Loafing Oaf wrote: » What would be the point of such protests from the pro-life POV anyway though? Presumably to actually deter the GP clinic in question from distributing the abortion pill.
eviltwin wrote: » Funny that pro life groups see an issue with forcing a doctor to do their job but no issue with forcing a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy.
SusieBlue wrote: » What was their slogan again, "Its too extreme, vote No and demand a better solution from the government". Some people seem to have short memories.
robarmstrong wrote: » Peregrinus wrote: » Most abortions are not undertaken because women don't wish to go through pregnancy; they're undertaken because they don't wish to go through motherhood. Have you got the numbers for the euro-millions there? Just asking because you quite clearly seem to have some insight into the unknown unless of course this is an absolutely ridiculous, ignorant and downright moronic claim.
Peregrinus wrote: » Most abortions are not undertaken because women don't wish to go through pregnancy; they're undertaken because they don't wish to go through motherhood.
17 May 2016 Abortion statistics show increase in abortions to older women, mothers, and those in relationships • Over past decade, abortion rates among younger age groups has decreased, but increased among over 30s. • Increase in proportion of women having abortions who are with a partner or already married, from 48% in 2005 to 70% in 2015.• Majority (54%) of women ending a pregnancy were already mothers. • Barriers to contraceptive services and misleading warnings about fertility may contribute to increasing abortion rate among older women.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » GPs just prescribe though. I wouldn't be too surprised if they tried going after pharmacies in small towns.
Igotadose wrote: » But they'll be sowing doubt via media coverage, which is what they want. Need to nip this in the bud - legislation should include criminal penalties and some certainty of incarceration, none of the endless 'dozens of convictions but never spent time in jail' stuff that's pervasive in Ireland.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » The slogan they came up with in the last week or so of the campaign when they knew it was lost! Nobody believed them, of course. They had 35 years to come up with alternatives, to provide compassion to women carrying fatal foetal abnormalities, etc. etc. they did precisely fcuk-all to help women. Blocked information via the courts until we had a referendum to stop them. Tried to roll back the right to travel twice by referendum. Objected to POLDPA which was literally the bare minimum legislation to try to stop pregnant women from dying. They don't give a damn about women, that much should be obvious by now.
end of the road wrote: » the opposition didn't exactly do much about the same issues either. in fact, a number of them, would like to see the end of the likes of the wellfare state.
end of the road wrote: » the thing is jail is unlikely to stop the type of people who would be willing to protest outside a gp, from doing so. they would simply see jail as a part of the cause.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Really? AFAIK GPs don't keep a stock of drugs apart from what they might have in their emergency bag or whatever (if they still have those things. 35-40 years ago our GP used to do house calls with his big leather satchel full of who knows what... and if you were lucky he'd have a couple of doses of what you needed on him to keep you going until you could get to a chemist) and given that someone calculated that each GP will probably only see a few abortion cases a year, is each GP really going to keep a stock of in-date abortion pills in stock?
end of the road wrote: » i think the majority of protesters outside the clinics are there just to provide information providing alternatives to abortion.
robindch wrote: » You might provide some evidence to support that assertion - there are plenty of videos around the place posted by all kinds of people documenting the harassment and intimidation of women attending women's health clinics.
end of the road wrote: » i did look for some but nothing is turning up via google so far. have you any ideas as to what i should specifically look for?
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Hmm I'd still say there's fairly big leap in commitment level between "prepared to protest outside a GP" and "prepared to go to prison," particularly among the conservative middle-class types who make up the backbone of the pro-life movement. I'd say almost as big a disincentive to these type of protests is the threat of making yourself a pariah in your community. If you're outside your local GP in a small town, or even a fairly large town, screaming in people's faces, blocking them from going in and out, you're going to make yourself a lot of enemies, even among people who would be broadly sympathetic to the pro-life movement.
end of the road wrote: » murder is killing. the difference between murder and other forms of killing is that murder is deliberate, and can be pre-meditated.
end of the road wrote: » we have no issue with a doctor being forced to do their job. we have an issue with a doctor being forced to have a part in taking the life of an unborn human being.
end of the road wrote: » we have no issue with insuring an unborn life can't be taken because they have a right to life as far as we are concerned.
robindch wrote: » Any evidence which supports your ludicrous claim that the majority of people who hang around women's medical clinics harassing and intimidating people are there because they're kind, caring and civil individuals.
end of the road wrote: » to be fair, i never stated that the majority of people who are protesting outside abortion clinics with sinister intentions are kind caring and civil individuals. if i had made such a claim, then i would agree that it would be ludicrous. what i stated, and it's an opinion rather then a claim, is that the majority of people who are protesting outside the clinics are there simply to protest and hand out information, and are not there to harass or intimidate, or for any other sinister intentions. there is nothing documented that i can find that could be considered proof that it is the case, but on a personal level i would find it hard to believe most people would intentionally engage in such tactics. some would and i have never denied that fact.
end of the road wrote: » what i stated, and it's an opinion rather then a claim, is that the majority of people who are protesting outside the clinics are there simply to protest and hand out information
end of the road wrote: » lazygal wrote: » All pregnancy involves serious medical matters. Pregnancy takes an enormous toll on the body. No one should be denied any care they need, be it abortion, C section or home birth. abortion on demand should be denied as it's unnecessary. where there is a serious issue which involves a threat to the life of the mother then absolutely it shouldn't be denied.
lazygal wrote: » All pregnancy involves serious medical matters. Pregnancy takes an enormous toll on the body. No one should be denied any care they need, be it abortion, C section or home birth.
end of the road wrote: » what i stated, and it's an opinion rather then a claim, is that the majority of people who are protesting outside the clinics are there simply to protest and hand out information, and are not there to harass or intimidate, or for any other sinister intentions. there is nothing documented that i can find that could be considered proof that it is the case, but on a personal level i would find it hard to believe most people would intentionally engage in such tactics. some would and i have never denied that fact.
end of the road wrote: » the difference is abortion workers are engaging in, or taking part in some way, in the act of killing. therefore i won't have a huge amount of sympathy for them, unless they are the victim of something serious such as assault or death threats or violent crime, of which the law will punish.if they are just being called names as is mostly what happens, then to me it's not really different to say, insulting clampers.
King Mob wrote: » I just remembered a previous statement you made on this: You have deliberately changed your position so you could play dumb. You are a liar and you are not engaging on good faith.
end of the road wrote: » i haven't changed my position, i can hold both of those views and i believe they don't cancel each other out.
aloyisious wrote: » On one European's view of abortion, it seems that our decision on the 8th amendment referendum vote was discussed in Poland in May and one woman there [Kaja Godek] representing the anti-abortion campaign thinks it is monstrous that Ireland should be defined as a catholic country. Kaja [who describes herself as Pro-life & Pro family] included that as part of her opinion that the Prime Minister [Leo Varadkar] flaunted his bizarre perversion [homosexualty] to the people. Referring to the LGBT rainbow flag, she's upset that it has had the colour blue removed from it as it's the colour of the Virgin Mary.
A leading anti-abortion campaigner in Poland says she will not apologise for referring to Taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s homosexuality as perversion, even if ordered to do so by a Warsaw court. On Thursday Kaja Godek was sued by 16 members of Poland’s lesbian and gay community for television remarks last May, repeated in recent days, that she viewed Mr Varadkar’s homosexuality as a “perversion”.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
