Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

The activists have body cameras apparently filming anyone who approaches them and they do not engage in debate.

A strange kind of "intimidation". I'd imagine the body cameras are there to deter would-be attackers.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

A strange kind of "intimidation". I'd imagine the body cameras are there to deter would-be attackers.

From the Irish Times

An anti-abortion group that uses extreme imagery as a deliberate shock tactic has targeted Dublin’s three maternity hospitals with banner-style pictures of dismembered foetuses.

What kind of an utter sicko waves banners of dismembered foetuses around outside a maternity hospital? Can you imagine the negative impact this would have on pregnant women regardless of whether they're even considering abortion, which clearly none of those being currently targeted are as it has yet to enter legislation. Needless to say they're part of a right wing American group. So yeah, definitely intimidating and deeply unpleasant.

smacl wrote: »

What kind of an utter sicko waves banners of dismembered foetuses around outside a maternity hospital?

...definitely intimidating and deeply unpleasant.

Did you examine the photo above?
They are leaning nonchalantly against a banner depicting a living embryo.
The report says they avoid debate and confrontation. Bodycams would be there to prove that policy, in the event of any assault on them by "liberals".
You don't seem to understand the true meaning of the word "intimidation". Nor indeed, I suspect, the words "liberal" or "progressive".

aloyisious

Cabaal wrote: »

No doubt some will and some did, when I went canvassing for yes during the ref the first door I called to I was told their story about how they had to get a credit union loan to travel to Manchester.

For somebody to open up like this to a perfect stranger really floored me, but it I guess it showed how tired some people were of remaining silent! It was part of a greater shift in society that resulted in yes being a landslide.

That's fine, they could manage a loan, but in all honesty some people don't seem to realise just how poor some people are. Getting a loan is all fine and we'll but I've known people that got loans to pay a electric bill of 150euro.

Now, Manchester could cost you closer to 1k plus depending on short notice flights, accom (if needed), type of procedure, food, taxi etc.

A loan of this amount could really cripple a person and prevent them from paying other bills.

Maybe [and it's a big maybe] there might come a time where the HSE would fund abortion operations here for Irish women [citizens] in the way that the UK's NHS cover's the cost for it's citizens in their home region through the local NHS. I'm looking at the costs of women from NI now being borne by the English branch of the NHS after a change of heart on funding by the UK health secretary last month following the hoohah raised in parliament, and this after the UK SC backed the NI court decision not to get involved in local governmental decision-making where health funding for abortion is concerned.

aloyisious

smacl wrote: »

From the Irish Times

What kind of an utter sicko waves banners of dismembered foetuses around outside a maternity hospital? Can you imagine the negative impact this would have on pregnant women regardless of whether they're even considering abortion, which clearly none of those being currently targeted are as it has yet to enter legislation. Needless to say they're part of a right wing American group. So yeah, definitely intimidating and deeply unpleasant.

It's noticeable that they are standing on the Merrion Square side of the Holles St & Mount St junction. Presumably they wish to avoid an injunction being granted against physical closeness to all the women using the hospital, incl it's staff, the banners being extra large to make up for the distance. The two gents in short hi-vis bibs, pale [blue?] shirts & dark slacks in the background are noticeable too. If the protestors are wearing body cameras, it's equally likely they are being used to provide footage for future NO campaign propaganda videos in general.

gctest50

recedite wrote: »

Did you examine the photo above?
They are leaning nonchalantly against a banner depicting a living embryo.

Even if it is living/intact/whatever - you don't see how distressing that could be to a woman who may be borderline having a miscarriage ?

recedite wrote: »

The report says they avoid debate and confrontation. Bodycams would be there to prove that policy, in the event of any assault on them by "liberals".
You don't seem to understand the true meaning of the word "intimidation". Nor indeed, I suspect, the words "liberal" or "progressive".

It's a very carefully thought out type of intimidation

- a bit like the paedophiles that go to places abroad instead of hover around the local school

recedite wrote: »

A strange kind of "intimidation". I'd imagine the body cameras are there to deter would-be attackers.

ICBR are filth, you couldn't guarantee what they'd be up to with footage

.

I don't think a woman having a miscarriage would really notice the guy leaning against the railings across the road.
Also, I'm pretty sure she would have attended pre-natal classes displaying similar pictures, maybe they even have similar pics inside the building there.

I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but this aversion pro-abortion campaigners have to any pictures of a normal, healthy, natural pregnancy is a bit strange.
Its almost like the Victorian era missionary's aversion to seeing bare flesh. Behind it lies some dark and unnatural mental hang-up.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but this aversion pro-abortion campaigners have to any pictures of a normal, healthy, natural pregnancy is a bit strange.

It's certainly no more odd than somebody showing a video outside a church of a married couple having sex, or close-ups of sphincters outside a proctologist's office, or some nice juicy crap outside a sewage processing plant, or dismembered bodies outside an army base, or images of decaying corpses outside a graveyard.

Would it be a matter of taste or sensibility or basic decency?

robindch wrote: »

Would it be a matter of taste or sensibility or basic decency?

The only one of your examples directly comparable IMO is the close-ups of sphincters outside a proctologist's office, which I would consider inoffensive in that location.
In regard to placards outside an army base, would pictures of children playing happily be offensive if accompanied by the words "don't bomb civilians"?

Hannibal_Smith

recedite wrote: »

smacl wrote: »

What kind of an utter sicko waves banners of dismembered foetuses around outside a maternity hospital?

...definitely intimidating and deeply unpleasant.

Did you examine the photo above?
They are leaning nonchalantly against a banner depicting a living embryo.
The report says they avoid debate and confrontation. Bodycams would be there to prove that policy, in the event of any assault on them by "liberals".
You don't seem to understand the true meaning of the word "intimidation". Nor indeed, I suspect, the words "liberal" or "progressive".

Have you any idea the amount of women suffering a miscarriage at the moment, or who are in the early stages of pregnancy suffering a bleed and sick with worry that it may not be good news. They park up the car and turn the corner at merrion square and there in front of them are two massive posters of two feotuses?

Jesus Christ, will they ever get some flaming compassion. Or at least open their minds just a crack. If I had seen them as I was walking in for my scan, or out with my tablets they would have slayed me. It's like those with the posters are completely fixated on their agenda without any thought for anyone. It really makes me so angry.

Hannibal_Smith

recedite wrote: »

I don't think a woman having a miscarriage would really notice the guy leaning against the railings across the road.
Also, I'm pretty sure she would have attended pre-natal classes displaying similar pictures, maybe they even have similar pics inside the building there.

I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but this aversion pro-abortion campaigners have to any pictures of a normal, healthy, natural pregnancy is a bit strange.
Its almost like the Victorian era missionary's aversion to seeing bare flesh. Behind it lies some dark and unnatural mental hang-up.

You don't go to ante natal classes in the first 12 weeks, when the majority of miscarriages happen. There are pictures of embryos all over the hospital. But you expect to see them there. The majority of them are animated drawings iirc. But it doesn't matter, when you're going through a miscarriage the hospital looks completely different. You don't notice things you would normally and all of a sudden it becomes like any other hospital. Your head seems to protect you because it knows all these signs of what you're losing is everywhere so it works with you.

What you don't expect is to turn the corner and see two giant sizes fetuses on the street. Standing there right in front of you are two huge pictures of what you've lost/are losing where you don't expect it and outside a building where you would expect care and compassion during your grief.

No one would do that to you. No one would show you a picture of a scan during such a time, unless you were ok to see it.

You can label it Victorian all you want, but in a time of grieving such harshness is never usually expected.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

I don't think a woman having a miscarriage would really notice the guy leaning against the railings across the road.
Also, I'm pretty sure she would have attended pre-natal classes displaying similar pictures, maybe they even have similar pics inside the building there.

I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but this aversion pro-abortion campaigners have to any pictures of a normal, healthy, natural pregnancy is a bit strange.
Its almost like the Victorian era missionary's aversion to seeing bare flesh. Behind it lies some dark and unnatural mental hang-up.

So much for LoveBoth. The hypocrisy of the No campaign knows no bounds.

.......

This post has been deleted.

recedite wrote: »

I don't think a woman having a miscarriage would really notice the guy leaning against the railings across the road.
Also, I'm pretty sure she would have attended pre-natal classes displaying similar pictures, maybe they even have similar pics inside the building there.

I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but this aversion pro-abortion campaigners have to any pictures of a normal, healthy, natural pregnancy is a bit strange.
Its almost like the Victorian era missionary's aversion to seeing bare flesh. Behind it lies some dark and unnatural mental hang-up.

I am pregnant and had and continue to have a lot of testing in Holles street because of a possible fatal abnormality. I most definitely noticed these ****ers outside when I had to go in and out of the hospital for amniocentesis, scans, blood tests and antenatal appointments. They don't give a **** about pregnant women, they only care about exercising control.

[Deleted User]

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, he still wonders why his side lost...

Over on the relationship issues forum a poster is anxious to have discovered that his partner (who he referred to as “a girl” in the OP) is pregnant and he feels reluctant to become a parent.
Two different replies have encouraged him to tell her to “get rid of it”.
One of the many reasons I voted no was the fact that women all over the world are put under pressure to have an abortion every day.
How do the yes voters feel about this and have they any suggestions about how it might be countered?

.......

This post has been deleted.

splinter65 wrote: »

Over on the relationship issues forum a poster is anxious to have discovered that his partner (who he referred to as “a girl” in the OP) is pregnant and he feels reluctant to become a parent.
Two different replies have encouraged him to tell her to “get rid of it”.
One of the many reasons I voted no was the fact that women all over the world are put under pressure to have an abortion every day.
How do the yes voters feel about this and have they any suggestions about how it might be countered?

Women and men are put under all sorts of pressure to do all sorts of things every day. We don't have constitutional provisions based on any situation where someone might be pressured to do something, the very notion is laughable.

....... wrote: »

This happens regardless of whether or not abortion is legal and if a woman is pressured into having an abortion I would FAR prefer that she experience less stress and angst by at least being able to access services in Ireland where she can have follow up counselling etc rather than being forced to get the boat and have a culture of shame ensuring her silence.

By repealing the 8th it affords women in such a situation a far better chance to speak to someone about what is going on, and hopefully get out of the abusive relationship.

Voting no just ensured that this culture of shame enabled such abuse more thoroughly.

You simply can’t pretend that it’s not far easier to bully a woman into an abortion if it’s just a question of dropping her to the GPs surgery and waiting outside then having to raise the money for a trip to the UK. It’s not just partners who bully and cajole either, it can be families and even close friends.
Abortion is another way for women to be abused. You’ve just said that you’d prefer that they are abused in the comfort of their own community then abused in another jurisdiction. If you can’t see how sad that is then I don’t know what else to say.

nozzferrahhtoo

Amazing that people being "bullied" (interesting that word has been introduced so quickly when in the first post you just said "encouraged". That escalated quickly) to have an abortion they do not want is a concern to some people, yet to those same people the women who DO want one but are "bullied" not to are not.

This is not an abortion issue. People are pressured (a more honest word I feel) to make decisions, or not make decisions, all the time by people with varying levels of vested interest. In general this is not a good thing, but it is reality. Why should we specifically be concerned about it in terms of abortion and not just in general terms?

As for how to "counter" it there is little we should do and less we can do. But one think we can and should do is make sure all women have as many other options as possible, and that those options are accessible, comprehensive, understandable and readily available. The more options a woman, pressured or not, has the less likely she will feel compelled by circumstance or other people into choosing the one she does not actually want.

That said however, leaping to word like "bullying" is also cajoling people like the guy you have referred to. He has every right to make his feelings known, to make it known what option he would prefer she take, and offer his reasons as to why he feels she should be encouraged to make that decision. None of that is per se a bad thing in and of itself. And it certainly is not "bullying".

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

You simply can’t pretend that it’s not far easier to bully a woman into an abortion if it’s just a question of dropping her to the GPs surgery and waiting outside then having to raise the money for a trip to the UK. It’s not just partners who bully and cajole either, it can be families and even close friends.
Abortion is another way for women to be abused. You’ve just said that you’d prefer that they are abused in the comfort of their own community then abused in another jurisdiction. If you can’t see how sad that is then I don’t know what else to say.

How many women are bullied or forced into having children?
Ban childbirth?

lazygal wrote: »

Women and men are put under all sorts of pressure to do all sorts of things every day. We don't have constitutional provisions based on any situation where someone might be pressured to do something, the very notion is laughable.

I wasn’t suggesting that there might be a constitutional provision to prevent forced abortions. Women are bullied into abortions everyday. It’s going to be a lot easier to bully them when they don’t have to go all the way to Liverpool. I don’t know why you’d laugh at the idea that it’s time to seriously start educating secondary school children about having respect for themselves and respect for one another.
Girls are going to need to know that if they don’t want to have the abortion they are being told they’ll have to have, that they can go to someone independent for help.
Boys are going to have to be taught that just because abortions are legal it doesn’t mean that the girl you had unprotected sex with has to have one just because you don’t want to be a father yet.
They don’t need a lot of sex education. Mostly they’ve got it pretty accurate. What they’re very poor on is sexually transmitted diseases which I’m told are on the steady increase, and a total lack of respect. The Ministers for Health and Education need to work on this.

splinter65 wrote: »

I wasn’t suggesting that there might be a constitutional provision to prevent forced abortions. Women are bullied into abortions everyday. It’s going to be a lot easier to bully them when they don’t have to go all the way to Liverpool. I don’t know why you’d laugh at the idea that it’s time to seriously start educating secondary school children about having respect for themselves and respect for one another.
Girls are going to need to know that if they don’t want to have the abortion they are being told they’ll have to have, that they can go to someone independent for help.
Boys are going to have to be taught that just because abortions are legal it doesn’t mean that the girl you had unprotected sex with has to have one just because you don’t want to be a father yet.
They don’t need a lot of sex education. Mostly they’ve got it pretty accurate. What they’re very poor on is sexually transmitted diseases which I’m told are on the steady increase, and a total lack of respect. The Ministers for Health and Education need to work on this.

Most people having abortions aren't 'girls in trouble'. They're women who already have children and are making a choice about their family size. Tell me how me, a 36 year old woman who's pregnant, needs more education on STDs and to be prevented from accessing abortion in Ireland in case my husband tries to pressure me into an abortion?

King Mob wrote: »

How many women are bullied or forced into having children?
Ban childbirth?

Ban c sections and episiotomies, women are bullied into them every day. :rolleyes:

King Mob wrote: »

How many women are bullied or forced into having children?
Ban childbirth?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.her.ie/amp/news/parents-forced-abortion-368578

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/pregnancy/2500674-Feel-bullied-into-abortion

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/02/coerced-into-abortion/460113/

http://www.tampabay.com/italy-brings-pakistani-woman-back-after-forced-abortion-ap_world22c8b0a23ba042c9859217ad36917c0b

2 minutes of Googling.
Please don’t tell me that you doubt anyone is going to be bullied into an abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

So keen were you to google that you did not actually read the question King Mob asked you, and you ran off to answer the question you instead WANTED him to have asked you.

Even then however your links are laughable. The first three are nothing but a small handful of personal anecdotes. Hardly statistically significant. The final one not only is an anecdote but likely has less to do with abortion and more to do with messed up cultural and religious attitudes to how and why the girl was pregnant in the first place.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

2 minutes of Googling.
Please don’t tell me that you doubt anyone is going to be bullied into an abortion.

So your solution to this was to force less choice on women.
Your logic is bad.

.......

This post has been deleted.