Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

pjohnson · 25-09-2017 06:31PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

No.

So you cannot comprehend basic reproduction. Thankfully its not my job to teach you. Maybe stay away from tryna play the "science card" in future. Most "pro life" try to avoid it.

January · 25-09-2017 06:36PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sigh. Every damn thread.

The question was not (and never is) put to suggest that there are women frothing at the mouth to kill babies that are due.

The question was, as ever, posed in order to highlight hypocrisy.

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

I didn't say I would be ok with such abortions, I said I don't need to be ok with them because they just don't happen.

Stonedpilot · 25-09-2017 06:37PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sigh. Every damn thread.

The question was not (and never is) put to suggest that there are women frothing at the mouth to kill babies that are due.

The question was, as ever, posed in order to highlight hypocrisy.

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

+1.

Full term abortions happen all the time.

January · 25-09-2017 06:38PM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

+1.

Full term abortions happen all the time.

Yeah, it's called giving birth.

pjohnson · 25-09-2017 06:39PM

January wrote: »

Yeah, it's called giving birth.

It must be stopped!

DickSwiveller · 25-09-2017 06:46PM

pjohnson wrote: »

So you cannot comprehend basic reproduction. Thankfully its not my job to teach you. Maybe stay away from tryna play the "science card" in future. Most "pro life" try to avoid it.

This is all semantics. I don't recognize a woman who has transitioned to a man as a 'man'. She is biologically a woman.

AryaStark · 25-09-2017 06:49PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

January wrote: »

If it wasn't viable outside the womb then yes, otherwise that just wouldn't happen. If a fetus has reached viability and the mother requests that a termination of pregnancy take place, then the woman would be induced or given a cesarean and a live birth would take place.

2% of abortions take place after 20 weeks and they were either for fatal fetal abnormalities or threat to the mother's' life.

But you just keep on using your emotional blackmail there.

I'm asking him a hypothetical question. If the legislation permitted abortion up until the day before delivery, would you support it?

What a stupid question. Nobody in their right mind would support something like that and it has never been requested. It is not what any pro choice or pro abortion people are looking for.

Personally I would only support abortion up to 12 weeks and maybe 16 if their is a medical reason.

DickSwiveller · 25-09-2017 06:54PM

AryaStark wrote: »

What a stupid question. Nobody in their right mind would support something like that and it has never been requested. It is not what any pro choice or pro abortion people are looking for.

Personally I would only support abortion up to 12 weeks and maybe 16 if their is a medical reason.

Mr Gmail said it's not a human until it's born, so why would he have a problem aborting it a day before?

AnGaelach · 25-09-2017 06:57PM

wes wrote: »

So people on the other side exercising there right to free speech, by contacting the hotel about how there against the event is perfectly valid. Free speech whether the Right likes it or not, is a 2 way street. You can say what you like, but so can the other guy.

If you are going to support the right to harass a business until it caves to self-censorship under the guise of free speech, then you must hold true that everyone has the right to say anything they want?

If I was to send 50 pages of slander to a Mosque about Mohammed being a pedophile and pictures drawn of him, would you still hold the position that I'm merely exercising my right to free speech? Or would you, like any sane person, consider it harassment?

I find it highly doubtful that you would protect it under free speech.

Outlaw Pete · 25-09-2017 06:58PM

January wrote: »

I didn't say I would be ok with such abortions, I said I don't need to be ok with them because they just don't happen.

Come on, that's semantics tbf. You said you support abortions to term. As for them not happening, they do, and as I'm sure you're aware, women often give birth and then kill the baby shortly afterwards. Two women in the UK this year alone have been jailed for that. So let's not pretend that it never happens. Google Sarah Catt and you'll fine one of the more notorious ones in recent times.

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. I know women that will say it's nobody's business what a woman does with her fetus but yet agree with the jailing of women that try and procure abortions past 24 weeks.

Imo discussions like these only ever get places when people are willing to honestly answer questions. The truth is that every single person that ever walked Planet Earth that has an opinion on when an abortion should be legal and when it should be illegal, has formed their view based on fetal development (excluding risk to life, fta etc). Everything else is background noise and indulged usually in an effort to impress other people.

So what everyone should do (if they genuinely want a discussion on abortion) is declare what stage of fetal development it is that they are okay with a healthy woman choosing to abort a healthy fetus at. Then, and only then, can any meaningful discussion take place.

One eyed Jack · 25-09-2017 07:01PM

AryaStark wrote: »

What a stupid question. Nobody in their right mind would support something like that and it has never been requested. It is not what any pro choice or pro abortion people are looking for.

Personally I would only support abortion up to 12 weeks and maybe 16 if their is a medical reason.

Except that's not really true -

On the question of whether there should be no restriction on the reasons for allowing abortion, 64 per cent agreed but just 8 per cent agreed with no regard to gestational age.

Source: Citizens’ Assembly backs abortion rights in wide range of circumstances, Irish Times.

Whether they're in their right mind or not is surely a determination that can only be made by a medical professional, with a great deal more evidence to hand than just that persons one single opinion on a single issue which you happen to disagree with them about.

Also it's untrue to suggest that late-term abortions just don't happen, they do. They're rare, but given that one of the ways around the federal ban on partial-birth abortions in the US is to induce foetal demise before extraction, that can tend to fudge the statistics.

pitifulgod · 25-09-2017 07:03PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

If you are going to support the right to harass a business until it caves to self-censorship under the guise of free speech, then you must hold true that everyone has the right to say anything they want?

If I was to send 50 pages of slander to a Mosque about Mohammed being a pedophile and pictures drawn of him, would you still hold the position that I'm merely exercising my right to free speech? Or would you, like any sane person, consider it harassment?

I find it highly doubtful that you would protect it under free speech.

The hotel has no indicated in any way that they were harassed. People outlining their concerns to the hotel is a right. It's as simple as.

frag420 · 25-09-2017 07:16PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

This is all semantics. I don't recognize a woman who has transitioned to a man as a 'man'. She is biologically a woman.

She is biologically a female...

pjohnson · 25-09-2017 07:27PM

frag420 wrote: »

She is biologically a female...

Goaway outta thank junk science :P

AryaStark · 25-09-2017 07:50PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

January wrote: »

I didn't say I would be ok with such abortions, I said I don't need to be ok with them because they just don't happen.

Come on, that's semantics tbf. You said you support abortions to term. As for them not happening, they do, and as I'm sure you're aware, women often give birth and then kill the baby shortly afterwards. Two women in the UK this year alone have been jailed for that. So let's not pretend that it never happens. Google Sarah Catt and you'll fine one of the more notorious ones in recent times.

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. I know women that will say it's nobody's business what a woman does with her fetus but yet agree with the jailing of women that try and procure abortions past 24 weeks.

Imo discussions like these only ever get places when people are willing to honestly answer questions. The truth is that every single person that ever walked Planet Earth that has an opinion on when an abortion should be legal and when it should be illegal, has formed their view based on fetal development (excluding risk to life, fta etc). Everything else is background noise and indulged usually in an effort to impress other people.

So what everyone should do (if they genuinely want a discussion on abortion) is declare what stage of fetal development it is that they are okay with a healthy woman choosing to abort a healthy fetus at. Then, and only then, can any meaningful discussion take place.

Giving birth and then killing the baby once it is born is not an abortion. This is the problem with this debate... the pro lifers (in my opinion) come up with the most ridiculous irrelevant questions and think that they are making sense. If you give birth and then kill the baby then it is murder... if you visit a clinic and have a medical procedure to remove the foetus then it is an abortion.

AryaStark · 25-09-2017 07:52PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

January wrote: »

I didn't say I would be ok with such abortions, I said I don't need to be ok with them because they just don't happen.

Come on, that's semantics tbf. You said you support abortions to term. As for them not happening, they do, and as I'm sure you're aware, women often give birth and then kill the baby shortly afterwards. Two women in the UK this year alone have been jailed for that. So let's not pretend that it never happens. Google Sarah Catt and you'll fine one of the more notorious ones in recent times.

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. I know women that will say it's nobody's business what a woman does with her fetus but yet agree with the jailing of women that try and procure abortions past 24 weeks.

Imo discussions like these only ever get places when people are willing to honestly answer questions. The truth is that every single person that ever walked Planet Earth that has an opinion on when an abortion should be legal and when it should be illegal, has formed their view based on fetal development (excluding risk to life, fta etc). Everything else is background noise and indulged usually in an effort to impress other people.

So what everyone should do (if they genuinely want a discussion on abortion) is declare what stage of fetal development it is that they are okay with a healthy woman choosing to abort a healthy fetus at. Then, and only then, can any meaningful discussion take place.

Giving birth and then killing the baby once it is born is not an abortion. This is the problem with this debate... the pro lifers (in my opinion) come up with the most ridiculous irrelevant questions and think that they are making sense. If you give birth and then kill the baby then it is murder... if you visit a clinic and have a medical procedure to remove the foetus then it is an abortion.

thee glitz · 25-09-2017 08:04PM

AryaStark wrote: »

If you give birth and then kill the baby then it is murder... if you visit a clinic and have a medical procedure to remove the foetus then it is an abortion.

The end result is the same though.

Outlaw Pete · 25-09-2017 08:05PM

AryaStark wrote: »

Giving birth and then killing the baby once it is born is not an abortion. This is the problem with this debate...

:rolleyes:

Nobody said that they were abortions. I even used the words 'give birth' ffs:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

......women often give birth and then kill the baby shortly afterwards.

The reason I cited such cases was to show what nonsense it is to suggest that women wouldn't consider late term abortions unless they were medically necessary, when in fact some women have been known to go further than that and kill babies they have just given birth to.

I referenced Sarah Catt as an example of someone who had an illegal late term abortion.

AryaStark · 25-09-2017 08:34PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

AryaStark wrote: »

Giving birth and then killing the baby once it is born is not an abortion. This is the problem with this debate...

:rolleyes:

Nobody said that they were abortions. I even used the words 'give birth' ffs:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

......women often give birth and then kill the baby shortly afterwards.

The reason I cited such cases was to show what nonsense it is to suggest that women wouldn't consider late term abortions unless they were medically necessary, when in fact some women have been known to go further than that and kill babies they have just given birth to.

I referenced Sarah Catt as an example of someone who had an illegal late term abortion.

But it is not what we were talking about in this thread. The women who do that or would consider it are not considering a late abortion.
If it is not abortion or late abortion then why bring it into the conversation except to try to cause confusion. Very annoying.

AryaStark · 25-09-2017 08:36PM

thee glitz wrote: »

AryaStark wrote: »

If you give birth and then kill the baby then it is murder... if you visit a clinic and have a medical procedure to remove the foetus then it is an abortion.

The end result is the same though.

No its not!!! There my argument is now as stupid as yours!!! Pro lifers and their arguments and semantics are one of the biggest problems in this argument.

AryaStark · 25-09-2017 08:38PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

AryaStark wrote: »

Giving birth and then killing the baby once it is born is not an abortion. This is the problem with this debate...

:rolleyes:

Nobody said that they were abortions. I even used the words 'give birth' ffs:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

......women often give birth and then kill the baby shortly afterwards.

The reason I cited such cases was to show what nonsense it is to suggest that women wouldn't consider late term abortions unless they were medically necessary, when in fact some women have been known to go further than that and kill babies they have just given birth to.

I referenced Sarah Catt as an example of someone who had an illegal late term abortion.

Here is a quote from the post I was replying to

" You said you support abortions to term. As for them not happening, they do, and as I'm sure you're aware, women often give birth and then kill the baby shortly afterwards."
What do you mean when you say that they do happen and then talk about women giving birth as an example. See saying something and then denying it when you cannot explain it is not an effective argument. You are trying to confuse the issue and sounding very silly in the process.

thee glitz · 25-09-2017 09:01PM

AryaStark wrote: »

No its not!!! There my argument is now as stupid as yours!!! Pro lifers and their arguments and semantics are one of the biggest problems in this argument.

The baby's dead either way, so the result is the same.

Outlaw Pete · 25-09-2017 09:05PM

AryaStark wrote: »

What do you mean when you say that they do happen and then talk about women giving birth as an example.

Eh, I just answered that:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The reason I cited such cases was to show what nonsense it is to suggest that women wouldn't consider late term abortions unless they were medically necessary, when in fact some women have been known to go further than that and kill babies they have just given birth to.

I cited Sarah Catt as an example of a late term abortion.

And again, these cases are only referenced to show that they sometimes happens, not that they are the norm, or that they would become so were the law to allow it.

SafeSurfer · 25-09-2017 09:05PM

AryaStark wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

AryaStark wrote: »

If you give birth and then kill the baby then it is murder... if you visit a clinic and have a medical procedure to remove the foetus then it is an abortion.

The end result is the same though.

No its not!!! There my argument is now as stupid as yours!!! Pro lifers and their arguments and semantics are one of the biggest problems in this argument.

Much of the controversy and debate about the abortion question centres on when a feutus is considered a human.

There are a wide range of opinions ranging from conception to birth.
The question then is once agreement is reached on the point at which one becomes a human, what rights are afforded to that human?

Should the human be afforded full human rights such as the right to life or some lesser degree of rights. Should the rights of the mother take precedence over the rights of the human in her womb.

Even in Roe vs Wade the Supreme Court didn't attempt to determine when one should be considered a human.

Many in the pro life campaign are adamant that life begins at conception because it is unambiguous etc.
To my knowledge very few pro choice advocates believe that a fetus becomes human only after birth.

Richard Bingham · 25-09-2017 09:59PM

This thread has strayed quite a bit in the last 24 hours and most of it is rubbish talk about men having babies and such but its definitely good that it has been clarified that the pro aborts here want the right to kill anyone who hasn't been born right up to birth, because obviously the action of passing through the birth canal turns you from a blob of cells into a fully formed human being. The main reason this is good is because even limited abortion would end up being widespread abortion as is the case in every country in the world that has tried to keep it limited so it's good that voters will know exactly what they are voting for.

You are a small and very unrepresentative portion of the population. The pro abortion lobby were actually on to something a couple of years ago when they had the likes of Claire Daly and her ilk on RTE and TV3 spouting about compassion for rape victims etc. Now that the debate has moved on and the pro abortion side has admitted that it wants a licence to kill for convenience there isn't a snowflakes chance in hell of the Eight being repealed.

One eyed Jack · 25-09-2017 10:13PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Now that the debate has moved on and the pro abortion side has admitted that it wants a licence to kill for convenience there isn't a snowflakes chance in hell of the Eight being repealed.

I personally wouldn't nearly be so certain of that Richard. There will be plenty of people who will use any opportunity, including Referenda, to two-fingers both the imaginary people they imagine are opposed to their ideological positions, and indeed the Government of the day.

PopePalpatine · 25-09-2017 10:16PM

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

Billy86 · 25-09-2017 10:25PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Th...but its definitely good that it has been clarified that the pro aborts here want the right to kill anyone who hasn't been born right up to birth...

I could just as easily say I can't believe that you just called yourself a frustrated virgin who might or might have have a 'thing' for kids, but I guess it's good for you to come out and confess to it. This whole pretending people said things they never did game is fun isn't it!

bilbot79 · 25-09-2017 10:31PM

This thread clearly started by someone pro life.

I think it's ridiculous venues can't associate with groups exercising free opinion.

Things are changing with every generation though. Pretty sure the pro lifers today are the last of them. It's the way things are going, old Ireland is dead.

25-09-2017 11:00PM

Grayson wrote: »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3841747/

There was a push by pro life groups because they saw abortion as bad and miscarriage as natural. At the same time the term abortion was getting such bad press and carried such stigma that the medical establishment started pushing for the term miscarriage to be adopted so their patients wouldn't feel stigma.

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.

January wrote: »

Abortion right up to a few days before birth just does not happen. 92 percent of abortions are performed before 14 weeks of pregnancy. 2% of abortions happen after 20 weeks of pregnancy, the statistics in Australia is that 2% is 96 abortions and of those 96 abortions, 56 of them were for actual or probable fetal abnormality, the rest were for threat to the mother's life.

In cases where the fetus is viable and there is a threat to the mother's life, then every attempt will be made to birth a live baby, termination of pregnancy, not termination of fetus.

Nobody gets to 6 months into their pregnancy and just decides to terminate the pregnancy, if they're making that decision then they're making it for a very very heartbreaking reason, not on a whim.

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]

January wrote: »

Yup. Abortion, doesn't always = killing a 'baby'. Abortion can mean termination of pregnancy resulting in a live birth. I support fully abortion to term. Knowing that the killing of 'babies' the day before they are due to be delivered just does not happen, anywhere in this world.

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

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Comments