Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pro-choice group put banner advertising abortion pills on Galway Cathedral

Options
1234689

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    RWCNT
    Registered Users Posts: 1,430 ✭✭✭RWCNT


    RobYourBuilder wrote: »
    What does it mean? Can you explain this noble goal?

    Look the words up, jaysus, I'm not your Ma.


  • Options
    #153
    secondrowgal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭secondrowgal


    PucaMama wrote: »
    em, im not sure exactly where you read that but i know no person who i would be ok with having an abortion.

    im also not punishing women, im protecting the innocent.

    Because women aren't innocent, of course. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #154
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,730 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I would take the same attitude I would to showing young girls graphic images of childbirth, including an episiotomy and the needle they use for an epidural. Would you think that was fine too?

    Cos I'd say if you did that for purposes of comparison, the abortion rate in the country would soar.

    What is wrong with child birth? Would showing a happy mother at the end of it all be so off turning?

    I remember as a child getting a very long needle inserted, I was told to not look, I looked, was surprised to see how long the needle was, then I looked away as it was inserted, I knew they weren't trying to kill me with it.


  • Options
    #155
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,155 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    volchitsa wrote: »
    No, that's not what the reports said at all. The reports said if she'd had an abortion when she asked for one she would almost certainly be alive today. The fact that better care might possibly (but according to Dr Peter Boylan almost certainly not) also have saved her life is a secondary issue.

    And we know the "this is a catholic country" explanation was given, exactly as Prqveen Halappanavar said it was. Only because he was able to identify the staff nurse who said it - GUH initially kept her out of the list of witnesses. That has to have been deliberate. Similarly, GUH blocked access to the duty rosters so that he was unable to identify the staff member who was present when Dr Astbury said it, but if she hadn't said it, they could have cleared that up immediately. Which means she did say it. Why would he be telling the truth about the midwife saying it and lying about Astbury? Of course she said it. She just didn't have the courage to admit it.


    Just to back this up. I read the full HIQA report and it agrees with this. But it also agrees with Robert KK. There were 26 points of failure that resulted in her death. If she was treated adequately from the time she was admitted, there's a very good chance that she would have survived, even without the abortion. However at the point where they requested a termination, her life probably would have been saved if she'd received it.


  • Options
    #156
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,155 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    PucaMama wrote: »
    em, im not sure exactly where you read that but i know no person who i would be ok with having an abortion.

    I'm also not punishing women, im protecting the innocent.

    I know fcuk loads who think it's just another medical procedure. Some have had the procedure. Of course it's not comfortable. It's a trip to a doctor where the doc performs a procedure but it's no worse than a endoscopy when it comes to discomfort. I wouldn't want someone to have either.

    And yes, you hate women. Especially if you'd allow a woman who's in harms way to die due to the lack of a procedure.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    FullblownRose
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    RobertKK wrote: »
    What is wrong with child birth? Would showing a happy mother at the end of it all be so off turning?

    I remember as a child getting a very long needle inserted, I was told to not look, I looked, was surprised to see how long the needle was, then I looked away as it was inserted, I knew they weren't trying to kill me with it.

    There's nothing wrong with childbirth per se but if it isn't desired by the woman then there's everything wrong with it. Visually it is a bloody and messy process, so showing graphic imagery of it out of context, as you advocate doing when it comes to abortion, would be inappropriate.

    Would showing a happy or relieved woman post abortion not also be appropriate then?
    Your idealised view of pregnancy doesn't apply to everyone, not every woman would be happy to become a mother, least of all against their wishes. You cannot lie to students with propaganda like that to influence them.

    As for your experience of having an injection as a child. Nobody was posting photos of syringes or shoving leaflets at you in the street, to instill dread or shock in you.


  • Options
    #158
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    Diobhail sound like a lovely bunch of nutters

    Can't we just put them, youth defence and all manner of other extreme nutters on an island with no internet access and forget about them.


  • Options
    #159
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,730 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    volchitsa wrote: »
    No, that's not what the reports said at all. The reports said if she'd had an abortion when she asked for one she would almost certainly be alive today. The fact that better care might possibly (but according to Dr Peter Boylan almost certainly not) also have saved her life is a secondary issue.

    And we know the "this is a catholic country" explanation was given, exactly as Prqveen Halappanavar said it was. Only because he was able to identify the staff nurse who said it - GUH initially kept her out of the list of witnesses. That has to have been deliberate. Similarly, GUH blocked access to the duty rosters so that he was unable to identify the staff member who was present when Dr Astbury said it, but if she hadn't said it, they could have cleared that up immediately. Which means she did say it. Why would he be telling the truth about the midwife saying it and lying about Astbury? Of course she said it. She just didn't have the courage to admit it.

    Wrong.

    They didn't know the infection she had and were giving her the wrong antibiotics, because they were so slow in diagnosing.
    The ESBL she has is common to India and it has a mortality rate above 30% as it is highly resistant to most antibiotics, she was getting antibiotics in the beginning that were no use to her.

    It was found the catholic country had no bearing on the treatment. They simply messed it up in many ways.


  • Options
    #160
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,730 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    FullblownRose wrote: »
    There's nothing rong with childbirth but if it isn't desired by the oman then there's everything rong with it. Visually it is a bloody and messy process, so shoing graphic imagery of it out of context, as you advocate doing hen it comes to abortion, would be inappropriate.

    Would showing a happy or relieved woman post abortion not also be appropriate then?
    Your idealised view of pregnancy doesn't apply to everyone, not every woman would be happy to become a mother, least of all against their wishes. You cannot lie to students with propaganda like that to influence them.

    As for your experience of having an injection as a child. Nobody was posting photos of syringes or shoving leaflets at you in the street, to instill dread or shock in you.


    Yes you could show a happy woman who had an abortion.

    I am not the one here saying we should censor what we show people.

    You talk about propaganda but you only want a certain image showed that is positive towards abortion.
    I am happy for every facet to be shown, from happy women who had abortion, to unhappy women, from the aborted life to whatever else.
    Not the censorship you want because you don't trust women with the truth.


  • Options
    #161
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    RobertKK wrote: »
    What is wrong with child birth? Would showing a happy mother at the end of it all be so off turning?
    it wouldn't necessarily be true though, haven't you heard of the baby blues? Some women actually commit suicide after childbirth, others have psychotic episodes triggered by the pregnancy and the birth. And these aren't necessarily women with pre-existing problems, the pregnancy actually causes them.

    So do you really want to tell the truth, as you claim, or tell your version of what you would like to be the truth?
    RobertKK wrote: »
    s told to not look, I looked, was surprised to see how long the needle was, then I looked away as it was inserted, I knew they weren't trying to kill me with it.

    I don't think you got anything like the epidural needle though, unless you had a lumbar puncture. And I can tell you, the epidural itself fking hurts. It's a seriously scary procedure, far worse than a needle for taking blood. It's just that it's still usually better than the pain of childbirth all the same.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Wrong.

    They didn't know the infection she had and were giving her the wrong antibiotics, because they were so slow in diagnosing.
    The ESBL she has is common to India and it has a mortality rate above 30% as it is highly resistant to most antibiotics, she was getting antibiotics in the beginning that were no use to her.

    It was found the catholic country had no bearing on the treatment. They simply messed it up in many ways.

    So you're just being dishonest. Grand.

    They were giving her antibiotics suitable for a pregnant woman - why would that have been?
    Secondly, you know better than Dr Peter Boylan then, do you? He specifically said there was no time to lose and even if no time had been lost, the delays needed to identify the infection were such that the only chance she had was an abortion within the first day or so of being admitted - ie when she asked for an abortion.


  • Options
    #163
    FullblownRose
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Yes you could show a happy woman who had an abortion.

    I am not the one here saying we should censor what we show people.

    You talk about propaganda but you only want a certain image showed that is positive towards abortion.
    I am happy for every facet to be shown, from happy women who had abortion, to unhappy women, from the aborted life to whatever else.
    Not the censorship you want because you don't trust women with the truth.

    No, my very first comment on this thread said that I disagree with graphic imagery or descriptions. Those are only being suggested by you from your anti abortion stance.
    Showing every apsect of reproduction would be extremely strange but if you insist upong shoing photos post abortion then it would have to be counterbalanced by photos of everything along ith sensible explanations. The hole thing would be completely pointless and very long drawn out.
    By censorship do you mean my objection to graphic imagery shown to passersby on the street and posted on telegraph poles?
    Those images are in no way conveying any truth and are usually accompanied by lies.

    Any sex education needs to be factual and unbiased, and while I can't see the sense in using photographs during the lesson at all, to use photographs to illustrate one aspect and not others as per your suggestion, would be bizarre.


  • Options
    #164
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,730 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    volchitsa wrote: »
    it wouldn't necessarily be true though, haven't you heard of the baby blues? Some women actually commit suicide after childbirth, others have psychotic episodes triggered by the pregnancy and the birth. And these aren't necessarily women with pre-existing problems, the pregnancy actually causes them.

    So do you really want to tell the truth, as you claim, or tell your version of what you would like to be the truth?


    I don't think you got anything like the epidural needle though, unless you had a lumbar puncture. And I can tell you, the epidural itself fking hurts. It's a seriously scary procedure, far worse than a needle for taking blood. It's just that it's still usually better than the pain of childbirth all the same.


    Wrong, I am all for the truth, I remember when Brooke Shields when through a rather high profile case of depression following the birth of her child. This should be explained too.
    Proper mental health care should be provided. I am not against the truth being told.

    I am not going to say I can compare needles as they come in many sizes and I don't know, just the needle I got as a child was a long needle.


  • Options
    #165
    FullblownRose
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Wrong, I am all for the truth, I remember when Brooke Shields when through a rather high profile case of depression following the birth of her child. This should be explained too.
    Proper mental health care should be provided. I am not against the truth being told.

    I am not going to say I can compare needles as they come in many sizes and I don't know, just the needle I got as a child was a long needle.

    They explain post natal depression at ante natal classes and women who continue pregnancies meet with midwives during their ante natal checks and everything relevant is explained.
    There's no need to go too deeply into any of it during sex education.
    Abortion needs to be a legal option in Ireland and women could then avail of unbiased, medical advice when making a choice about a pregnancy. Its unfeasible to discuss any of that at a young age in sex education.


  • Options
    #166
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,730 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So you're just being dishonest. Grand.

    They were giving her antibiotics suitable for a pregnant woman - why would that have been?
    Secondly, you know better than Dr Peter Boylan then, do you? He specifically said there was no time to lose and even if no time had been lost, the delays needed to identify the infection were such that the only chance she had was an abortion within the first day or so of being admitted - ie when she asked for an abortion.

    Not being dishonest, Catholic teaching is to save the life of the mother but not with the intention of killing the unborn.
    In Savita's case, even her life was not treated in a way that would have saved her.

    The infection she had needed specialised antibiotics not a broad spectrum antibiotic.but the infection she had was a very severe one as it proved to be.
    The Director of Regulation at HIQA, Phelim Quinn, said "They identified a failure to recognise that she was developing an infection and then a failure to act on the signs of her clinical deterioration in a timely and appropriate manner".

    HIQA also identified a number of missed opportunities to intervene which, if they had been acted upon, may have resulted in a different outcome for Savita. They say it was clear that UHG did not have effective clinical arrangements in place to ensure regular monitoring was done.
    The investigation uncovered a series of failures in the management, governance and delivery of maternity services at UHG which HIQA says were not consistent with best practice. The investigation also identified that there there is no centralised and consistent approach to data collection sources involved in collecting maternal morbidity and mortality data.
    Dr. Nuala Lucas is from the investigation committee of HIQA. She said there were comprehensive failings in how Savita was treated.

    http://www.newstalk.com/HIQA-report-finds-fundamental-failure-in-care-of-Savita-Halappanavar


  • Options
    #167
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    RWCNT wrote: »
    Sounds like a pretty noble goal to me.

    Sounds like student politics bullsh1te to me.


  • Options
    #168
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,730 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    FullblownRose wrote: »
    No, my very first comment on this thread said that I disagree with graphic imagery or descriptions. Those are only being suggested by you from your anti abortion stance.
    Showing every apsect of reproduction would be extremely strange but if you insist upong shoing photos post abortion then it would have to be counterbalanced by photos of everything along ith sensible explanations. The hole thing would be completely pointless and very long drawn out.
    By censorship do you mean my objection to graphic imagery shown to passersby on the street and posted on telegraph poles?
    Those images are in no way conveying any truth and are usually accompanied by lies.

    Any sex education needs to be factual and unbiased, and while I can't see the sense in using photographs during the lesson at all, to use photographs to illustrate one aspect and not others as per your suggestion, would be bizarre.

    At school a video was used as part of sex education, it was visual which you are against.
    They used babies to show the difference between a male and a female sex organs from a visual viewpoint.
    I remember around the same time at about 11am watching the BBC and they had a sex education program on but used naked adults.
    We had a teacher who would draw images and explain how the male penis fitted into the female vagina...

    I am not saying to show images and not explaining.

    How can you have sex education with no images though? That would be the most backward way to receive sex education. Censor the truth and keep it covered up...


  • Options
    #169
    FullblownRose
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    RobertKK wrote: »
    At school a video was used as part of sex education, it was visual which you are against.
    They used babies to show the difference between a male and a female sex organs from a visual viewpoint.
    I remember around the same time at about 11am watching the BBC and they had a sex education program on but used naked adults.
    We had a teacher who would draw images and explain how the male penis fitted into the female vagina...

    I am not saying to show images and not explaining.

    How can you have sex education with no images though? That would be the most backward way to receive sex education. Censor the truth and keep it covered up...

    Against images in isolation where there's no clear purpose for showing them- not images altogether. I dont have an issue with what you just detailed there.
    Did they show photographs of matter post miscarriage, though?
    I'd have thought its sufficient to explain that there is bleeding. Can't see why a photo ould be used.


  • Options
    #170
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,155 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Not being dishonest, Catholic teaching is to save the life of the mother but not with the intention of killing the unborn.
    In Savita's case, even her life was not treated in a way that would have saved her.

    The infection she had needed specialised antibiotics not a broad spectrum antibiotic.but the infection she had was a very severe one as it proved to be.



    http://www.newstalk.com/HIQA-report-finds-fundamental-failure-in-care-of-Savita-Halappanavar

    Yes, there were a number of failures, but the refusal to terminate the pregnancy was one of them. If they had performed the termination she probably would have lived. If they had correctly treated her then it probably wouldn't have been necessary to perform a termination.

    RobertKK wrote: »
    How can you have sex education with no images though? That would be the most backward way to receive sex education. Censor the truth and keep it covered up...

    make it age appropriate. Sex education can start really young with some very simple facts about gender. Children/teenagers should learn more as they get other. by the time a kid sees a photo of genitalia they'd be ready for it.


  • Options
    #171
    FullblownRose
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    Would these hypothetical abortion lessons with pictures also explain the process of procuring an abortion abroad - and could they even discuss it considering its still punishable by life imprisonment in this country, I wonder.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    RWCNT
    Registered Users Posts: 1,430 ✭✭✭RWCNT


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Sounds like student politics bullsh1te to me.

    That's just like, your opinion, man.


  • Options
    #173
    FullblownRose
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    RobertKK wrote: »
    At school a video was used as part of sex education, it was visual which you are against.
    I'm not. Initially I was talking about visuals posted in prominent public locations.

    I am not saying to show images and not explaining..

    Fair enough- if abortion's to be detailed in schools it should be a simple explanation of the procedure at most, though. I see no reason for a photo of aborted matter than a photo of a used tampon, or obviously a miscarriage that wasnt induced, or evidence of post partum bleeding.
    Apologies for the crudeness but it would be crude way of explaining it if it was done in that way.

    [/QUOTE]How can you have sex education with no images though? That would be the most backward way to receive sex education. Censor the truth and keep it covered up...[/QUOTE]

    Medical diagrams *where appropriate* would be useful more suitable than photographs


  • Options
    #174
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    RobertKK wrote: »
    At school a video was used as part of sex education, it was visual which you are against.
    They used babies to show the difference between a male and a female sex organs from a visual viewpoint.
    I remember around the same time at about 11am watching the BBC and they had a sex education program on but used naked adults.
    We had a teacher who would draw images and explain how the male penis fitted into the female vagina...

    I am not saying to show images and not explaining.

    How can you have sex education with no images though? That would be the most backward way to receive sex education. Censor the truth and keep it covered up...

    Appropriate pictures is what's needed. Sex Ed books usually contain diagrams of the relevant subject matter. I have never looked in a school book and seen a photograph of a woman in the middle of childbirth, or the result of an episiotomy, or the afterbirth, or of a couple having sex, so how could showing photographs of purported aborted foetuses be appropriate?

    I don't see how anyone could argue that pictures of aborted foetuses are acceptable to show the result of abortion unless they are also going to show pictures of happy, relieved women, with their college degrees, which they could get as they terminated their pregnancy rather than leave education to raise a child. Or if one wants to show happy mothers as the result of childbirth then one surely needs to also show photos of episiotomy, uterine prolapse, caesarean sections, or breach births to accurately show the 'result' of childbirth.


  • Options
    #175
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    PucaMama wrote: »
    no person in my opinion should feel they have the right to end a pregnancy on a whim. you ask my opinion. thats it.

    No one has an abortion on a whim.

    That is a very callous lie which people put about to paint women who have abortions as being reckless and amoral.


  • Options
    #176
    PutDownArtist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 135 ✭✭PutDownArtist


    I wish the catholic church could be aborted.:o


  • Options
    #177
    TheBeardedLady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,086 ✭✭✭TheBeardedLady


    Graces7 wrote: »
    They are not pro choice; they are pro death by abortion.

    This kind of bull**** that annoys me the most. Pro death! I'm pro "let's be realistic about this". If abortion wasn't available in the UK, Irish women would go elsewhere. If it wasn't available elsewhere, they'd be doing it with knitting needles in their kitchens/taking abortion pills/drinking whatever the fook like they've been doing for centuries. Do people not realise that people will find a way no matter what kind of sensationalist, thoughtless comments you post on Boards about people being pro death? If this is going to happen regardless, shouldn't it be done in the safest way possible?


  • Options
    #178
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Morag wrote: »
    No one has an abortion on a whim.

    That is a very callous lie which people put about to paint women who have abortions as being reckless and amoral.

    But if its bad to speak for all women about X its bad to say it about Y. What about that yank that made the youtube video, I know its just one person on the extreme but it shows the fallacy of universal statements


  • Options
    #179
    Jamiekelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,047 ✭✭✭Jamiekelly


    Whoever said fertilized eggs have the RIGHT to develop as if it is the same as a human being should really get their head checked.

    Its amazing that these are the same people who will tell biologists what they can and can't research based on their own misguided understanding of modern science. That somehow developing cures for people HERE ON EARTH using stem cells is immoral yet being pro choice is also pro death. These pro life groups have a long track record of obstructing medical advancements because their virgin superior advises them that God will give them a biscuit when they die if they fight for the "rights of the unborn"

    It'd be handy if these people would google some population stats over human history and find out just how fragile and dispensable human life actually is.

    If they really want justice for the dead surely they should be petitioning the UK gov to arrest and charge these doctors with murder, considering they know what they're doing is murder right? Too bad those murderers in medical scrubs also have 8+ years of extensive life saving training. Can't exactly convince people you're pro life when you equate doctors with being pro-death. I think even the CC PR department would shy away from what should be considered a reasonable request if they were actually serious about the gravity of the problem.

    If there is a God looking down on us I'm sure he has a serious sense of humour.


  • Options
    #180
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I don't think we need to worry about that. For some unfathomable reason, Boards and other Irish forums seem to be full of atheist but nevertheless pro-life people, all of whom by amazing coincidence have come to pretty much identical beliefs about abortion as those taught by the Catholic Church.

    Tis a miracle! :)


    I personally could see plenty of reasons why non-religious people would have their reservations about abortion (correlation, causation, you know the rest), and by that same token, I wouldn't go pigeon-holing and labeling all religious people either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I personally could see plenty of reasons why non-religious people would have their reservations about abortion (correlation, causation, you know the rest), and by that same token, I wouldn't go pigeon-holing and labeling all religious people either.

    I don't think I did. I just remarked on a discrepancy I have experienced here about the declared belief-sets of posters who identify as pro-life on an anonymous forum compared to those who do so IRL, where they can less easily conceal other aspects of their views and attitudes.


Advertisement