Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Eric Cartman

King Mob wrote: »

Ok.
So given your previous statements, you believe that harassment starts at "screaming in people's faces" and than anything below that is not harassment.
Is that a fair summation?

Is there any point between the screaming in faces and handing out leaflets where something isn't harassment, but also is not acceptable behavior?
Or is everything below harassment acceptable?

I think holding up pictures of foetuses , handing out leaflets, wearing tshirts, praying, chanting and even calling out 'murderer' once not directed at individuals entering or leaving the premises targeted does not constitute harassment (as tasteless as it may be), once it evolves to specific targets (e.g. pointing at a woman leaving and calling her a murderer) thats the threshold of where it becomes harassment.

I think theres a lot of evidence for the (tasteless) yet not harassment going on. I don't think theres enough evidence to substantiate the claims that harassment (by the above metric) is occurring on any kind of frequent or organised basis.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

Here is my evidence to prove that we were not in fact requested to vote on "abortion on demand" [...] Can you please ask eotr to substantiate his claim that we were asked to vote for/against abortion on demand?

You haven't included any link to eotr making such a claim (though I'm sure eotr did), nor have you said what is "abortion on demand", nor do I know whether eotr might agree with your definition.

The referendum vote was, prima facie, whether or not to remove text from the Constitution, so it certainly wasn't to introduce "abortion on demand", whatever that might be. That said, IRGov did publish draft legislation which it committed to enacting, should the vote be carried. There were no reports I recall indicating whether or not voters trusted IRGov to follow through on this commitment. While I've no doubt some people trusted them to do so, it's impossible to know how many did. Likewise, without an agreed definition for "abortion on demand", it's impossible to know whether the legislation meets that definition - some people will probably say yes, and some will say no - hence a thread to discuss this, and other issues.

Regardless of that, the following article from TheJournal summarises the position prior to the referendum reasonably well:

https://www.thejournal.ie/qa-changing-legislation-after-repeal-4006293-May2018/

Without any more tiresome word-splitting, the claim that "people voted to enact abortion-on-demand" is either meaningless or false - in both cases, it essentially amounts to soap-boxing.

King Mob

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think holding up pictures of foetuses , handing out leaflets, wearing tshirts, praying, chanting and even calling out 'murderer' once not directed at individuals entering or leaving the premises targeted does not constitute harassment (as tasteless as it may be), once it evolves to specific targets (e.g. pointing at a woman leaving and calling her a murderer) thats the threshold of where it becomes harassment.

I think theres a lot of evidence for the (tasteless) yet not harassment going on. I don't think theres enough evidence to substantiate the claims that harassment (by the above metric) is occurring on any kind of frequent or organised basis.

And just as an aside, what do you believe the goal of the tasteless non-harassment is?

I and others believe that the goal is to make it more difficult to get an abortion by intimidation and shame.
It's my opinion that this is the real point of the protests outside clinics
It's my opinion that this is the real reason why anti-abortionists are opposed to exclusion zones, as they would lose a tactic they use to make it more difficult for women to get abortions.

SusieBlue

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think holding up pictures of foetuses , handing out leaflets, wearing tshirts, praying, chanting and even calling out 'murderer' once not directed at individuals entering or leaving the premises targeted does not constitute harassment (as tasteless as it may be), once it evolves to specific targets (e.g. pointing at a woman leaving and calling her a murderer) thats the threshold of where it becomes harassment.

I think theres a lot of evidence for the (tasteless) yet not harassment going on. I don't think theres enough evidence to substantiate the claims that harassment (by the above metric) is occurring on any kind of frequent or organised basis.

The right to peacefully obtain medical care without interference, harassment or intimidation supersedes protesters rights to shout ‘murderer’ at random members of the public.
You’re right that it’s tasteless but it’s also harassment.
It is intentional targeting of vulnerable people who are under enough stress as it is. It’s abhorrent and unjustifiable.

There is a time and place for it and outside hospitals and GP clinics is not that place.

I’m like a broken record at this stage but with a bit of mutual respect there is no need for either side to impose their beliefs on the other any more.

Both sides are now free to live their lives as they see fit and are no longer arrested by the morals of one opinion.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

You haven't included any link to eotr making such a claim (though I'm sure eotr did), nor have you said what is "abortion on demand", nor do I know whether eotr might agree with your definition.

The referendum vote was, prima facie, whether or not to remove text from the Constitution, so it certainly wasn't to introduce "abortion on demand", whatever that might be. That said, IRGov did publish draft legislation which it committed to enacting, should the vote be carried. There were no reports I recall indicating whether or not voters trusted IRGov to follow through on this commitment. While I've no doubt some people trusted them to do so, it's impossible to know how many did. Likewise, without an agreed definition for "abortion on demand", it's impossible to know whether the legislation meets that definition - some people will probably say yes, and some will say no - hence a thread to discuss this, and other issues.

Regardless of that, the following article from TheJournal summarises the position prior to the referendum reasonably well:

https://www.thejournal.ie/qa-changing-legislation-after-repeal-4006293-May2018/

Without any more tiresome word-splitting, the claim that "people voted to enact abortion-on-demand" is either meaningless or false - in both cases, it essentially amounts to soap-boxing.

My definition does not matter nor does EOTR's definition. We were not asked to vote for abortion on demand. I have reported EOTR's post in relation to this and have provided a link to my own post correcting this.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110010546&postcount=198

This is factually incorrect, his interpretation of what is written on ballot paper is not fact, it his opinion and should be highlighted as an opinion rather than a fact with solid foundation. If it is soap-boxing as you've mentioned, can this be actioned please.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Without any more tiresome word-splitting, the claim that "people voted to enact abortion-on-demand" is either meaningless or false - in both cases, it essentially amounts to soap-boxing.

Well you might want to talk to EOTR and Splinter 65 about that they've claimed this numerous times.

Eric Cartman

King Mob wrote: »

And just as an aside, what do you believe the goal of the tasteless non-harassment is?

I and others believe that the goal is to make it more difficult to get an abortion by intimidation and shame.
It's my opinion that this is the real point of the protests outside clinics
It's my opinion that this is the real reason why anti-abortionists are opposed to exclusion zones, as they would lose a tactic they use to make it more difficult for women to get abortions.

I believe that they genuinely see it as murder , a position I do not agree with but I believe deep down that they genuinely see it that way.

I believe their protests are an attempt to have women change their minds at the last minute and 'see the light' , I think they are opposed to exclusion zones for the same reason anyone opposes not being able to advertise / be around anything, convenience and targeted footfall. If they have to go 100 meters away then they need two / three groups to cover every way in or out of a premises and get maximum coverage. As I illustrated above, these protests are incredibly small and they just don't have the people power to effectively make everyone pass them if theres an exclusion zone.

Most in these groups believe theyre doing 'the lords work' saving 'babies' from murder so will ofcourse fight to have every mind changed that they can.

I don't think these are very effective, and I doub't theres much evidence to suggest that a 70 year old woman handing out a leaflet saying god bless you, or her husband shouting 'murderers' at a building has ever changed a womans mind , but similarly I don't think theres much evidence to suggest that this kind of action has intimidated women from going to have an abortion.

ohnonotgmail

I give up. It seems eotr is free to do as they please.

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

I can't substantiate claims made by other people who I do not even know

robarmstrong reported six posts without clarifying what exactly the issue was with which post - hence the confusion which now reigns.

I suggest that this attempt to adjudicate is dropped since nobody seems to be able to agree on which exact claim was made and how that might be adjudicated in the light of clarifying evidence.

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

But robin, I didn't claim anything about the level of harassment in America.
End referred to the claims made by someone else who was not me.
How can I provide those evidence for those specific claims when I don't know what they are and End did not detail them?
He claimed those claims were false first. He knows what those claims are. I don't'. I asked him to detail how he knows those claims to be overstated.

I can't substantiate claims made by other people who I do not even know.

I provided a link to ETOR showing that the level of harassment is increasing especially since 2097, I haven't seen his rebuttal with evidence to the contrary.

I also provided a link disputing his claim that the people who are actually attacking clinics and doctors are lone unorganized individuals. I'm still waiting on a rebuttal with evidence.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

My definition does not matter nor does EOTR's definition.

I'm afraid it does - since the two of you can't or won't agree on what exactly you're talking about, it's again the pointless shadow-boxing I mentioned above.

robarmstrong wrote: »

We were not asked to vote for abortion on demand. [...] This is factually incorrect, his interpretation of what is written on ballot paper is not fact, it his opinion and should be highlighted as an opinion rather than a fact with solid foundation.

As above, the facts are more nuanced than the simplistic picture you paint.

Finger in the air, and noting that the question is meaningless, and accepting that people will answer a meaningless question despite not realizing or not caring that it's meaningless - I'd say that a good ten or fifteen percent of the population would answer "Yes" to the question "Did you vote for abortion-on-demand in last year's referendum?".

robarmstrong wrote: »

If it is soap-boxing as you've mentioned, can this be actioned please.

Any poster claiming in future that "the referendum was a vote for abortion-on-demand" will be dealt with in line with the forum charter.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Now that there is a mod active at the same time as can you substantiate your claim that there was an expectation of a separate vote on legislation?

i don't believe i stated there was an expectation of a separate vote on legislation.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok.
So given your previous statements, you believe that harassment starts at "screaming in people's faces" and than anything below that is not harassment.
Is that a fair summation?

to be fair i didn't say it started at simply screaming in someone's face, rather i used screaming in someone's face as a good example of what could reasonably be classed as harassment.

King Mob wrote: »

Is there any point between the screaming in faces and handing out leaflets where something isn't harassment, but also is not acceptable behavior?
Or is everything below harassment acceptable?

certainly there will be a point. but it won't be simply protesting or handing out information as i see it.

King Mob wrote: »

And just as an aside, what do you believe the goal of the tasteless non-harassment is?

I and others believe that the goal is to make it more difficult to get an abortion by intimidation and shame.
It's my opinion that this is the real point of the protests outside clinics
It's my opinion that this is the real reason why anti-abortionists are opposed to exclusion zones, as they would lose a tactic they use to make it more difficult for women to get abortions.

i don't believe they would lose the tactic. sure, it would be illegal, but i think protests would continue regardless.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe i stated there was an expectation of a separate vote on legislation.


.

you used the exact words "separate vote". it is right there.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

I'm afraid it does - since the two of you can't or won't agree on what exactly you're talking about, it's again the pointless shadow-boxing I mentioned above.As above, the facts are more nuanced than the simplistic picture you paint.

Finger in the air, and noting that the question is meaningless, and accepting that people will answer a meaningless question despite not realizing or not caring that it's meaningless - I'd say that a good ten or fifteen percent of the population would answer "Yes" to the question "Did you vote for abortion-on-demand in last year's referendum?".Any poster claiming in future that "the referendum was a vote for abortion-on-demand" will be dealt with in line with the forum charter.

It really isn't.

Poster A claims we were asked to vote for abortion on demand.

Poster B posts up exactly what we were asked for on the ballot paper and provides the actual ballot paper, nowhere on this paper were we asked anything pertaining to the term "abortion on demand".

Why on earth are you defending this? This is absolutely farcical at this stage.

My definition does not matter, EOTR's definition does not matter.

We were not asked to vote for "abortion on demand", we were specifically asked to vote for

If the referendum is passed, this would allow the existing Article 40.3.3 – which contains the Eighth Amendment (right to life of the unborn), 13th Amendment (right to information about seeking a termination), and 14th Amendment (right to travel for a termination) – to be replaced with the line:

Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.

This is not my definition, this is not EOTR's definition, this is the electorate definition of what we were voting on.

Can you please accept that there is absolutely no mention of the terminology "abortion on demand" in the ballot paper, that there is absolutely no request of us voting to allow or disallow "abortion on demand", and can you please ask EOTR to provide proof (not his ascertains, not his opinion, not his interpretation) that we were asked to vote for/against abortion on demand.

Can you please do this? If not, can I request a CMod to mediate this?

end of the road

DubInMeath wrote: »

I provided a link to ETOR showing that the level of harassment is increasing especially since 2097, I haven't seen his rebuttal with evidence to the contrary.

because i never stated that it increased or decreased. what i stated is that i personally believe there may not be as much harassment going on as may be stated and i explained why i believed my opinion in later posts. that does not mean that the level whatever it may be can't increase.

DubInMeath wrote: »

I also provided a link disputing his claim that the people who are actually attacking clinics and doctors are lone unorganized individuals. I'm still waiting on a rebuttal with evidence.

i don't think i said they were loan unorganised individuals. i am sure i stated that there were fringe individuals and groups. such i believe can be organised. what my point was is that i personally don't believe that these groups and individuals are a representation of the pro-life movement as a whole. perhapse the post wasn't clear to that fact for which i appologise.

Timberrrrrrrr

robindch wrote: »

I'm afraid it does - since the two of you can't or won't agree on what exactly you're talking about, it's again the pointless shadow-boxing I mentioned above.As above, the facts are more nuanced than the simplistic picture you paint.

Finger in the air, and noting that the question is meaningless, and accepting that people will answer a meaningless question despite not realizing or not caring that it's meaningless - I'd say that a good ten or fifteen percent of the population would answer "Yes" to the question "Did you vote for abortion-on-demand in last year's referendum?".Any poster claiming in future that "the referendum was a vote for abortion-on-demand" will be dealt with in line with the forum charter.

Could you provide me with the names of the C-mods for this forum please.

ohnonotgmail

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Could you provide me with the names of the C-mods for this forum please.

Big Bag of Chips, bluewolf, Faith, Neyite, Pat Mustard

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you used the exact words "separate vote". it is right there.

yes but not as you are claiming.
your claim seems to be that i stated it in that i was suggesting there was an expectation of a second vote. i did not claim there was an expectation of a second vote.
hope that clears things up for you.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I believe that they genuinely see it as murder , a position I do not agree with but I believe deep down that they genuinely see it that way.

I believe their protests are an attempt to have women change their minds at the last minute and 'see the light' , I think they are opposed to exclusion zones for the same reason anyone opposes not being able to advertise / be around anything, convenience and targeted footfall. If they have to go 100 meters away then they need two / three groups to cover every way in or out of a premises and get maximum coverage. As I illustrated above, these protests are incredibly small and they just don't have the people power to effectively make everyone pass them if theres an exclusion zone.

Most in these groups believe theyre doing 'the lords work' saving 'babies' from murder so will ofcourse fight to have every mind changed that they can.

I don't think these are very effective, and I doub't theres much evidence to suggest that a 70 year old woman handing out a leaflet saying god bless you, or her husband shouting 'murderers' at a building has ever changed a womans mind , but similarly I don't think theres much evidence to suggest that this kind of action has intimidated women from going to have an abortion.

Given ETOR and Splinter 65 starting before the referendum that our abortion situation would become the same as the U.K. it may well be that the level of harassment increases to the levels there

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/08/anti-abortion-activists-harassing-women-at-uk-clinics-during-lent

The groups from the U.S.that the groups here and the U.K. are receiving funding and tactics from are linked to numerous cases of harassment world wide, groups like Human Life International

https://www.coloradoindependent.com/2008/08/12/fanning-the-radical-anti-abortion-flames-in-colorado/

robindch

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Could you provide me with the names of the C-mods for this forum please.

They're listed at the bottom of the forum entry page:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614

As ohno points out, that's Big Bag of Chips, bluewolf, Faith, Neyite, Pat Mustard.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

robindch wrote: »

They're listed at the bottom of the forum entry page:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614

As ohno points out, that's Big Bag of Chips, bluewolf, Faith, Neyite, Pat Mustard.

I have reported the last two replies to me by EOTR. Can i expect something to be done about them?

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

This is absolutely farcical at this stage.

I agree it's farcical - both sides are playing rhetoric, however one side doesn't like being called out on it.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

I agree it's farcical - both sides are playing rhetoric, however one side doesn't like being called out on it.

So you chose to completely ignore my post requesting input from you on numerous occasions only to post that?

That’s farcical, that is absolutely ridiculous and just below-par behavior from a moderator.

Disgraceful.

Eric Cartman

DubInMeath wrote: »

Given ETOR and Splinter 65 starting before the referendum that our abortion situation would become the same as the U.K. it may well be that the level of harassment increases to the levels there

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/08/anti-abortion-activists-harassing-women-at-uk-clinics-during-lent

The groups from the U.S.that the groups here and the U.K. are receiving funding and tactics from are linked to numerous cases of harassment world wide, groups like Human Life International

https://www.coloradoindependent.com/2008/08/12/fanning-the-radical-anti-abortion-flames-in-colorado/

a very good article there, cheers.

Activists in Birmingham and Leicester are handing out leaflets with graphic images of foetuses and which suggest that having a termination is harder to overcome than rape and that women who have abortions are more likely to kill themselves.
Women in Cardiff have been delaying abortion appointments because they do not want to face the protesters, who have been accused of intimidating women by carrying cameras.
A protester in Manchester has been trying to show women models of foetuses in an attempt to prevent them from having abortions, and demonstrators in Leicester constructed a display of foetus dolls portraying different stages of development.
Demonstrators have called women visiting a clinic in Manchester “murderers”, and one protester became “verbally aggressive” when told by police not to approach people.

Ok so theres a lot of protest and some harassment thrown in there, obviously these women 'delaying' abortions arent changing their minds so these protests are fruitless it would seem. Overall I think this article paints it as less of a serious problem than some would like to imagine , but nobody can condone bringing cameras to take womens pictures or becoming verbally aggressive.

The leaflets , models , pictures as much as I disagree with them are similar to any other protest.

ohnonotgmail

robarmstrong wrote: »

So you chose to completely ignore my post requesting input from you on numerous occasions only to post that?

That’s farcical, that is absolutely ridiculous and just below-par behavior from a moderator.

Disgraceful.

I reported that post by Robindch. Hopefully a cmod will do something.

splinter65

Odhinn wrote: »

....so you admit that there was no "opt out" clause for protestants, liberal catholics, non believers etc.





You've evidence of this?

Yes. Where is our Taoiseachs statement on the carnage in Sri Lanka ?

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

So you chose to completely ignore my post requesting input from you on numerous occasions only to post that? That’s farcical, that is absolutely ridiculous and just below-par behavior from a moderator. Disgraceful.

You might like to consider taking a break from your keyboard for a while - that kind of post doesn't really advance anybody's position.

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

You might like to consider taking a break from your keyboard for a while - that kind of post doesn't really advance anybody's position.

we could all say the same to you.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

You might like to consider taking a break from your keyboard for a while - that kind of post doesn't really advance anybody's position.

Does your post advance a position whatsoever? I requested your input several different times in that post and asked you several questions and instead of addressing any you just simply decided to post a smart remark and gloss over the issue.

I won’t be having a break from my keyboard for a while, at least not here anyways.

robindch

The thread is closed for review and to allow tempers to cool down.