same, saving a child, abortion is the opposite, what pro-abort campaigners are claiming is that IF in the course of an abortion that the job gets botched, then we might think about giving some small token $h1t about the baby.

<snigger>

ash23

conorhal wrote: »

Again you're just attempting to spoof. If an abortion is mandated that REQUIRES the deliberate termination of the life of the foetus.
Your baby wasn't aborted, it was delived prematurely with the intent of saving the life of your child.
Tell me, where does this legislation make reference to prematurely delivering a viable foetus?
Delivery is delivery, the circumstances my differ but the intent of the outcome is the same, saving a child, abortion is the opposite, what pro-abort campaigners are claiming is that IF in the course of an abortion that the job gets botched, then we might think about giving some small token $h1t about the baby.

But if a womans life becomes endangered early on in the pregnancy, it's very different to if the same happens later in the pregnancy.
Later in the pregnancy the baby is delivered and if assistance is required for it to survive, that assistance is given.

The issue arises earlier in the pregnancy where induction will most certainly result in the death of the foetus because it cannot sustain life outside of the womb and no amount of medical intervention will save it.

It is the latter that the bill is legislating for. Quite simply, where the delivery of the foetus will mean certain death of the foetus.

The intent of the bill is to save the mothers life. My life was saved with the termination of my pregnancy. But I was 37 weeks gestation so the termination of my pregnancy resulted in a healthy viable baby.

Had the same condition occured at 17 weeks, my pregnancy would have been terminated resulting in the death of the foetus in order to save my life.
That is why there is no limit on the proposal.

SparkySpitfire

Putting this here cos I'm pretty sure most AHers don't really care about this sort of thing but:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/06/27/opposite-the-dublin-rape-crisis-centre/

Pro-life/Anti-choice campaign have parked an Advan outside the Rape Crisis Centre. Classy.

Also, is that a bus lane it's parked in? Is that legal?

Pherekydes

conorhal wrote: »

Again you're just attempting to spoof.

She's telling you the facts about her case and you're calling her a liar. What a nice chap.

But why would we expect anything different?

seenitall

Dravokivich, what you wrote was that they are saying that more needs to be done to address rape.

I am puzzled at how them caring so much about protecting the possible result of the rape, can in any fricking way be interpreted as "we need to do more to protect women from rape".

The two are completely, but completely and utterly, unrelated.

Needless to say, these people couldn't care less about rape or raped women, as their today's action clearly shows. So I wouldn't think that they would be saying what you think they're saying even by mistake.

Dravokivich

humanji wrote: »

If it was an ordinary group who created the posters, then you may be right. But this is Youth Defence. They don't give a **** about anything but their own agenda and treat everyone as enemies unless they agree 100% with them. They don't care about rape victims and they don't care about preventing rape. They only want the laws to reflect their own ideals.

An ordinary group wouldn't do it as they did. I already said the message was shíte and that the way it was put forward was insensitive. But it does have a point. Dealing with the affects of rape in this manner, is not dealing with rape as a problem in itself. The pro-choice argument of abortion in the instance of pregnancy due to rape creates an idea to them that rape should be expected.

humanji

Dravokivich wrote: »

An ordinary group wouldn't do it as they did. I already said the message was shíte and that the way it was put forward was insensitive. But it does have a point. Dealing with the affects of rape in this manner, is not dealing with rape as a problem in itself. The pro-choice argument of abortion in the instance of pregnancy due to rape creates an idea to them that rape should be expected.

Well that's your view of their actions. Mine is that they are clearly saying "We don't care that you were raped. We are condemning you for considering an abortion." They mention or indicate nothing dealing with rape. Only ensuring that if their is a pregnancy as a result, the woman is forced to go through with it.

seenitall

Dravokivich wrote: »

An ordinary group wouldn't do it as they did. I already said the message was shíte and that the way it was put forward was insensitive. But it does have a point. Dealing with the affects of rape in this manner, is not dealing with rape as a problem in itself. The pro-choice argument of abortion in the instance of pregnancy due to rape creates an idea to them that rape should be expected.

No. I admit, I am truly stumped here. Can't follow your (or their?) logic at all.

Thank fcek for that.

Dravokivich

humanji wrote: »

Well that's your view of their actions. Mine is that they are clearly saying "We don't care that you were raped. We are condemning you for considering an abortion." They mention or indicate nothing dealing with rape. Only ensuring that if their is a pregnancy as a result, the woman is forced to go through with it.

then what does... and i quote

"Won't make women safer"

mean?

Me fail English?

humanji

That's nothing to do with rape.

Crooked Jack

DUP and UUP had a row over using the same model in election posters a few years back that was quite hilarious.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8620102.stm

jaja321

conorhal wrote: »

It's low, but it's no lower then using a tragic case of medical negligence to push an agenda.

Do you include Savita's parents in that? http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/proposed-law-not-sufficient-say-savita-halappanavar-s-parents-1.1440378

errlloyd

Dravokivich wrote: »

then what does... and i quote

"Won't make women safer"

mean?

Me fail English?

It means safer from suicide / health problems not rape. The current legislation is to legalise abortion for suicidal women, the YD position is that abortion is as likely to lead to depression as pregnancy.... Or something.

This is nothing to do with rape, apart from where they parked the truck.

conorhal

lazygal wrote: »

You are wrong. Plain wrong. And you say pro abortion like its a bad thing. Aborting my pregnacy before natural delivery saved my life and that of my child. I'm pro abortion - and proud of the fact.

I'm really going to enjoy seeing the footstamping and howls of outrage from the likes of YD when this Bill is passed by a massive majority.

That is one sick statement.

I'm pretty sure that if your doctor came in and said 'so lazygal, we're gonna abort your baby today' you'd have a $h1t fit.

The intention of an abortion is to terminate the life of a baby, and you still haven't explained how this is not the case. Late term abortion are not intended to delver a live baby, is that what you are trying to claim?
Abortions very late in the gestation period require a partial birth abortion, typically rupturing the membranes, opening the baby's skull and sucking out the contents to collapse it to provide ease of delivery.

lazygal

conorhal wrote: »

That is one sick statement.

I'm pretty sure that if your doctor came in and said 'so lazygal, we're gonna abort your baby today' you'd have a $h1t fit.

The intention of an abortion is to terminate the life of a baby, and you still haven't explained how this is not the case. Late term abortion are not intended to delver a live baby, is that what you are trying to claim?

That is not the intention of abortion in the bill. The intention is to save women's lives. But you mightn't care about that.

Why would my doctor, unasked by me, say he or she was intending to kill my baby? My doctor told me my pregnancy would be ended by c-section - because my life would be in danger if I went into spontaneous natural labour. Never mentioned killing the baby, ever, even though the pregnancy was being terminated. How do you know the intention of abortion is to kill a baby? I think you might be misinformed.

I'll say it again - I had a late term abortion of pregnancy and my child is alive and well.

Lola18

Women in such a crisis may immediately think they need an abortion I don't see such a big problem with this poster as it may make women think, so many people don't actually realise the cruelty in abortion and don't actually know what happens!
Pro life need to be a little harsh to make people actually read and think about what is being said in the posters!

lazygal

conorhal wrote: »

Abortions very late in the gestation period require a partial birth abortion, typically rupturing the membranes, opening the baby's skull and sucking out the contents to collapse it to provide ease of delivery.

Funny, that never happened to my baby. She's running around, hale and hearty, despite me having a late term abortion. How do you like that? Someone's wrong somewhere - maybe you should check your facts.

ibarelycare

Lola18 wrote: »

Women in such a crisis may immediately think they need an abortion I don't see such a big problem with this poster as it may make women think, so many people don't actually realise the cruelty in abortion and don't actually know what happens!
Pro life need to be a little harsh to make people actually read and think about what is being said in the posters!

Do you think it's ok to place this poster in front of a building where distressed women will be coming to seek help after being raped/sexually assaulted?

Laneyh

Dravokivich wrote: »

They are saying by using abortion you would treating the child as the part of the problem, while the problem is how did that child get there in the first place, which is the rape of the woman. The abortion doesn't prevent the rape. Which is why it eh... "Won't make women safer..."

It's pointing towards causes to the problem, not to the affects of it. Which a pregnancy from rape is.

The poster has 12 words on it and a large image. I don't see how you can draw the conclusions that you have from those 12 words.

AFAIK the proposed bill does not include any special dispensation for rape victims so why deliberately pursue this demographic ?
If they truly cared about the women victims they could use some of their funding to fund counselling and support for the women even if that counselling and support was going to strongly urge the women against having an abortion.

They have not done this though instead they have a 12 word poster with the core message of irrespective of what's happened to you if you choose an abortion you are a child killer.

conorhal

lazygal wrote: »

That is not the intention of abortion in the bill. The intention is to save women's lives. But you mightn't care about that.

Why would my doctor, unasked by me, say he or she was intending to kill my baby? My doctor told me my pregnancy would be ended by c-section - because my life would be in danger if I went into spontaneous natural labour. Never mentioned killing the baby, ever, even though the pregnancy was being terminated. How do you know the intention of abortion is to kill a baby? I think you might be misinformed.

I'll say it again - I had a late term abortion of pregnancy and my child is alive and well.

Early delivery of your child ensured that both you and your child are alive and well, why are you trying to pretend that an abortion is the same thing, it's not and semantics wont make it otherwise.
How is a D&C (dilate and curate - or 'cut up) going to deliver a living child?

How is a D&X one of the procedures used for late term abortions to remove a fetus that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction, intact dilation and evacuation, dilation and extraction , intrauterine cranial decompression, or in the vernacular of the US as partial-birth abortion that makes an incission in the skull of the foetus, sucks out the contents to collapes it to ensure the ease of 'delivery'. How is that likely to deliver a living child tell me?

Both are late term abortion methods, yet you curiously suggest that a c-section is, a method NEVER used for abortion. You should check your facts.

the_syco

Anyhoo's, not really that surprised. These are the people who find it okay to have large aborted foetuses on display in the middle of main pedestrian streets, and offer free balloons so that children drag their parents over to such awful signs!

Dravokivich wrote: »

Dealing with the affects of rape in this manner, is not dealing with rape as a problem in itself.

The only way to deal with the problem of rape is to arm every woman and girl from the age of 8 with a sawn-off shotgun.

Lola18 wrote: »

Pro life need to be a little harsh to make people actually read and think about what is being said in the posters!

So you agree that the poster is heartless and cold, yes?

lazygal

conorhal wrote: »

Early delivery of your child ensured that both you and your child are alive and well, why are you trying to pretend that an abortion is the same thing, it's not and semantics wont make it otherwise.
How is a D&C (dilate and curate - or 'cut up) going to deliver a living child?

How is a D&X one of the procedures used for late term abortions to remove a fetus that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction, intact dilation and evacuation, dilation and extraction , intrauterine cranial decompression, or in the vernacular of the US as partial-birth abortion that makes an incission in the skull of the foetus, sucks out the contents to collapes it to ensure the ease of 'delivery'. How is that likely to deliver a living child tell me?

Both are late term abortion methods, yet you curiously suggest that a c-section is, a method NEVER used for abortion. You should check your facts.

You're still wrong. You can keep repeating the anti abortion blurb, it won't make you less wrong.

I never said a c-section isn't used for abortion - I had my pregnancy aborted by c-section. I might have the unborn precious tiny baby I'm gestating right now early, via an abortion of pregnancy at 39 weeks. How come I had an abortion of pregnancy via c-section at 39 weeks and my child is running around?

I'm actually enjoying reading how wrong you are.

Laneyh

Lola18 wrote: »

Women in such a crisis may immediately think they need an abortion I don't see such a big problem with this poster as it may make women think, so many people don't actually realise the cruelty in abortion and don't actually know what happens!
Pro life need to be a little harsh to make people actually read and think about what is being said in the posters!

It is a rape crisis centre not an abortion clinic. I would need to review the right to information law but it could very easily be the case that the RCC are not even allowed provide wormen with information on getting a termination

Sometimes charities and various campaigns use the shock factor to drive a message home but in this instance I deem it wholly inappropriate and a targeted attack on vulnerable women - I cannot find any reasonable excuse for it.

Some woman has been brutalised and just when she has mustered up the courage to go and seek some solace she has to face this vile accusatory poster to add to her woes - not on frankly

Sir Humphrey Appleby

The term "Prolife" really pisses me off as it is misleading it that it infers that those opposed to their views are "Anti-Life".
They are certainly not pro the mothers life when it is at risk!
Would it not be fairer to describe them as "Anti-Choice" as that best describes their ideals and their agenda?

conorhal

lazygal wrote: »

You're still wrong. You can keep repeating the anti abortion blurb, it won't make you less wrong.

I never said a c-section isn't used for abortion - I had my pregnancy aborted by c-section. I might have the unborn precious tiny baby I'm gestating right now early, via an abortion of pregnancy at 39 weeks. How come I had an abortion of pregnancy via c-section at 39 weeks and my child is running around?

I'm actually enjoying reading how wrong you are.

In that case define what an abortion is for me, and and tell me what the outcome of an abortion is likely to be in the even that a woman requests and is granted a late term abortion under the current proposed legislation?

Zulu

Swan Curry wrote: »

Go on then buddy,please do tell me what's so illogical about feminism?

Striving for equality by only considering one side of the equation.

Thats illogical.

Lola18

ibarelycare wrote: »

Do you think it's ok to place this poster in front of a building where distressed women will be coming to seek help after being raped/sexually assaulted?

I do yes, it's up to each woman to either read and think about it or decide to ignore it. These kinds of posters are everywhere anyway I'm sure women who have the strength to get up and go to the centre have seen some of the posters already.

Rochelle

jaja321 wrote: »

Do you include Savita's parents in that? http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/proposed-law-not-sufficient-say-savita-halappanavar-s-parents-1.1440378

Yes, why shouldn't we?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

conorhal wrote: »

In that case define what an abortion is for me, and and tell me what the outcome of an abortion is likely to be in the even that a woman requests and is granted a late term abortion under the current proposed legislation?

Under the proposed legislation a late term termination can only be performed when there is a real and substantial threat to the life of the woman, what is your problem with saving a womans life when there is a real and substantial threat to it?

krudler

Lola18 wrote: »

I do yes, it's up to each woman to either read and think about it or decide to ignore it. These kinds of posters are everywhere anyway I'm sure women who have the strength to get up and go to the centre have seen some of the posters already.

Then your morals are repugnant.

Lola18

Laneyh wrote: »

It is a rape crisis centre not an abortion clinic. I would need to review the right to information law but it could very easily be the case that the RCC are not even allowed provide wormen with information on getting a termination

Sometimes charities and various campaigns use the shock factor to drive a message home but in this instance I deem it wholly inappropriate and a targeted attack on vulnerable women - I cannot find any reasonable excuse for it.

Some woman has been brutalised and just when she has mustered up the courage to go and seek some solace she has to face this vile accusatory poster to add to her woes - not on frankly

I never suggested the rcc could or couldnt give such information I said women may think it themselves!

ash23

conorhal wrote: »

In that case define what an abortion is for me, and and tell me what the outcome of an abortion is likely to be in the even that a woman requests and is granted a late term abortion under the current proposed legislation?

Can you tell me what the alternative is? They do nothing and the mother dies, followed quickly by the foetus/baby.......

(bearing in mind the legislation is all about abortion where there is a real and substantial risk to the mothers life)

PunkFreud

Saw this on facebook, with the poster claiming it's outside the Rape Crisis Centre. If that it is true, it just shows how delusional and sadistic some "pro-life" people are.

424550_555974094445025_775225531_n.jpg

jaja321

Rochelle wrote: »

Yes, why shouldn't we?

Eh.. because I hardly think her parents were using her death to "push an agenda" ... and to suggest so, frankly, is disgusting to me.

Lola18

krudler wrote: »

Then your morals are repugnant.

In fairness I can understand how it may upset some people but I just don't see the big deal people are making of it

krudler

conorhal wrote: »

That is one sick statement.

I'm pretty sure that if your doctor came in and said 'so lazygal, we're gonna abort your baby today' you'd have a $h1t fit.

The intention of an abortion is to terminate the life of a baby, and you still haven't explained how this is not the case. Late term abortion are not intended to delver a live baby, is that what you are trying to claim?
Abortions very late in the gestation period require a partial birth abortion, typically rupturing the membranes, opening the baby's skull and sucking out the contents to collapse it to provide ease of delivery.

This is laughable, do pro-lifers even understand what the bill is about? its not mandatory abortions ffs, there isnt a facepalm big enough for how stupid what you just wrote is.

lazygal

conorhal wrote: »

In that case define what an abortion is for me, and and tell me what the outcome of an abortion is likely to be in the even that a woman requests and is granted a late term abortion under the current proposed legislation?

Once again, an abortion is the interuption of pregnancy by natural or artificial means. In Ireland, women who's lives are at risk (as mine would have been if a natural labour had occured) will be able to have a pregnancy aborted. The foetus will be treated on delivery and all efforts made to save it - a 39 week foetus will usually breath on delivery without help and won't have health problems.
My pregnancy was aborted, not my child, and we are both alive today. A late term abortion isn't requested - its determined by a medical team that it is the best course of action for a woman and the foetus inside her. Women go through late term abortion of pregnancy every day, and doctors in Ireland do not kill the live foetuses that are born as a result.


I'm not repeating myself again.

ibarelycare

Lola18 wrote: »

I do yes, it's up to each woman to either read and think about it or decide to ignore it. These kinds of posters are everywhere anyway I'm sure women who have the strength to get up and go to the centre have seen some of the posters already.

Yes these posters are everywhere, but putting them outside the Rape Crisis Centre is just disgusting. Do you think it's ok for a group to shove their propaganda in the faces of women who are vulnerable and suffering? Yes I'm sure it takes a lot of strength for women to attend the RCC, but why should it be made harder for them? And if there is a woman who is pregnant due to rape, then do you think she's going to take the decision of having an abortion lightly? It's probably the worst thing she'll have to go through in her life. The facts of abortion should be laid out to her in an objective, non-biased way, not by these right-wing lunatics.

conorhal

ash23 wrote: »

Can you tell me what the alternative is? They do nothing and the mother dies, followed quickly by the foetus/baby.......

(bearing in mind the legislation is all about abortion where there is a real and substantial risk to the mothers life)

There is no medical evidence that a termination is necessary in all but the rarest of cases in which case every effort should be made to deliver the baby alive if the foetus is developed enough to survive outside the woumb. I have no problem with this.

When it comes to the suicide clause, no medical professional claims that an abortion is a treatment for suicidal ideation, and it is not the only treatment that could be applied. So there is no requirement to end the life of a healthy foetus, and it is disturbing in light if this (I could live with the legislation if it limited a termination to the first trimester) that there is also no limit placed on when a termination can take place.

Laneyh

Lola18 wrote: »

I never suggested the rcc could or couldnt give such information I said women may think it themselves!

Of course they can which is exactly why an enormous billboard ad implying otherwise is offensive to a lot of people.

You never suggested anything at all

I don't understand how you think anyone can unsee an enormous billboard ad though - that's a bit daft.

We don't have big anti-smoking ads outside of cancer wards or organ donation ads outside of A & E or rape crisis ads outside of churches

So, what possible reason does anyone have to place this specific ad outside of that specific premises?

You say because the women who pass it may be contemplating abortion, they may be contemplating a whole host of things it's their own business.

It would take a lot of courage to visit the RCC in the first place the last thing anyone needs to see on the way in is that crap

conorhal

krudler wrote: »

This is laughable, do pro-lifers even understand what the bill is about? its not mandatory abortions ffs, there isnt a facepalm big enough for how stupid what you just wrote is.

What are you taking about, where did I suggest 'mandatory abortions'? I was merely mocking her suggestion that an early delivery by c-section is the same thing as an abortion, which that trolling fool was attempting to claim.

The bill includes permitting the abortion of a healthy foetus in the case of a mother with suicidal ideation who clams that she will end her life as a result of the pregnancy, and there is no limit in legislation to how late in a pregnancy this can be perfomed. That I object to. Clear enough?

jhegarty

If not 9 month then what is the time limit in the bill ?

up for anything

Sarky wrote: »

<snigger>

Is that a pro-snigger or an anti-snigger?

Lola18

ibarelycare wrote: »

Yes these posters are everywhere, but putting them outside the Rape Crisis Centre is just disgusting. Do you think it's ok for a group to shove their propaganda in the faces of women who are vulnerable and suffering? Yes I'm sure it takes a lot of strength for women to attend the RCC, but why should it be made harder for them? And if there is a woman who is pregnant due to rape, then do you think she's going to take the decision of having an abortion lightly? It's probably the worst thing she'll have to go through in her life. The facts of abortion should be laid out to her in an objective, non-biased way, not by these right-wing lunatics.

Well I'd hope she wouldn't take it lightly but a lot of people see abortion as the easiest way at first and need reminding that abortion doesn't undo rape! The poster would be disgraceful IF it had some of the pictures of processes of abortion.
It does take an awful lot of strength yeah and I'm sure their not thinking clearly either I just don't see how that poster can make it any harder for anyone!