Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

The_Valeyard · 22-09-2017 12:14PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Except the bakery fell under refusing to serve a protected group from discrimination with no other basis than their discrimination against that group. This isn't a good comparison as the hotel originally did allow the group (who do not fall under protection from discrimination) to host their function there, and then cancelled it not even based on their own personal beliefs, but on the opinions of the public as they felt it would impact their reputation/bottom line moving forward.

This came about from the public exercising their free speech and expressing their opinions, which going by their previous posts I would figure would be something a poster like The Legend of Kira holds very dear and is happy to see being utilised.

Arnt the pro life side representing those whonfall under the 8th amendment, which are a protected group.?

ohnonotgmail · 22-09-2017 12:19PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Arnt the pro life side representing those whonfall under the 8th amendment, which are a protected group.?

they are not a member of that group. claiming to represent a protected group doesn't give the same status as a member of that protected group. why would it?

The_Valeyard · 22-09-2017 12:20PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they are not a member of that group. claiming to represent a protected group doesn't give the same status as a member of that protected group. why would it?

Just a question I posed, as we nowadays seem to have people speaking on behalf of other protected groups who are not members of said groups.

Permabear · 22-09-2017 12:21PM

This post has been deleted.

optogirl · 22-09-2017 12:22PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

it's also to do with the fact that this particular group give out false information including the fact that women who have abortions are more likely to get cancer which is a complete falsheood. They can cancel on the grounds that the 'information' being conveyed is medically wrong and dangerous.

ohnonotgmail · 22-09-2017 12:25PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

while you are happy to believe second hand accounts in a newspaper article. if you are so convinced that threats were made perhaps you could point to them?

Permabear · 22-09-2017 12:29PM

This post has been deleted.

frag420 · 22-09-2017 12:30PM

But you're happy to take as gospel the word of the organiser of this event?

POT

KETTLE

BLAAAAAAACK

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

January · 22-09-2017 12:33PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

while you are happy to believe second hand accounts in a newspaper article. if you are so convinced that threats were made perhaps you could point to them?

This, basically.

Permabear, we've debated on the 8th amendment before and we're never going to agree.

You seem to brush aside the fact that anti-choice groups contact venues all the time to get pro-choice meetings cancelled. I've given two such examples and another poster has given yet another example of it, yet you haven't commented on those at all. Two anti-choice people recently attended a pro-choice meeting in Dublin 15 (they had tried to have it cancelled but Captain Americas refused to cancel it), they took notes and tried to intimidate others who attended the meeting (and that's a first-hand account as I was there). A week later they succeeded in having a pro-choice meeting in Douglas and Kaldi in Ashtown cancelled because of pressure such as phone calls and drop-ins to the cafe.

It seems you're only interested in crying 'oppression' when it's the side of the coin your views fall on.

SafeSurfer · 22-09-2017 12:35PM

January wrote: »

The_Valeyard wrote: »

If it was a bakery they'd be up in court.

No they wouldn't, if an anti-choice group walked in and asked for a cake to be baked with a picture of a dead foetus put on top then the bakery would be well within their right to decline their business.

We've hit a new low. However i defend your right to express your views in whatever way you wish to express them.

Permabear · 22-09-2017 12:40PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 22-09-2017 12:50PM

This post has been deleted.

dav3 · 22-09-2017 12:51PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Or, the most plausible theory is that the hotel would not wish to be associated with such a group, and any association with this group would damage their reputation and business.
I think a hotel manager would be more than capable of evaluating the claims. I don't see why they wouldn't.

ohnonotgmail · 22-09-2017 12:53PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

maybe it sounds more plausible to you because it suits your worldview? it certainly isn't because there is any credible evidence to support it. I've no idea why are going on about scientific evidence. i never mentioned anything of the sort.

Permabear · 22-09-2017 12:55PM

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail · 22-09-2017 01:01PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

perhaps the person who took the booking was not aware of the nature of the group. is that not plausible?

SafeSurfer · 22-09-2017 01:03PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I had mistakenly assumed an "entirely pro choice" view was one that supports choice without restriction.

No thankfully I am not aware of too many people who support that line of thought. On boards.ie for example I have become aware of, I think, three of them. Two of them never offered their reasoning for the position AT ALL. While the third one offered nothing more than the claim that Hillary Clinton agrees with him before getting very abusive and then running out of the thread he posted it on.

So suffice to say no, it is not a position I hold nor have seen supported.

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Sorry I dont believe you. You sat down (where?) and spoke to pro life people and they just pointed at fetus pictures whilst stoned?!?.

Well firstly I did not say they were stoned. I was likening their delivery TO a stoned drawl. That is to say, they delivered the line in that elongated "Hey maaaaahhhhn" way that stoners talk in. Whether they themselves were actually stoned is not information I have, or claim to.

However I did indeed sit down with them and they did indeed reply as I described. This was some time ago now I admit, back when they used to have information stalls in front of the Central Bank in Dublin. Do you remember them? The ones with the pictures of fetuses that were, of course, of the fetus at stages MUCH later in the development process than when the VAST majority of abortions actually occur at.

I saw them there quite often and when I was in the process of examining my own positions on abortion....... and trying to determine what my position on abortion should be.... I made a point of including them in my process.

I cleared a whole Saturday for it, and I went in and essentially introduced myself and said "Look I am trying to determine my own position on this issue, could you guys let me know your thinking and reasoning on it..... what your issues are....."

They pointed at the pictures and asked had I seen them. I said that I indeed had seen them, but I was still keen to hear their reasoning behind being anti abortion and anti choice on abortion. To which they jusst reiterated, as I said above, "Look at the pictures maaaaaaan".

Stonedpilot wrote: »

I once asked a pro abortion woman

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Also I prefer the term pro abortion to pro choice. Call a spade a spade.

You must introduce us. I have been heavily involved in campaigning for abortion choice and I have yet to meet anyone who could be described as, let alone describes themselves as "pro abortion".

The reality is that every pro-choice person I have met is anti abortion. In that they would ideally live in a world where no one had to have one and no one ever had one. They therefore ALSO campaign for every initiative that reduces abortions. Improved, cheaper, more widely available contraception. Better more comprehensive and understandable support for single mothers and other families in strife. Better and more importantly EARLIER sexual education programs in our schools. And so on.

Strangely I have met many people who are anti abortion who are also anti those initiative. The catholic church for example has long been anti abortion and has also historically been known to be anti contraception. While many people I have met who are anti abortion are also anti sex education for young children...... which they justify behind some empty and meaningless guise of "protecting childhood innocence".

So regardless of what terms you personally prefer.... that is your business............ calling something that is not a spade "a spade" is not about to magically turn it into one. You can call a giraffe a spade all you like, no one wants to stop you I suspect, but it will not make it a spade either.

The definitions you PREFER and the definitions that are actually descriptively accurate..... are not seemingly the same things.

And yet if what you say is true and both pro life and pro choice advocates are universally opposed to abortion. Why at a time when contraception has never been cheaper or more widely available do the number of abortions continue to rise?
56 million in 2015. Almost the population of Italy, equivalent to every death caused by world war 2.
An increase in the UK also. Over 185,000, of whom for 40% it was not their first abortion and of whom 70% were married or Ina long term relationship.

If both sides are opposed to abortion why have we all been so ineffective?

Stonedpilot · 22-09-2017 01:06PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No thankfully I am not aware of too many people who support that line of thought. On boards.ie for example I have become aware of, I think, three of them. Two of them never offered their reasoning for the position AT ALL. While the third one offered nothing more than the claim that Hillary Clinton agrees with him before getting very abusive and then running out of the thread he posted it on.

So suffice to say no, it is not a position I hold nor have seen supported.

Well firstly I did not say they were stoned. I was likening their delivery TO a stoned drawl. That is to say, they delivered the line in that elongated "Hey maaaaahhhhn" way that stoners talk in. Whether they themselves were actually stoned is not information I have, or claim to.

However I did indeed sit down with them and they did indeed reply as I described. This was some time ago now I admit, back when they used to have information stalls in front of the Central Bank in Dublin. Do you remember them? The ones with the pictures of fetuses that were, of course, of the fetus at stages MUCH later in the development process than when the VAST majority of abortions actually occur at.

I saw them there quite often and when I was in the process of examining my own positions on abortion....... and trying to determine what my position on abortion should be.... I made a point of including them in my process.

I cleared a whole Saturday for it, and I went in and essentially introduced myself and said "Look I am trying to determine my own position on this issue, could you guys let me know your thinking and reasoning on it..... what your issues are....."

They pointed at the pictures and asked had I seen them. I said that I indeed had seen them, but I was still keen to hear their reasoning behind being anti abortion and anti choice on abortion. To which they jusst reiterated, as I said above, "Look at the pictures maaaaaaan".

You must introduce us. I have been heavily involved in campaigning for abortion choice and I have yet to meet anyone who could be described as, let alone describes themselves as "pro abortion".

The reality is that every pro-choice person I have met is anti abortion. In that they would ideally live in a world where no one had to have one and no one ever had one. They therefore ALSO campaign for every initiative that reduces abortions. Improved, cheaper, more widely available contraception. Better more comprehensive and understandable support for single mothers and other families in strife. Better and more importantly EARLIER sexual education programs in our schools. And so on.

Strangely I have met many people who are anti abortion who are also anti those initiative. The catholic church for example has long been anti abortion and has also historically been known to be anti contraception. While many people I have met who are anti abortion are also anti sex education for young children...... which they justify behind some empty and meaningless guise of "protecting childhood innocence".

So regardless of what terms you personally prefer.... that is your business............ calling something that is not a spade "a spade" is not about to magically turn it into one. You can call a giraffe a spade all you like, no one wants to stop you I suspect, but it will not make it a spade either.

The definitions you PREFER and the definitions that are actually descriptively accurate..... are not seemingly the same things.

You cleared a whole Saturday to argue with people you disagreed with and had bias against ie "Stoner drawl" whatever the hell that is. I've met people who after a joint sound like a medical University lecturer. Pure bias. You assume they are on drugs or sound like they are drugs to strenthen your argument and weaken theirs.

You say every pro choice person you met are anti abortion?. Can you give examples of pro choice organisations being anti abortion and offering other alternatives here in Ireland.
Sorry I dont buy that either that pro choice folk see abortion as a last last gasp solution. Indeed most see it as the first.

dav3 · 22-09-2017 01:06PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Someone in the meetings and events department takes the booking. Information come to light about the group at a later stage. The hotel cancels the booking according to their terms and conditions.
It's probably the most plausible theory.

Saruhashi · 22-09-2017 01:07PM

January wrote: »

This, basically.

It seems you're only interested in crying 'oppression' when it's the side of the coin your views fall on.

This is just... weird.

Aren't you just tacitly admitting that your "side" is oppressive too?

The progression of you conversation there seems to be...

January : The other side is bad, really bad.
Permabear: Your side is really bad too.
January: Yes, we are really bad BUT you are really bad also!

Wait, what?

If both sides are being oppressive then that reflects badly on both sides.
If only one side if being oppressive then that only reflects badly on that side.
If neither side is being oppressive then everyone is looking good.

You seem perfectly comfortable with the fact that you look bad because your opponents look bad too?

So... there are no bad tactics, only bad targets?

Permabear · 22-09-2017 01:09PM

This post has been deleted.

Will I Am Not · 22-09-2017 01:15PM

An awful lot of perhaps, maybe, possibly going on here.
It's funny how people are dismissing one thing off the bat and then making up something that might have happened instead.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-09-2017 01:17PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

And yet if what you say is true and both pro life and pro choice advocates are universally opposed to abortion. Why at a time when contraception has never been cheaper or more widely available do the number of abortions continue to rise?

Well if you are talking about pure numbers, rather than abortions per capita, then I would suggest one reason they continue to rise is that the number of people in the populations is also rising. If 1% of people have abortions and there is a 10% increase in population, then the number of people in the 1% will go up too.

But I would also point out that people being opposed to abortion is not magically going to make abortion numbers go down. What will make them go down is how that opposition manifests itself.

For example I suggested cheaper contraception would help. I personally feel they should be VAT free for example. However people will oppose such an idea. Unless the idea is implemented, the existence of the idea is not going to bring numbers down.

Better and EARLIER sex education for children is something I think we need badly. But many people are opposed to that too. Usually, so they claim, because they want to maintain the innocence of children. Which to me is a nonsense. I think there is a chasm of difference between protecting the innocence of children and protecting the ignorance of children. I see no aspect of what is important about the "innocence" of children that is in any way eroded by knowledge of sex and sexual reproduction and the issues around it. "Innocence" in children is a much different, much more precious thing in my mind and has nothing to do with sexual education.

Another factor in what pushes abortion numbers up is cost and knowledge. We have, over the years, seen the rise (and sometimes fall) of more and more agents who are explaining abortion choices as part of family planning. That will of course impact abortion numbers. Cheap travel is a factor too where abortion is not easily available........ the cheaper travel to the UK is the more people you will see coming from Ireland.... for example.

We have also in recent years had a global financial crisis. That will also put abortions up as more people who find themselves pregnant will feel compelled on financial grounds to seek solutions like abortion.

So, suffice to say there is no one simply answer to your questions. There is a MULTITUDE of factors all coming together to influence abortion numbers. That both pro-choice and anti-choice campaigners have a common ground where we BOTH want to reduce the number of abortions actually occurring is therefore a common ground we should both notice AND celebrate rather than the kind of divisive politics we see in phrase like "pro abortion" and "pro murder" and so forth.

gctest50 · 22-09-2017 01:19PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

..............

Why at a time when contraception has never been cheaper or more widely available do the number of abortions continue to rise?

more pregnancies maybe ?

population increase = more women = more pregnancies ?

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2016

ohnonotgmail · 22-09-2017 01:19PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

the irony in this is unbelievable. and self-serving. accusations of threats and harassment have been made by one side with nothing to back them up. but you are only too happy to believe them because they suit your preconceived notions.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-09-2017 01:29PM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

You cleared a whole Saturday to argue with people you disagreed with and had bias against ie "Stoner drawl"

That is a disingenous and inaccurate summary. At the time of my meeting with them I was openly undecided on the issue, I have and had no biases against them, and at NO POINT in what I wrote above did I say I went to "argue" with them. I went to only, solely and exclusively say to them "I am here to hear your side of things". Nothing more. The arguments and bias and so forth are entirely of your own invention and did not exist at the time.

Stonedpilot wrote: »

I've met people who after a joint sound like a medical University lecturer. Pure bias.

Again the bias is entirely of your own fantasy and invention. I share what you say here in that I have met people who smoke and sound more coherent than some people who have not. In fact some of the most coherent and interesting conversations I have had, have been with people who were stoned. And in fact I partake myself on average about 4 or 5 times a year.

No, when I talk of the stoner drawl I am talking about that stereotypical stoner/surfer way of talking that Hollywood has given us. Nothing to do with actually being stoned...... just that kind of accent / intonation that people who are stoned...... or people who are surfers I have noticed........ get given in movies.

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Sorry I dont buy that either that pro choice folk see abortion as a last last gasp solution. Indeed most see it as the first.

I have no doubt some of them do. I was, and am, only talking about anyone I have personally met and talked with. I can not speak for anyone else, as I have not met them or talked to them.

But the consensus among anyone I have worked with on the issue has been similar to what your opinion on...... say..... heart bypass surgery would be.

I am guessing, if you are like everyone I have met anywhere ever..... you want heart bypass surgery to be available to anyone who finds them-self in a situation where they need it, right?

But I am also guessing you would advocate for any and all initiatives to prevent people ending up in that situation where they need it. Healthy eating schemes and education maybe. Maybe a tax on the kinds of food that lead to heart problems. Awareness campaigns. Research into medication that can be used instead of invasive surgery. And so on. We want the CHOICE of heart bypass to be available but IDEALLY no one would ever have to make that choice.

That is how I, and anyone I have worked with campaigning for pro chioce, view abortion. In an ideal world no woman or couple will find themselves in a position where they need that choice. But we are not in an ideal world and I have seen no arguments, least of all from you, as to why that choice should not be readily available to them.

On the front page of abortionrightscampaign.ie you will see a nice story on "Two choices, both valid" which I think is a good article. But, despite your invitation to do so, I am not about to talk on behalf of those organisations. Mail them yourself and ask them what their position is on comprehensive information being given, and options offered, up to and including abortion as a solution set for any crisis pregnancy. I would be genuinely surprised if their replies deviate from my description by all that much. If they do, provide me the name of the organisation and contact and I will follow up for clarification myself.

One eyed Jack · 22-09-2017 01:35PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No thankfully I am not aware of too many people who support that line of thought. On boards.ie for example I have become aware of, I think, three of them. Two of them never offered their reasoning for the position AT ALL. While the third one offered nothing more than the claim that Hillary Clinton agrees with him before getting very abusive and then running out of the thread he posted it on.

So suffice to say no, it is not a position I hold nor have seen supported.

You've been posting that misrepresentation for a while now, and I haven't bothered to pull you up on it before because you appear to be addicted to misrepresenting other people and their points of view, while passing yourself off as some sort of an authority on whatever subject happens to tickle your fancy.

Here's the thing, and the point I was making at the time - no woman who finds herself pregnant and wants a termination, is going to give a damn for what your moral concerns are or aren't. They're your concerns, not hers, and she should not be bound by your concerns.

For that opinion, you attempted to insinuate that in suggesting that a woman should have full control over her pregnancy at any point in her pregnancy, I must be some sort of monster and that to you the idea was abhorrent. Quite why you think anyone should give a sugar for your opinion is something you've never been clear about, other than trying to pass yourself off as a scientist now.

The reason I referred to Hillary Clinton sharing that stance is because far from being unreasonable and irrational as you were trying to paint it, it's actually both rational and reasonable to suggest that we need to trust women and support them, quite a world away from your 16 week limit that you would seek to impose on people who aren't you. Those are your moral standards. They mean nothing, zero, to anyone else.

To claim you are entirely pro-choice, when further examination of your opinion suggests otherwise, is the kind of misleading nonsense that should be pointed out. I'm not going to suggest you should be silenced though, as that would be making a martyr out of a moaner.

I'll just continue to ignore you for the most part until you post something interesting that's actually worth getting into a discussion about.

Permabear · 22-09-2017 01:37PM

This post has been deleted.

Grayson · 22-09-2017 01:43PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can't see any evidence of any pro choice abuse. I can see the hotels facebook page which has about 10 or 11 posts on it about this. All the posts were extremely polite. No abuse there.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/AshlingHotelDublin/community/?ref=page_internal

The hotel hasn't said there's any abuse. All we have is a group, which is known to lie to women, saying that this happened. It's possible they did receive some abuse, but I doubt it. I think the conference organisers are just being hysterical for their own benefit.

SafeSurfer · 22-09-2017 01:46PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

And yet if what you say is true and both pro life and pro choice advocates are universally opposed to abortion. Why at a time when contraception has never been cheaper or more widely available do the number of abortions continue to rise?

Well if you are talking about pure numbers, rather than abortions per capita, then I would suggest one reason they continue to rise is that the number of people in the populations is also rising. If 1% of people have abortions and there is a 10% increase in population, then the number of people in the 1% will go up too.

But I would also point out that people being opposed to abortion is not magically going to make abortion numbers go down. What will make them go down is how that opposition manifests itself.

For example I suggested cheaper contraception would help. I personally feel they should be VAT free for example. However people will oppose such an idea. Unless the idea is implemented, the existence of the idea is not going to bring numbers down.

Better and EARLIER sex education for children is something I think we need badly. But many people are opposed to that too. Usually, so they claim, because they want to maintain the innocence of children. Which to me is a nonsense. I think there is a chasm of difference between protecting the innocence of children and protecting the ignorance of children. I see no aspect of what is important about the "innocence" of children that is in any way eroded by knowledge of sex and sexual reproduction and the issues around it. "Innocence" in children is a much different, much more precious thing in my mind and has nothing to do with sexual education.

Another factor in what pushes abortion numbers up is cost and knowledge. We have, over the years, seen the rise (and sometimes fall) of more and more agents who are explaining abortion choices as part of family planning. That will of course impact abortion numbers. Cheap travel is a factor too where abortion is not easily available........ the cheaper travel to the UK is the more people you will see coming from Ireland.... for example.

We have also in recent years had a global financial crisis. That will also put abortions up as more people who find themselves pregnant will feel compelled on financial grounds to seek solutions like abortion.

So, suffice to say there is no one simply answer to your questions. There is a MULTITUDE of factors all coming together to influence abortion numbers. That both pro-choice and anti-choice campaigners have a common ground where we BOTH want to reduce the number of abortions actually occurring is therefore a common ground we should both notice AND celebrate rather than the kind of divisive politics we see in phrase like "pro abortion" and "pro murder" and so forth.

Approximately one third of pregnancies end in abortion.
In Ireland where abortion is extremely restricted women seeking an abortion may travel to the uk. If pro choice groups are to be believed 3,265 Irish women terminated their pregnancies by abortion in the U.K. In 2016.
This represents around 5% of births in Ireland in 2016.
If Ireland had liberal, on demand abortion legislation as in the U.K., we could expect similar figures for abortion of over 30% of pregnancies which would be 20,000 Irish abortions per annum.
If as you say you are opposed to abortion is it not true to say restrictive laws on abortion in Ireland result in fewer Irish pregnancies ending in abortion?

Liberalising abortion laws would result in more abortions which is the opposite of your declared preference.

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Comments