Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

The Legend Of Kira · 29-09-2017 07:01PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Yeah that's the odd thing - the rights of rape victims to choose whether or not to continue with a pregnancy are in no way threatened by the campaign to repeal the 8th amendment.

The 8th prevents rape victims from having any choice in the matter.

Pro-choice means supporting the rights of all, including victims of rape, to Choose whether or not to remain pregnant. By lending their support to the pro-life movement, the women in question are declaring that women who were victims of rape, like themselves should be denied a right that they themselves had.

"" By lending their support to the pro-life movement ""

Exactly they lend to their support to the pro life movement, this doesn,t suit or fit some peoples,s narrative/agenda hence why some people want them silenced, out of respect Im not gonna mention the persons name; a certain woman with the pro choice campaign spoke a radio a few times that she went to England for an abortion after being raped, now lets say for arguments sake if the pro choice campaign booked a venue with her as one of the main speakers to talk about her story, & lets imagine of the hotel canceled the meeting because of pressure on the venue, chances are there d be a lot more outrage at her being silenced because shes speaking from the pro choice point of view which fits some people,s narrative/agenda .

The Legend Of Kira · 29-09-2017 07:12PM

B0jangles wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No. Pro choice means denying the right to life of those currently protected under the 8th amendment of the constitution.

Forgive me, I should have clarified that I was referring to all persons in actual existence, not potential persons.

Ok im gonna pose a question about this "" potential persons."" argument.
This is a video of an MRI scan, I can see the baby moving in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG2BAC8E07A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG2BAC8E07A
This is another video of a scan that shows an ultrasound + heartbeat.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG2BAC8E07A

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

Now if its only a " potential person " ? why is there a heartbeat detected ? if someones heart stop he/she is pronounced dead, when a heart starts shouldn,t someone be pronounced alive ? not a " potential person " ?

B0jangles wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No. Pro choice means denying the right to life of those currently protected under the 8th amendment of the constitution.

Forgive me, I should have clarified that I was referring to all persons in actual existence, not potential persons.

Ok im gonna pose a question about this "" potential persons."" argument.
This is a video of an MRI scan, I can see the baby moving in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG2BAC8E07A
This is another video of a scan that shows an ultrasound + heartbeat.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG2BAC8E07A

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG2BAC8E07A

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

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

Now if its only a " potential person " ? why is there a heartbeat detected ? if someones heart stop he/she is pronounced dead, when a heart starts shouldn,t someone be pronounced alive ? not a " potential person " ?

Billy86 · 29-09-2017 07:14PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

And yet, tonnes of people still believe in all of these ""

Only a small per % believe in such stuff, if a big per % were taking such stuff seriously one would think there,d be a big drop in sales- which hasn,t happened .

You mean like how over half the states in the US are now struggling to meet government targets for MMR vaccinations, with almost 20% of children in Colorado not having had it? Because apparently they give you autism, are full of harmful and toxic chemicals, are not worthwhile and have no benefits, lead to poorer health than unvaccinated people, and countless other lies that get hammered out relentlessly because much like the pro-lifers, Brexiteers still waiting on their £350mn and several others they know this 'constant wall of lies' technique works.

gctest50 · 29-09-2017 07:27PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

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

Now if its only a " potential person " ? why is there a heartbeat detected ? if someones heart stop he/she is pronounced dead, when a heart starts shouldn,t someone be pronounced alive ? not a " potential person " ?

here's a few in under a microscope, beating away :

This is human heart muscle in a dish, beating spontaneously.

SafeSurfer · 29-09-2017 07:31PM

B0jangles wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No. Pro choice means denying the right to life of those currently protected under the 8th amendment of the constitution.

Forgive me, I should have clarified that I was referring to all persons in actual existence, not potential persons.

So you don't believe that babies exist until birth?
Perhaps carried into the arms of their mothers by a stork?

Outlaw Pete · 29-09-2017 07:33PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Ok im gonna pose a question about this potential persons."" argument. This is a video of an MRI scan, I can see the baby moving in the video.

Be prepared to be told all fetal movement is evoked and/or autonomic. In other words no more relevant than the movement observed during a patellar reflex test or when your leg twitches. Along also with a condescending 'It's understandable that you feel there could be more tof the movement than that, what with fetuses being baby shaped and all'.

SafeSurfer · 29-09-2017 07:34PM

gctest50 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No. Pro choice means denying the right to life of those currently protected under the 8th amendment of the constitution.

No it doesn't, no matter how many times you say it

Pro-choice does not mean compulsory abortions for anyone

A sore point for you is it?
Repealing the 8th will extinguish the rights of as many as it will vindicate.

gctest50 · 29-09-2017 07:40PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

This is a video of an MRI scan, I can see the baby moving in the video.

That video is from iFind

who are looking at automated screening for fetal abnormalities

http://www.ifindproject.com

"Research led by King’s College London proposes to develop new computer guided ultrasound technologies that will allow screening of fetal abnormalities in an automated and uniform fashion. "

SafeSurfer · 29-09-2017 07:41PM

gctest50 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No. Pro choice means denying the right to life of those currently protected under the 8th amendment of the constitution.

No it doesn't, no matter how many times you say it

Pro-choice does not mean compulsory abortions for anyone

Repealing the eight would remove the explicit right to life of the unborn in the Irish constitution and the commitment of the state to respect, defend and vindicate that right.

Do you honestly deny this?

pilly · 29-09-2017 07:46PM

Here we go, another thread goes to ****. The discussion is about a meeting being cancelled.

SafeSurfer · 29-09-2017 07:48PM

pilly wrote: »

Here we go, another thread goes to ****. The discussion is about a meeting being cancelled.

The thread is posters going round in circles performing moral gymnastics defending the prevention of people including a rape victim from speaking.

gctest50 · 29-09-2017 07:55PM

pilly wrote: »

Here we go, another thread goes to ****. The discussion is about a meeting being cancelled.

That's what some of the Anti-Choicer do, here and on other forums

If they're not happy because it's not going their way, they'll break out the YouTubes and pictures - much like them waving banners of surgical procedures around on the street

Eventually the thread is so far off track it gets closed, and they see it as a little victory

If abortion was legal tomorrow ( same as Canada say ) they'd move on to Euthanasia

It's a money racket

Akrasia · 29-09-2017 08:33PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The thread is posters going round in circles performing moral gymnastics defending the prevention of people including a rape victim from speaking.

It's annoying when people prevent you from doing something isn't it. If only the speaker had the freedom to choose to speak at the event.

When a rape victim uses her ordeal as a platform to shame other rape victims for making a different choice to her, she loses a lot of sympathy

SafeSurfer · 29-09-2017 08:41PM

Akrasia wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The thread is posters going round in circles performing moral gymnastics defending the prevention of people including a rape victim from speaking.

It's annoying when people prevent you from doing something isn't it. If only the speaker had the freedom to choose to speak at the event.

When a rape victim uses her ordeal as a platform to shame other rape victims for making a different choice to her, she loses a lot of sympathy

The liar reappears without answers or apologies.

Avoiding my previous post directed at you Akrasia?

gctest50 · 29-09-2017 08:57PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The liar reappears without answers or apologies.

Avoiding my previous post directed at you Akrasia?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You say you phrased your post poorly.
This is what you said:

The unbroken group is almost as bad as the Human Life International group.

They spread lies by saying women who have an abortion after a rape are more likely to commit suicide than if they had the baby which is the exact opposite of the truth

But they didn't spread lies. You lied. What you said is the exact opposite of the truth.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

[/B]But they didn't[/B] spread lies. You lied. What you said is the exact opposite of the truth.

Have you any sources for this "truth" ?

Any links ?

The Legend Of Kira · 29-09-2017 09:29PM

Akrasia wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The thread is posters going round in circles performing moral gymnastics defending the prevention of people including a rape victim from speaking.

It's annoying when people prevent you from doing something isn't it. If only the speaker had the freedom to choose to speak at the event.

When a rape victim uses her ordeal as a platform to shame other rape victims for making a different choice to her, she loses a lot of sympathy

I watched one of the speakers last night through the livestreaming from their FB page last night, + I heard two from ( Unbroken ) speak on the Niall Boylan radio show the other day, neither time did I hear either them trying to shame other rape victims, if you have any evidence to backup your claim please post it , please post a video or a screenshot of a quote from one of them shaming rape victims .

The Legend Of Kira · 29-09-2017 09:53PM

Interesting that at the moment only 10 signed their name to this letter opposing forced cancelation of pro life meetings.

https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/913728424174342145

I also note not one Td who supports Repeal signed their name to it, ask yourselves why not ? when they don,t speak out & condemn wrongdoing done from their side such as tearing down posters & mob pressure to get meetings canceled, it kinda sends out a message that they condone such behavior when they remain silent & refuse to condemn it.

Akrasia · 29-09-2017 11:07PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I watched one of the speakers last night through the livestreaming from their FB page last night, + I heard two from ( Unbroken ) speak on the Niall Boylan radio show the other day, neither time did I hear either them trying to shame other rape victims, if you have any evidence to backup your claim please post it , please post a video or a screenshot of a quote from one of them shaming rape victims .

Their entire argument is that women who were raped should be legally prohibited from getting an abortions. So any rape victim unfortunate enough to get pregnant who doesn't choose to keep the 'baby' is fundamentally wrong and deserves criminal punishment

The Legend Of Kira · 29-09-2017 11:26PM

I didn,t hear them advocate " criminal punishment "either- their argument is rapists should be punished instead of babies, I k know some might agree or might disagree with their view- but to call it " victimshaming " is over the top .

Loafing Oaf · 29-09-2017 11:29PM

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/zappone-deeply-concerned-at-venues-refusing-abortion-meetings-1.3238854

Minister for Children Katherine Zappone has said she is “deeply concerned” about venues withdrawing permission for anti-abortion and pro-choice group meetings because of pressure from rival organisations...
“I am deeply concerned to start reading about the fact that there may be less and less public places where citizens can gather to discuss matters. We have to find a way to challenge that,” she told The Irish Times.

I would also be concerned about such a glaring grammatical error in something I was reading.

The Legend Of Kira · 29-09-2017 11:44PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/zappone-deeply-concerned-at-venues-refusing-abortion-meetings-1.3238854

Minister for Children Katherine Zappone has said she is “deeply concerned” about venues withdrawing permission for anti-abortion and pro-choice group meetings because of pressure from rival organisations...
“I am deeply concerned to start reading about the fact that there may be less and less public places where citizens can gather to discuss matters. We have to find a way to challenge that,” she told The Irish Times.

I would also be concerned about such a glaring grammatical error in something I was reading.

Article states "" pro choice campaigners have also complained that a number of other venues have withdrawn permission for events to be held on their premises "" but doesn,t go into exact detail why, ok I disagree with this if a group is willing to pay their own money to rent a venue for a few hours, the venue shouldn,t refuse- last year when John Lyons meeting got canceled at a Gaa hall , Im taking a rough guess the reason it was likely canceled if they might of decided " look we re a sports venue, lets keep politics separate from sport " Im guessing that was the reason .

SafeSurfer · 30-09-2017 07:28AM

Akrasia wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I watched one of the speakers last night through the livestreaming from their FB page last night, + I heard two from ( Unbroken ) speak on the Niall Boylan radio show the other day, neither time did I hear either them trying to shame other rape victims, if you have any evidence to backup your claim please post it , please post a video or a screenshot of a quote from one of them shaming rape victims .

Their entire argument is that women who were raped should be legally prohibited from getting an abortions. So any rape victim unfortunate enough to get pregnant who doesn't choose to keep the 'baby' is fundamentally wrong and deserves criminal punishment

Apologies for challenging you by name directly earlier. I shouldn't have insulted you and I am sorry.

Two thirds of women who become pregnant by rape in Ireland carry their baby to term.
One fifth decide to have an abortion.
The remainder either miscarry or have stillborn babies.

If 20% of pregnant rape victims in Ireland choose to have an abortion it shows that there is an element of choice.

You may argue that it is only choice if you can afford it but this is also true of other acts that are illegal in Ireland because society wishes them to be illegal.

If I wish to have an assisted suicide and I can afford it I can travel to Dignitas in Switzerland where someone will help end my life.

If I cannot afford it I must live until I die naturally.

If the repeal movement campaigns for the right of a person to have the life of another terminated is it not hypocritical to deny the right of a person to have their own life terminated.
How does one reconcile those positions?

Does a demand for bodily autonomy include end of life autonomy?

If the rights of the unborn child enshrined in the 8th amendment are removed.
The week old foetus of some animals will have more protection in Irish law than a three month old human foetus or baby or how ever you wish to describe it.
I would hope that the human foetus would be afforded at least equal protection to the animal foetuses protected in Irish law.

seamus · 30-09-2017 08:02AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If the rights of the unborn child enshrined in the 8th amendment are removed.
The week old foetus of some animals will have more protection in Irish law than a three month old human foetus or baby or how ever you wish to describe it.

This is just plain incorrect.
If the eighth is repealed, abortion will still be illegal by default.

I don't know if you're just ignorant of how law works, or deliberately spreading false information.

Outlaw Pete · 30-09-2017 08:11AM

Akrasia wrote: »

So any rape victim unfortunate enough to get pregnant who doesn't choose to keep the 'baby' is fundamentally wrong and deserves criminal punishment

Why stop there? Why not say they want them chained to beds too.

kylith · 30-09-2017 08:22AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG2BAC8E07A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGKizBGSQpU

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

Now if its only a " potential person " ? why is there a heartbeat detected ? if someones heart stop he/she is pronounced dead, when a heart starts shouldn,t someone be pronounced alive ? not a " potential person " ?

Akrasia · 30-09-2017 08:35AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Apologies for challenging you by name directly earlier. I shouldn't have insulted you and I am sorry.

Don't worry about it. This is a fast moving thread and I haven't read every page, so if I missed a question directed at me, I apologise

Two thirds of women who become pregnant by rape in Ireland carry their baby to term.
One fifth decide to have an abortion.
The remainder either miscarry or have stillborn babies.

If 20% of pregnant rape victims in Ireland choose to have an abortion it shows that there is an element of choice.

You may argue that it is only choice if you can afford it but this is also true of other acts that are illegal in Ireland because society wishes them to be illegal.

If I wish to have an assisted suicide and I can afford it I can travel to Dignitas in Switzerland where someone will help end my life.

If I cannot afford it I must live until I die naturally.

If the repeal movement campaigns for the right of a person to have the life of another terminated is it not hypocritical to deny the right of a person to have their own life terminated.
How does one reconcile those positions?

Does a demand for bodily autonomy include end of life autonomy?

They're two different arguments really so it's only muddying the water to bring in Euthanasia into this debate.

The argument that people can still get abortions by going out of the state if they are in a position to travel is not a good argument for keeping abortion illegal in Ireland.

Forcing women to travel just adds extra misery and pain onto an already (often) miserable and painful decision.
And it denies access to abortion to the young women (sometimes girls) who have been raped by their own family members and aren't in the position to travel under their own resources, and it makes the suffering much worse for the unfortunate couples who discover that their wanted baby has severe complications that are incompatable with life or that would require lifelong 24 hour nursing care.

If the rights of the unborn child enshrined in the 8th amendment are removed.
The week old foetus of some animals will have more protection in Irish law than a three month old human foetus or baby or how ever you wish to describe it.
I would hope that the human foetus would be afforded at least equal protection to the animal foetuses protected in Irish law.

I don't know what law protects livestock foetus' but if there is one, it's there because that foetus is the property of the farmer and it is for the farmer to decide whether to terminate that pregnancy.

A similar law for human pregnancy would be that the woman has the right of protection for her foetus up until the point where she decides that she needs to have an abortion. Give the woman ownership over her own body, and the right to choose whether she wants to carry the pregnancy to term.

If there need to be restrictions as the pregnancy becomes viable outside the uterus, that's fine by me. But in the first trimester at the minimum, the decision should be purely with the pregnant woman and nobody else.

Akrasia · 30-09-2017 08:42AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why stop there? Why not say they want them chained to beds too.

There is a 14 year jail sentence for a woman convicted of having an abortion in Ireland.

The anti repeal side want to keep the law the way it is or even make the law tougher on abortion. This criminalises women who make different choices to them.

SafeSurfer · 30-09-2017 08:47AM

seamus wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If the rights of the unborn child enshrined in the 8th amendment are removed.
The week old foetus of some animals will have more protection in Irish law than a three month old human foetus or baby or how ever you wish to describe it.

This is just plain incorrect.
If the eighth is repealed, abortion will still be illegal by default.

I don't know if you're just ignorant of how law works, or deliberately spreading false information.

Rights enshrined in the constitution cannot be overturned or amended by legislation introduced by the oireachteas.

Repealing the eight will be in tandem with legislative change to legalise abortion in Ireland.

Once the protections afforded by the eight amendment are removed citizens will no longer have a direct say in our abortion laws or how liberal or restrictive they are.

This will be decided according to the whims of the prevailing political majority.

seamus · 30-09-2017 08:49AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Rights enshrined in the constitution cannot be overturned or amended by legislation introduced by the oireachteas.

Repealing the eight will be in tandem with legislative change to legalise abortion in Ireland.

Once the protections afforded by the eight amendment are removed citizens will no longer have a direct say in our abortion laws or how liberal or restrictive they are.

This will be decided according to the whims of the prevailing political majority.

Yeah that's not what you said though. You said without the eighth human foetuses would have less rights than some animal embryos.

That was a lie. You're a liar.

SafeSurfer · 30-09-2017 09:00AM

Akrasia wrote: »

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why stop there? Why not say they want them chained to beds too.

There is a 14 year jail sentence for a woman convicted of having an abortion in Ireland.

The anti repeal side want to keep the law the way it is or even make the law tougher on abortion. This criminalises women who make different choices to them.

Do you accept that in recent years more women have been jailed in England, where abortion is legal, than in Ireland where abortion is illegal, for terminating their own pregnancies?

The law in Ireland takes a compassionate view of these cases as it does with cases where mothers tragically kill or abandon causing death of a new born.

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Comments