Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

I distinctly remember my mother telling me she had miscarried her first child. Long before the 80s. The term was common among non-medical people back when I was a child.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy[1] and is governed by the Canada Health Act.[2] While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion.[3][4] Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces.[5]




Except in Canada, where it is rare, but it does happen...

Except it doesn't. Women needing late term abortions, even for medical reasons, in Canada are almost invariably sent to neighbouring US states unless it is an emergency. There was a case recently where a Canadian woman took a case because she had been unable to travel to the US and had therefore been unable to access an abortion.

Stonedpilot

January wrote: »

Yeah, it's called giving birth.

Erm no. Lets not throw our toys outta the pram with sarky comments.

thee glitz

volchitsa wrote: »

Except it doesn't. Women needing late term abortions, even for medical reasons, in Canada are almost invariably sent to neighbouring US states unless it is an emergency.

So it happens in the US instead? If a woman needs a late term abortion it is, by definition, for medical reasons.

There was a case recently where a Canadian woman took a case because she had been unable to travel to the US and had therefore been unable to access an abortion.

On what grounds - was she ok in the end?

January

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I distinctly remember my mother telling me she had miscarried her first child. Long before the 80s. The term was common among non-medical people back when I was a child.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy[1] and is governed by the Canada Health Act.[2] While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion.[3][4] Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces.[5]




Except in Canada, where it is rare, but it does happen...

2% of abortions in Canada are performed after 21 weeks. 2%. And it doesn't even state what was the latest gestation that it happens. Show me where Canada performs abortions (and I'm talking about termination of fetus not termination of birth) right up to birth (let's say over 32 weeks to give you a snowballs chance) for a reason other than fatal fetal abnormality or threat to the mothers life.

The Legend Of Kira

An observation- this past saturday there was a repeal the 8th protest march + rally afterwards in Waterford,  there was only 100 people I counted at the rally while I walked past it, it was a fine day an all no bad weather or rain they advertised their rally well enough online + loads of posters around town for it etc & yet the most they got was 100 people out for their rally, 1/11/2014 the day of local protests around the country against water charges, it was very rainy day that day but yet thousands came to protest in opposition to water charges in Waterford , compare that a sec thousands come for a protest on a rainy day vs around 100 people come out for a repeal the 8th protest on a fine day with no bad weather, you can always kinda gauge how much support a cause has by how many turn out for a protest/rally, if repeal the 8th/abortion on demand had widespread public support then surely more then around 100 people would of come to support it last saturday ?

January

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

An observation- this past saturday there was a repeal the 8th protest march + rally afterwards in Waterford,  there was only 100 people I counted at the rally while I walked past it, it was a fine day an all no bad weather or rain they advertised their rally well enough online + loads of posters around town for it etc & yet the most they got was 100 people out for their rally, 1/11/2014 the day of local protests around the country against water charges, it was very rainy day that day but yet thousands came to protest in opposition to water charges in Waterford , compare that a sec thousands come for a protest on a rainy day vs around 100 people come out for a repeal the 8th protest on a fine day with no bad weather, you can always kinda gauge how much support a cause has by how many turn out for a protest/rally, if repeal the 8th/abortion on demand had widespread public support then surely more then around 100 people would of come to support it last saturday ?

The annual March for choice in Dublin is this Saturday. Count how many are at that.

_Dara_

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

An observation- this past saturday there was a repeal the 8th protest march + rally afterwards in Waterford, there was only 100 people I counted at the rally while I walked past it, it was a fine day an all no bad weather or rain they advertised their rally well enough online + loads of posters around town for it etc & yet the most they got was 100 people out for their rally, 1/11/2014 the day of local protests around the country against water charges, it was very rainy day that day but yet thousands came to protest in opposition to water charges in Waterford , compare that a sec thousands come for a protest on a rainy day vs around 100 people come out for a repeal the 8th protest on a fine day with no bad weather, you can always kinda gauge how much support a cause has by how many turn out for a protest/rally, if repeal the 8th/abortion on demand had widespread public support then surely more then around 100 people would of come to support it last saturday ?

There was many multiples of 100 people at the March for Choice in Dublin last September.

volchitsa

thee glitz wrote: »

So it happens in the US instead? If a woman needs a late term abortion it is, by definition, for medical reasons.

On what grounds - was she ok in the end?

Afaicr it was about fatal fetal abnormality, and yes, the point is that the absence of a legal time limit doesn't mean women are having terminations later just because they "have that right" which was the allegation being made here about Canada. Even in serious cases, if the woman's life is not at risk, most if not all doctors in Canada will refuse to carry out a very late termination.

Apparently in the US late terminations are more commonplace, so it's easier to go there and get one. Of course the reason they're more common is because it's just harder for women there to get an earlier termination.

ELM327

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Good luck trying to reason with someone who uses the term "pro-aborts" like they're straight out of the SPUC Facebook page.

It's "pro aborts" versus anti choice.

Akrasia

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

The post was about men having babies.

They can't

Can we just agree that men and trans women have the right to have babies even if they don't have the internal organs required

Akrasia

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

An observation- this past saturday there was a repeal the 8th protest march + rally afterwards in Waterford,  there was only 100 people I counted at the rally while I walked past it, it was a fine day an all no bad weather or rain they advertised their rally well enough online + loads of posters around town for it etc & yet the most they got was 100 people out for their rally, 1/11/2014 the day of local protests around the country against water charges, it was very rainy day that day but yet thousands came to protest in opposition to water charges in Waterford , compare that a sec thousands come for a protest on a rainy day vs around 100 people come out for a repeal the 8th protest on a fine day with no bad weather, you can always kinda gauge how much support a cause has by how many turn out for a protest/rally, if repeal the 8th/abortion on demand had widespread public support then surely more then around 100 people would of come to support it last saturday ?

There's already a referendum planned (even if the govt are dragging their feet on the timing of it)

Who bothers to go and out and protest for something they've already been given?

If the government announced that the referendum has been cancelled, then you would see how many people turn up to the protest

up for anything

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

An observation- this past saturday there was a repeal the 8th protest march + rally afterwards in Waterford,  there was only 100 people I counted at the rally while I walked past it, it was a fine day an all no bad weather or rain they advertised their rally well enough online + loads of posters around town for it etc & yet the most they got was 100 people out for their rally, 1/11/2014 the day of local protests around the country against water charges, it was very rainy day that day but yet thousands came to protest in opposition to water charges in Waterford , compare that a sec thousands come for a protest on a rainy day vs around 100 people come out for a repeal the 8th protest on a fine day with no bad weather, you can always kinda gauge how much support a cause has by how many turn out for a protest/rally, if repeal the 8th/abortion on demand had widespread public support then surely more then around 100 people would of come to support it last saturday ?

There would have been 101 but I was minding my Dad and couldn't leave him alone to go to the march. I'll be at the one on Saturday in Dublin.

Akrasia wrote: »

Can we just agree that men and trans women have the right to have babies even if they don't have the internal organs required

Nobody has the right to have a baby.




There are so many different views on abortion and whether it should be limited. How does someone justify in their head that it is alright to abort up till 12 weeks but not 16? I can't see a difference. How can someone say I agree with it in cases of incest or rape but not because it's inconvenient or unsuitable for the woman at that point in time. When does it stop being ok during a pregnancy - is it when the child will survive out of the womb and if so at what cost? Does a woman not have a right to say that just because the child would survive out of the womb doesn't mean that she wants it to? Adoption is not for everyone.

Really, it's either all or nothing. There is no middle ground.

ELM327

up for anything wrote: »

There are so many different views on abortion and whether it should be limited. How does someone justify in their head that it is alright to abort up till 12 weeks but not 16? I can't see a difference. How can someone say I agree with it in cases of incest or rape but not because it's inconvenient or unsuitable for the woman at that point in time. When does it stop being ok during a pregnancy - is it when the child will survive out of the womb and if so at what cost? Does a woman not have a right to say that just because the child would survive out of the womb doesn't mean that she wants it to? Adoption is not for everyone.

Really, it's either all or nothing. There is no middle ground.

Agreed.
My stance on abortion as a member of the pro-choice group is not dictated by my own stance (I'd be against it for me personally) but rather it's dictated by my belief that others should be free to make up their own mind.

All or nothing.

The reason for the 12 weeks is it's a commonly (falsely) held belief that it is the last week before a fetal heartbeat and/or pain receptors. This is false as one or both can occur from 8 weeks on. Also, the 12 weeks timeframe was suggested by the recent citizens assembly.

The important thing to remember is that this is not a referendum for or against abortion. It is a referendum to remove from the constitution something that should be dealt with at a legislative level as opposed to a constitutional one. I can't stand Mary Robinson but she said it best in the 80s of the 8th amendment. It's a terrible piece of law then, as it is now.

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller wrote: »

So when is it human?

Well I could offer you some thinking on that question but you will probably ignore it and run away like you did the last post I sent your way.

But for everyone else I think when it is human depends entirely on how you are defining "human". Clearly it is biologically "human" from conception for example.

But when we are talking about abortion we are talking about an entity that does or does not have rights. Something for which we should have moral concern. "Human" becomes somewhat synonymous with Personhood at that point.

For me it therefore becomes "human" when it, at some level, has a faculty of sentience or consciousness. At that point if becomes a moral entity for me, for which we should have moral and ethical concern.

But the VAST majority of abortions occurs in or before week 16 and this is a point when everything we currently know about consciousness and sentience tells us not that the faculty is weak or inactive or fluctuating...... it is actually wholly and entirely ABSENT completely in every way.

Why you and your ilk and cohort have any moral or ethical concern towards it at that point therefore is entirely opaque to me and, given the standard of your rhetoric on this thread which is entirely reliant on merely flinging out words like "Murder" and "Massacre", I suspect it is to you too.

The pre-requisitites and elements that our science tells us are likely involved with human sentience and consciousness do not really become apparent under after week 20, and do not really seem to be functioning in a full synchronous fashion until week 26 and so forth. So wherever Personhood and Humanity comes on line I reckon it is somewhere in or shortly after that window. Thankfully much less than 2% of abortions actually occur anywhere around that period and almost entirely for reasons that even you and your extremist reactions would find it difficult to disagree with.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Saying you would be okay with such abortions, on the basis that they 'do not happen', is just a cop out.

Lucky that is not what the user said then isn't it? Though I note you only quoted half of what the user said in order to make this disingenuous and misrepresentation reply.

What the user said was NOT that he supports such abortions because they do not happen......... but that he supports such abortions, on the basis that abortion at that term is a termination of the pregnancy not the child. Such abortions "resulting in a live birth".

But you conveniently edited that bit out of the users post when you replied.

Put another way he did not say he "would be okay with such abortions, on the basis that they 'do not happen'" rather he was saying he "would be okay with such abortions, on the basis that "the killing of 'babies' the day before they are due" does not happen.

There is a HUGE difference between "I am ok with those abortions because they do not happen" and "I am ok with those abortions because killing babies at that stage just does not happen".

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You said you support abortions to term.

As above the user said a lot more than that, and you are summarizing their position in a way that conveniently leaves out the important details. The user made a CLEAR distinction between abortion of the babies life and abortion as in the termination of a pregnancy, resulting in a life birth. The user said they were entirely ok with the latter. Here you come across strongly as pretending it is somehow the former.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'm sure you're aware, women often give birth and then kill the baby shortly afterwards.

We are talking about abortion here not murder. Leave the goal posts where you found them please, there is a game on.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Again though, the question is never posed to suggest it's a common occurrence, it's generally posed to tease out at which point someone has a problem with a woman killing her fetus / baby.

No need to use hypothetical to tease it out. Often you just have to ask directly. I for example "have a problem with" it at the point when the fetus develops the traits and faculties upon which we can coherently and meaningfully consider it an entity worthy or moral and ethical concern. Specifically the rise of sentience or consciousness as a faculty at all.

Before that (with the VAST majority of abortions happening well before that) I see no reason to have a problem with it at all. Least of all because it's tongue moves around in pretty ways, or whatever attempts we are being given today to humanize an entity with zero faculty of consciousness.

ELM327 wrote: »

It's "pro aborts" versus anti choice.

Well at least the latter term is descriptively accurate. One side is Pro-Choice on abortion the other side is anti-choice. One side wants some form of abortion by choice to be available. The other side does not. So calling one pro choice and the other side anti choice is at least accurate.

The Term "pro aborts" however is not accurate because often people who are pro-choice are anti abortion. And this manifests itself in them, like myself for example, being very much supportive of initiatives and ideals that lead to less people having to choose abortions.

I am very much pro choice but I am very much anti abortion. The analogy I often use is that just about all of us (with very few exceptions) are pro choice on heart bypass surgery for those who require it. If they really want or need it, it should be available to them. However we would prefer no one ever gets to the point where they need to make that choice. So we are essentially anti heart bypass surgery.

up for anything wrote: »

There are so many different views on abortion and whether it should be limited. How does someone justify in their head that it is alright to abort up till 12 weeks but not 16?

Well it depends what you mean there. Not clear do you mean those numbers specifically, or just some numbers in general. Also not clear do you mean philosophically ok with it or what they would campaign for. So I will attempt to answer ALL of that in one.

Like many laws, say age of consent and age to purchase alcohol, we draw a temporal line in the sand. Why is it ok for someone who is 16 and one day to have sex but not 15 and 364 days?

It makes no sense REALLY, but we need a temporal line in the sand for workable laws SOMEWHERE. As for alcohol at 18, I know people at 15 who would be fine with alcohol. I know people at 35 who should not be let near the stuff, myself included.

So when people talk about a LEGAL time limit like 12 or 16 weeks it might not be a time limit that makes perfect sense, but is one chosen based on a range of inputs and influences and ideas and ideals.

However if we drop the specific numbers and answer your question more generally of why is it ok at some time "X" and not some time "Y" then this is usually because the speaker has identified some attribute upon which they mediate the allocation of moral or ethical concern. And they have identified that the fetus does not have it at "X" but does (or very likely does) have some form of it at "Y".

For me for example that faculty is human sentience and consciousness. There is currently no (not some, little or few but NONE) reasons to think a fetus at 12 or 16 weeks has ANY form of it. And in fact we are pretty safe up to 24 weeks and maybe somewhat beyond. So philosophically I am not doing to lose any sleep over an abortion at 12, 16, 20, or maybe even 24 weeks.

But when I campaign I usually use 16weeks. The VAST (over 90% and sometimes even beyond 95%) number of choice based abortions happen in that time frame for a start. And there are other political and social reasons I think 16 weeks a good compromise between all the inputs to the question. But if I woke up tomorrow in a country with choice based abortion at 12 or 20 weeks I would again lose no sleep over either.

up for anything wrote: »

is it when the child will survive out of the womb and if so at what cost?

Viability. I think that is a dangerous target to use because it is such a moving target. Under the ministrations of our medical sciences the age of viability of a fetus out of the womb is getting lower and lower. Soon, I fully suspect and expect, we may have a situation where our medical sciences bring viability without a womb to the moment of conception and wombs will be superfluous to requirements entirely.

pjohnson

"Pro Life" is a nonsense term. They just want to control a womans body. Like that time in America that "pro life" man started shooting at a Planned Parenthood office. He wanted to stop them killing the baby by simply killing them himself. Pro Life indeed.

ELM327

pjohnson wrote: »

"Pro Life" is a nonsense term. They just want to control a womans body. Like that time in America that "pro life" man started shooting at a Planned Parenthood office. He wanted to stop them killing the baby by simply killing them himself. Pro Life indeed.

Anti choice rather than pro life would be a more accurate moniker

Loafing Oaf

ELM327 wrote: »

Anti choice rather than pro life would be a more accurate moniker

I think in these debates you should just use whatever terms people embrace themselves, other wise you get bogged down in discussions of semantics forever...
Maybe put scare quotes around pro-life to show you don't accept the implications of the term.

ELM327

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I think in these debates you should just use whatever terms people embrace themselves, other wise you get bogged down in discussions of semantics forever...
Maybe put scare quotes around pro-life to show you don't accept the implications of the term.

Like BOO Pro Life BOO?

(scare quotes, sorry, couldnt resist)

Anyway it's not accurate to have two opposing sides one pro something but one pro something else. Lets call a spade a spade, one side is pro-, and the other anti-, choice

keano_afc

ELM327 wrote: »

Like BOO Pro Life BOO?

(scare quotes, sorry, couldnt resist)

Anyway it's not accurate to have two opposing sides one pro something but one pro something else. Lets call a spade a spade, one side is pro-, and the other anti-, choice

No, because saying someone is anti-choice is a sweeping, generic inaccuracy.

I am against abortion. I'm not anti-choice. I dont stand behind those who are arguing for abortion when they are choosing chips or salad, telling them they dont have a choice. I dont care. When the choice is deliberately ending a human life, yes, that choice doesnt sit well with me. To say I am wholly anti-choice is immature and contributes nothing to the discussion.

ELM327

keano_afc wrote: »

No, because saying someone is anti-choice is a sweeping, generic inaccuracy.

I am against abortion. I'm not anti-choice. I dont stand behind those who are arguing for abortion when they are choosing chips or salad, telling them they dont have a choice. I dont care. When the choice is deliberately ending a human life, yes, that choice doesnt sit well with me. To say I am wholly anti-choice is immature and contributes nothing to the discussion.

To be pedantic.
In this discussion and in this topic, you are anti-choice.
You are against others having the choice to do what they wish, with their bodily autonomy, and instead wish to impose your choice on them

That makes you inherently anti-choice in this discussion.

Akrasia

ELM327 wrote: »

Anti choice rather than pro life would be a more accurate moniker

Anti-choice isn't really fair either, I prefer to call them anti-abortion campaigners because that's what they are opposed to, rather than opposed to 'choice'

Will I Am Not

pjohnson wrote: »

"Pro Life" is a nonsense term. They just want to control a womans body.

Pro choice is a nonsense term. They just want to kill babies.

That's what your post amounts to from the other side.

ohnonotgmail

Why not just go with pro-repeal and anti-repeal? that is all we are concerned with at the moment.

keano_afc

ELM327 wrote: »

To be pedantic.
In this discussion and in this topic, you are anti-choice.
You are against others having the choice to do what they wish, with their bodily autonomy, and instead wish to impose your choice on them

That makes you inherently anti-choice in this discussion.

No, I'm afraid it doesnt. I'm not getting into your incorrect usage of "bodily autonomy" either, as it would be a waste of time.

In the context of this thread and topic, being anti-choice is being against the decision of a hotel to exercise its choice in accepting a booking from a group who you disagree with, and instead wishing to impose your choice on them.

ELM327

Akrasia wrote: »

Anti-choice isn't really fair either, I prefer to call them anti-abortion campaigners because that's what they are opposed to, rather than opposed to 'choice'

I'm anti abortion, but am pro choice.
I would not have an abortion myself (if I were female) but do not see fit to tell others that they should abide by my views

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Why not just go with pro-repeal and anti-repeal? that is all we are concerned with at the moment.

because that's a separate discussion.
You can be anti abortion, anti choice, and pro repeal.
It's dealing with where the legislation is hosted. A vivtory for repeal does not equate to abortion on demand. Nothing changes.

SafeSurfer

ELM327 wrote: »

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I think in these debates you should just use whatever terms people embrace themselves, other wise you get bogged down in discussions of semantics forever...
Maybe put scare quotes around pro-life to show you don't accept the implications of the term.

Like BOO Pro Life BOO?

(scare quotes, sorry, couldnt resist)

Anyway it's not accurate to have two opposing sides one pro something but one pro something else. Lets call a spade a spade, one side is pro-, and the other anti-, choice

Really what about pro Man Utd supporters vs pro Liverpool supporters?
Two opposing sides, both pro something.
Being pro Man Utd doesn't make one automatically anti Liverpool.

And I use the example deliberately in response to someone who described the debate as "a game".

ELM327

keano_afc wrote: »

No, I'm afraid it doesnt. I'm not getting your incorrect usage of "bodily autonomy" either, as it would be a waste of time.

In the context of this thread and topic, being anti-choice is being against the decision of a hotel to exercise its choice in accepting a booking from a group who you disagree with, and instead wishing to impose your choice on them.

You're "not getting" my "incorrect usage" of bodily autonomy?
Dear boy, you are really picking at semantics now.

Of course, we were not discussing the hotel's choice when I used the term pro-choice. As well you are aware.

Has the iona institute got internet access these days? Isn't all that wifi the work of the devil?

ELM327

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Really what about pro Man Utd supporters vs pro Liverpool supporters?
Two opposing sides, both pro something.
Being pro Man Utd doesn't make one automatically anti Liverpool.

And I use the example deliberately in response to someone who described the debate as "a game".

I'm not sure what point, if any, you are trying to make here.
A pro Man Utd supporter is a defacto anti Liverpool supporter. It is the nature of being a supporter.

pjohnson

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Pro choice is a nonsense term. They just want to kill babies.

That's what your post amounts to from the other side.

Not really. I trust a woman to decide what do with her body. I wouldnt be celebrating or demanding an abortion. I just trust the woman to decide. Its her body.

Most people seem to think if someone is for repeal they automatically have some kind of baby bloodlust. Quite amusing.

optogirl

pjohnson wrote: »

Not really. I trust a woman to decide what do with her body. I wouldnt be celebrating or demanding an abortion. I just trust the woman to decide. Its her body.

Most people seem to think if someone is for repeal they automatically have some kind of baby bloodlust. Quite amusing.

absolutely - I've luckily never been in the position to consider it and am pretty sure I wouldn't have ever availed of one but will be absolutely voting in favour of repeal ....for all of those girls & women forced into a situation they cannot control/handle and for all of those couples facing emotional turmoil that is only compounded by having to travel to avail of an abortion. Also the fact that if you can afford one you can have one and if you can't you can't - it's just wrong. Of course nobody relishes the idea of an abortion - but it is a procedure that 12 Irish women a day go through & I think we could have the compassion to let them do it at home.