Delirium wrote: » Irish Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (an anti-abortion group) have been cautioned by Kilkenny Gardai after complaints from the public.Source (press release from ICBR regarding caution) FYI, there's photo on the top of the page of the group with one of their foetal images on a banner for those that would rather avoid the pic.
MrPudding wrote: » Just spent the last 10 minutes googling, and can't find any reference to their success against Sussex police, apart form on their own website/facebook and other other pro-life sites. Has anyone heard of this victory? MrP
Delirium wrote: » Irish Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (an anti-abortion group) have been cautioned by Kilkenny Gardai after complaints from the public.Source (press release from ICBR regarding caution)
aloyisious wrote: » It looks [to me] like the Centre is not wholly an Irish group and might be an off-shoot of a larger body or umbrella organisation. It's statement is worded and reads like something issued by a multinational group, something from across the waters.
Delirium wrote: » I presume this report (on a anti-abortion site) is the case they're referring to.
A crisis pregnancy agency funded by the Catholic Church is flouting HSE rules by hiding from women its opposition to abortion. The health service will not be taking any action against Cura even though the advertising breaches its guidelines. The HSE said that it believed women who wanted an abortion who went to Cura would be referred elsewhere. The Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference has defended its use of public money for the anti-abortion agency. Cura, which uses HSE funding, claims in its adverts to be a non-judgmental crisis pregnancy counselling agency. It is “informed by the values of the Catholic Church” but does not say that it is opposed to abortion, receives religious funding and will not offer advice to women who want to travel to terminate their pregnancies. It regularly runs adverts on Dublin Bus and Luas services as well as at university campuses. It also runs an awareness programme in schools.
PopePalpatine wrote: » #JustLegatusLackeyThings:
the headbanger wrote: » I've taken things into my own hands. I have taken to defacing these so called "pro choice" (I beg to call it something else) signs around my neighborhood. Whatever about the ins and outs of the wider debate I find it horrifying to find suburban streets splattered with these signs. It's what I really hate about the pro abortion movement; they present their argument (that abortion should be liberalized) as self evident truth, when it's not.
aloyisious wrote: » Interesting... Just in passing, would you have a similar view toward altering signage put up by the other side of the debate in suburban streets?
the headbanger wrote: » No I wouldn't and here's why. I'm my view abortion is nothing more than murder. So signs calling for liberal abortion laws are deeply offensive to me. With respect I don't think the same can be said about signs that plead with people to not kill babies.
aloyisious wrote: » That would seem to preclude any debating on the issue of abortion, despite this [whatever about the ins and outs of the wider debate] being your earlier post. Is it your preference that the debate should be limited to the erection of signage only, because some people believe signage used by the anti-abortion side of the debate to be offensive?
the headbanger wrote: » Two points: 1. Offensive signage should not be erected. Abortion signage is deeply offensive - I am looking out a window now and can see a pro choice rally sign and a school within my view. 2. Even if you can make out an argument for abortion, signs deprecating abortion are not offensive to the same degree to those that disagree with the message. In a world without abortion, feminists, nosely millennials and liberals are left upset, but not murdered. The innocent babies on the other hand are brutally murdered
Delirium wrote: » A world without abortion doesn't exist. That's why even with our extremely restrictive laws we have clauses for when the pregnant persons life is in danger.
aloyisious wrote: » Could I take it that if some-one from the anti-abortion side of the debate were to put up a sign deprecating abortion [along the lines of anti-abortion signage bearing the image of what some on the anti-abortion side of the debate claim is an aborted baby] near or in place of the pro-choice sign you mentioned as being visible from your window,that you would not find it offensive, seeing as the sign would be near the school you mentioned? Would you think that such an image-bearing anti-abortion sign would be very inappropriate to put up near a school, as distinct from a worded sign from the Pro-choice side of the debate, if it is a given that children would be attending the school? [I am assuming you do mean a educational building for the teaching of children]....
the headbanger wrote: » I haven't actually seen any such sign near a school to be honest so it's really a hypothetical problem. But I guess if a pro abortion person was concerned by its presence near a school (consisting, by the way, of children that have mercifully avoided the faith that she might have visited on them) she could go out and deface that sign too. Do you think we should remove the photos of lung cancer from cigarette packets?
looksee wrote: » Defacing signs seems like a childish way to express your opinion, either way. Get some signs of your own printed and put them up, complain to the council about littering, have a public meeting to see what local opinion is, all much more constructive than scribbling on something you don't like.
recedite wrote: » Your argument here is basically that anything which you find offensive should be taken down, and anything which is only offensive to other people should be left up. And if the law does not agree with you, then you will take the law into your own hands. Its an argument against free speech. Instead of thinking this way, you need to accept that it is you that is taking the offence. It is your own reaction. You don't have to take offence, its just how you choose to react to something you see. You need to control that.
the headbanger wrote: » Perhaps it would be childish if the contents of the poster in the first place was fair and inoffensive. But in my own opinion the contents are grotesque and don't belong in residential areas. They are deeply hurtful to pro life people. So in that way the signs don't deserve a reasoned response. They are provocative and hideous. So they should be deprecated or taken down. If on the other hand it was a poster that said "here are four reasons why taxes should be increased" I would agree with you that I shouldn't scribble my opinions on that poster. I hope I'm making the distinction clear. One is so egregious that it's presence is outrageous and takes it "out" of reasoned discourse. In that way those posters should be cut down
eviltwin wrote: » I haven't seen any 'pro abortion' posters, have seen quite a few Repeal the 8th ones for various things but that is not the same as advocating for abortion. I'd like to see examples of these posters so we can see for ourselves how offensive they are. Unless they break any laws I think defacing them is childish at best. Do you not believe that in any debate both sides have the right to put forth their position? Do you not think that its gross arrogance to decide that because you personally find the posters message to be offensive that that somehow gives you right to remove that message on behalf of your community? Perhaps you should allow the people in your locality the chance to hear both sides and form their own opinion. I'd imagine if someone defaced an anti abortion poster you wouldn't appreciate it.
