nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Pherekydes

Wait, I'm confused. Which side is the pro-life side?

Can we not just be pro- and anti-choice?

Less confusing all round.

[Deleted User]

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

‘Repeal the 8th’ mural in Project Arts Centre in Temple Bar removed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAu3a7CMA84

Hotblack Desiato

Ah, the Streisand effect. Me geddit now.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

PLC adjudicating on what art we should find acceptable, that reminds me of a certain era in a certain country!
The irony of that lot talking about closed-minded attitudes and freedom of expression :pac:

I thought it read as they felt it was unacceptable, rather than adjudicating on what anyone else should.... still I suppose we're all free to express our opinions as long as we don't contravene the Planning & Development Acts. Just imagine the outcry if had been a Pro Life mural

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Wait, I'm confused. Which side is the pro-life side? Can we not just be pro- and anti-choice? Less confusing all round.

Less confusing for those who want the issue to be choice rather than life, certainly...

Loafing Oaf

Pherekydes wrote: »

Wait, I'm confused. Which side is the pro-life side?

Can we not just be pro- and anti-choice?

Less confusing all round.

I know you're speaking in jest here, but IMO the only way to facilitate constructive debate on these hot-button issues is to use whatever labels people want to attach to themselves, even if you totally reject the philosophical underpinnings of those labels. Everyone understands 'pro-life' means 'favours the criminalisation of abortion'. Put the term in inverted commas if you want...

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I know you're speaking in jest here, but IMO the only way to facilitate constructive debate on these hot-button issues is to use whatever labels people want to attach to themselves, even if you totally reject the philosophical underpinnings of those labels. Everyone understands 'pro-life' means 'favours the criminalisation of abortion'. Put the term in inverted commas if you want...

Does everyone also understand 'pro-choice' means 'favours the killing of unborn children'? It's just, if we are recasting chosen labels from the perspective of the opposing camp because that way everyone understands what they mean... may as well have both, eh?

seamus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So DCC are ok with certain political messages but not others.

The irony of that lot talking about closed-minded attitudes and freedom of expression :pac:

To be fair about the whole mural thing, often a council won't do anything about a planning issue unless they've received a complaint from a member of the public about a breach of planning laws.

Most likely nobody made a complaint about the marriage equality one. This one just became high-profile enough to attract the attention of the anti-choicers.

And to be honest, had it been the opposite - say a mural of a foetus with "abortion is murder" or something - a similar planning breach complaint would likely have been made, and pro-choice campaigns celebrating the removal of an offensive message.

So as much as it saddens me that the laws are being abused to censor a message, it would be hypocritical of me not to acknowledge that I would be glad to see the mural taken down if the shoe was on the other foot.

seamus

Absolam wrote: »

Does everyone also understand 'pro-choice' means 'favours the killing of unborn children'?

You appear to be the one with the comprehension issue.

Look up the words, "choice", "favour", and "children".

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

Does everyone also understand 'pro-choice' means 'favours the killing of unborn children'? It's just, if we are recasting chosen labels from the perspective of the opposing camp because that way everyone understands what they mean... may as well have both, eh?

How is saying 'pro-life' means 'favours the criminalisation of abortion' doing that? It's a neutral, objective statement of the fundamental pro-life position, when you boil it down and strip out the emotion.

seamus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

How is saying 'pro-life' means 'favours the criminalisation of abortion' doing that? It's a neutral, objective statement of the fundamental pro-life position, when you boil it down and strip out the emotion.

Just to expand on that, while initially it appears inflammatory to say that

pro-life = favouring the criminalisation of abortion

when you actually examine the statement there is no way it can be untrue.

That is, if someone is pro-life, then they explictly oppose the use of abortion.

There cannot be a scenario where "pro-life" means, "I oppose abortion, but I accept that I do not have a right to force that opposition on women". Because that's being pro-choice. Yes, you can both oppose abortion and be pro-choice.

Therefore, it follows logically that to be pro-life, is to be in favour of legally banning abortion.

You could argue that you can ban abortion without making it a criminal act. But that is in effect, also a pro-choice position. An act which is verboten, but which does not carry any penalty for committing it, is in effect one that is legal. And therefore you would be in favour of allowing the individual the right to choose to do this act.

Therefore, it follows logically that to be pro-life is to be in favour of banning abortion, and enforcing that ban as a criminal act.

Because any other position is a pro-choice one.

aloyisious

The Project Art Centre may have been in an impossible position as it get's/got funding (€27,000) from DCC for 2015, then again it may have had nothing to do with the Project decision on the mural. I don't know if they were also in receipt of funding from DCC for the current year 2016.

Page 12 on to the link.
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjmqNHTuJHOAhWGI8AKHcIHCh8QFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dublincity.ie%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fcontent%2FRecreationandCulture%2FArtsOffice%2FDocuments%2FArtsGrants2015Report.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGnHuIQ_kMAk9FigXgxYB4TWj7FCQ

Loafing Oaf

seamus wrote: »

Just to expand on that, while initially it appears inflammatory to say that

pro-life = favouring the criminalisation of abortion

Yes, perhaps 'criminalisation' is perhaps a bit provocative, the dictionary.com definition of pro-life - "opposed to legalized abortion" - is probably more satisfactory, although as you outline it amounts to the same thing in practice.

aloyisious

seamus wrote: »

There cannot be a scenario where "pro-life" means, "I oppose abortion, but I accept that I do not have a right to force that opposition on women". Because that's being pro-choice. Yes, you can both oppose abortion and be pro-choice.

Because any other position is a pro-choice one

I don't see Pro-Life groups protesting outside Maternity Hospitals here about POLDPA approved abortions there. Maybe it's an enforced Pro-Choice position the Pro-Life groups feel they are in, vis a vis POLDPA, having to comply with Irish law governing legally and medically approved abortions at Maternity Hospitals here. It seem's they do accept that they don't have a right to force that opposition on women, as distinct from stating their opinion about abortions, which they do in small prayer-groups outside the Marie Stopes Clinic on Berkeley Rd.

Cabaal

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/07/26/giant-mural-which-forced-people-to-have-abortions-removed-from-wall/

Giant Mural Which Forced People To Have Abortions Removed From Wall

A GIANT mural which has caused an involuntary impulse in passers by to immediately carry out abortions has been removed from a Dublin city centre wall, WWN has learned.

The mural in question adorned the walls of the Project Arts Centre as part of a project carried out by HunReal Issues, which aims to engage younger people in politics and issues relevant to them, but instead had the unintended consequence of aborting over 300 million unborn children since the mural was first painted.

“I wouldn’t be a fan of abortions myself, but once I saw the sign I had 12 of them later that day,” admitted Jeremy Higgins, a member of the Irish Commission of Things We Don’t Talk About.

Higgins was not alone in his experience of the mural which was said to be 700 feet tall and some 4 miles wide.

“Paintings are known to carry ideas in them, and ideas can make people think, and if people think they might have thoughts and we can’t be having that,” Lora Kilcock, one of one people who complained about the mural, explained to WWN.

Evil left leaning people who are advocating for a repeal of the 8th amendment shamefully denied allegations relating to the mural, including the troubling news that the piece had arms attached to it which would frequently grab passers by and carry out abortions on them.

WWN hit the nail on the head once again,

frag420

Lora Kilcock eh....

Absolam

seamus wrote: »

You appear to be the one with the comprehension issue. Look up the words, "choice", "favour", and "children".

Nope no comprehension issue it all; they all fit just fine. Just a matter of point of view.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

How is saying 'pro-life' means 'favours the criminalisation of abortion' doing that? It's a neutral, objective statement of the fundamental pro-life position, when you boil it down and strip out the emotion.

It's not though; the very fact that the statement is centred on how we perceive abortion demonstrates that it's not neutral, it's approaching from the point of view of how we treat abortion. The fundamental pro-life position, when you boil it down and strip out the emotion, is that (most) pro life proponents want to ensure the lives of unborn children are preserved. Criminalising abortion is an effect of the position, not the position.
Seamus felt my opposing statement failed to demonstrate comprehension because he doesn't see that this isn't two sides of a choice issue; one side has an issue about choice, the other side has an issue about life. Abortion is where those issues intersect.

seamus wrote: »

Just to expand on that, while initially it appears inflammatory to say that pro-life = favouring the criminalisation of abortion when you actually examine the statement there is no way it can be untrue.

It can be inaccurate though, in just the same way that pro-choice= favouring the killing of unborn children is inaccaurate. Neither expresses the fundamental position, other than through the lens of those who oppose it.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I don't see Pro-Life groups protesting outside Maternity Hospitals here about POLDPA approved abortions there. Maybe it's an enforced Pro-Choice position the Pro-Life groups feel they are in, vis a vis POLDPA, having to comply with Irish law governing legally and medically approved abortions at Maternity Hospitals here. It seem's they do accept that they don't have a right to force that opposition on women, as distinct from stating their opinion about abortions, which they do in small prayer-groups outside the Marie Stopes Clinic on Berkeley Rd.

I'm sure you'll find pro life proponents who are not in agreement with allowing abortion even in the limited circumstances permitted by the POLDPA, and others who would agree with allowing it in more liberal circumstances. Yet all would call themselves pro life, despite Seamus feeling that any position other that what he allows is pro life is a pro-choice one, so it's fairly apparent most don't feel the need to protest outside Maternity Hospitals here about POLDPA approved abortions there.

I'd suggest the balance of your statement is speculative at best, and probably just pure imagination; the notion that pro-life proponents "accept that they don't have a right to force that opposition on women" assumes that they thought they had a right, and wanted, to force that opposition on women, which is without any foundation other than imagination.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Giant Mural Which Forced People To Have Abortions Removed From Wall
WWN hit the nail on the head once again,

They sure know how to play to an audience alright

Hotblack Desiato

seamus wrote: »

So as much as it saddens me that the laws are being abused to censor a message, it would be hypocritical of me not to acknowledge that I would be glad to see the mural taken down if the shoe was on the other foot.

Buggerit. Yer right

aloyisious wrote: »

I don't see Pro-Life groups protesting outside Maternity Hospitals here about POLDPA approved abortions there.

For the same reason they don't protest outside Dublin Airport departures, they know a lost battle when they see one. They are being rolled back even as they maintain their position is absolute and unchanging. Opposition to right to travel - rolled back. Opposition to abortion information - rolled back. Opposition to morning after pill - rolled back. Opposition to suicidality as grounds for abortion - rolled back. Opposition to TFMR - being rolled back. Opposition to abortion after rape - ditto.

For a bunch of self-proclaimed absolutists, their position sure is rather flexible :pac:

They're not really that wrong when they talk about slippery slope - their (untenable) position is atop a slippery slope, they can only delay or slow the descent from that position but it's inevitable. They no longer represent the view of the Irish people but they will not gracefully accept this.

aloyisious

I'm waiting to see who the Govt agrees will be on the next People's Convention, the one on abortion here. Would be interesting to see who's pushing and who's not pushing to be on board.

Cabaal

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm waiting to see who the Govt agrees will be on the next People's Convention, the one on abortion here. Would be interesting to see who's pushing and who's not pushing to be on board.

A priest, a nun and a bishop walk into a bar.....

Absolam

I imagine no matter who is on it someone will complain about it

oscarBravo

Absolam wrote: »

...strip out the emotion...

Good idea.

...unborn children...

So close.

Cabaal

oscarBravo wrote: »

Good idea. So close.

Unlike WWN Absolam misses the nail by several feet it seems, :pac:

aloyisious

Just seen this on F/B.... http://www.thejournal.ie/citizens-assembly-eighth-amendment-2898572-Jul2016/

The Irish times, irish indo and Newstalk FM all report the same info.

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

Good idea. So close.

Ah well.. 'Strip out the emotion' was actually Loafing Oafs statement, not mine. Perhaps I should have added don't misrepresent people either, like by pretending something can be attributed to them, when you know it's from someone else?
Which is not to say that I think 'unborn children' is an emotional description... certainly no more so than the 'pro-choice' is, or 'pro-life' come to that.

Cabaal wrote: »

Unlike WWN Absolam misses the nail by several feet it seems, :pac:

Perhaps you just mistook the nail I was aiming at :pac:

oscarBravo

Absolam wrote: »

Which is not to say that I think 'unborn children' is an emotional description...

Well, to be fair, you wouldn't.

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, to be fair, you wouldn't.

That's true! Probably evident from the fact that I said "Which is not to say that I think 'unborn children' is an emotional description", eh? Still, there you go.

[Deleted User]

How unborn does a child have to be to be called an unborn child?