Sean.3516 wrote: » What is the problem with anti abortion organizations promoting non abortion options for women in unplanned pregnancies? Obviously I’m not in favor of fraudulent websites claiming to be myoptions like in the above article. It seems kind of fascistic that you think the government ought to crack down on “rogue agencies” as you call them which are basically just crisis preg organizations that don’t believe in the governments preferred solution here.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » When their "advice" does not include all possible they are not acting in the best interests of the women who contact them. btw did we ever get to the bottom of what the 3516 refers to? I'm still convinced it refers to the verse in Numbers but you will probably deny that again. You can never accuse the anti abortion crowd of being subtle.
Sean.3516 wrote: » What is in the best interest of the woman is different for people who aren’t in favor of abortion than the people who are. Their moral premises are different. Why should their views on the best way forward for these women be silenced?
Bredabe wrote: » My options show all options for an unplanned pregnancy, the difference in my eyes is that my options give medical facts, the alternative or deliberately frightening misinformation from those other places. My problem with them standing outside the dr's office is three fold. 1/ They are in the way of ppl going in. 2/ The signs are provocative and promote lies 3/ They are meant to be and indeed are, intimidating to some people, lots of ppl even when certain of their decision, would find having a group of ppl standing in their way and holding signs saying those things, are off putting as they are indeed intended to be. Its just the way some women are and these ppl are using that against them when they are at their lowest. Also given the reports of violets and intimidation from the anti choice organisations in the west every time this issue has come to the fore, some ppl are in fear of ppl from those organisations once they show they are.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » what is in the best interests of the women is not dependent on who is providing the advice. Th moral premises of the people providing the advice is irrelevant. They are either acting in the best interests of the pregnant woman or they are not. And crowds like this are not acting in the best interests of the pregnant woman. They are acting in their own best interests.
Sean.3516 wrote: » What is your definition of the best interest? I think we ought to define the term
Sean.3516 wrote: » We’re they blocking the actual entrance? And if they were was the clinic open that day. I thought I heard it mightn’t have been but I may be wrong. So what if their signs are provocative? Seriously, why would that be in issue. As protesters their objective is to provoke moral introspection in people’s minds. Also there’s this thing called freedom of speech. Which extends to the written word. And as for lies, we’ll thats open to debate and free speech extends to lies so I think it’s a moot point. They weren’t behaving rambunctiously or in a threatening manner. They were peaceful. They aren’t responsible for someone else’s feelings or mental reaction to them. Have you seen the picture from the Galway protest? It was like 7 people and they were the most unthreatening looking group of human’s I’ve ever seen. The image that pro life protesters are all big bad bearded scary bible thumping brutes is patently untrue
Sean.3516 wrote: » New to the thread. Just wondering what people’s thoughts are the protesting that took place outside a GP’s clinic in Galway. Do u think it should be allowed? I don’t there’a anything remotely coercive or harrasing about a group of people standing there with signs attempting to persuade people not to go through with an elective procedure they disagree with. As far as I can see, they have the right to stand there with signs to the extent they don’t disrupt public order.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Hi Guys, New to this thread and new to boards.ie. Basically on here to try and develop my views on this a bit. Basically i’m Pro life up to the point where the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy. I’m completely open to a good, civil debate and perhaps even changing my mind, Thanks
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I have no intentions of playing word games with you. It is the best interests of the pregnant woman that is important, not the moral conscious of bible bashers.
amcalester wrote: » Top post if from months ago. New to the thread me hole.
Sean.3516 wrote: » I’m not interested in playing word games. The premise of the pro life argument is that the fetus is a human worthy of equal consideration to the woman. It might be in the woman’s economic interests to have an abortion. But the position of the protesters is that the fetus’s right to life supersedes this interest. Despite the vote last May, this is still a hot button issue with differing opinions. A 66% majority may entitle the govt to introduce abortion but it doesn’t entitle it to declare the pro choice assertions universally axiomatic and to stamp out differing views. There’s also freedom of speech to take into account when looking at the these organizations disseminate.
Sean.3516 wrote: » I hadn’t been here in ten months. I didn’t remember this was the thread I was on.
volchitsa wrote: » The woman's best interest is whatever she decides it is, not what someone else decides for her. What she needs to reach that decision, is accurate and objective information. Not a limited or biased selection of information designed to push her towards what someone else thinks she should do.
Sean.3516 wrote: » I’m not interested in playing word games. The premise of the pro life argument is that the fetus is a human worthy of equal consideration to the woman. It might be in the woman’s economic interests to have an abortion. But the position of the protesters is that the fetus’s right to life supersedes this interest. Despite the vote last May, this is still a hot button issue with differing opinions. A 66% majority may entitle the govt to introduce abortion but it doesn’t entitle it to declare the pro choice assertions universally axiomatic and to stamp out differing views. There’s also freedom of speech to take into account when looking at the information these organizations disseminate.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » 6 months, not 10. And it was the only thread you had posted on up until 2 weeks ago
Sean.3516 wrote: » I’m willing to cede she the ground in the best interests thing. Nobody has the right to force an organization to give them information on abortion. It the prerogative of the organization what info they wish to provide.
amcalester wrote: » Your argument is the same as one child poking near another but saying “not touching you” over and over. Technically right but still a **** move.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Who cares? Really. Why does it matter? Oh I’m so so sorry. I just searched for “abortion” on the search bar and clicked on the thread with the most recent posts. I forgot I had been here before during the ref campaign. My sincerest apologies for not declaring myself to you properly. Can we continue with the now?
Sean.3516 wrote: » The legal technicality is the sticking point. Are they allowed to do it? Personally I don’t think it’s the most thing efficacious for the pro life mvmt to take this route but the fact is that protests like these will happen more and more in the future.
amcalester wrote: » But dishonest to portray themselves as something they are not. These organizations do not offer impartial advice but do not clearly state this, some women may be duped. Pretty disgusting behavior and not very christian but then I find that often those who claim to be the most christian act in the most unchristian ways.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Who cares? Really. Why does it matter? Oh I’m so so sorry. I just searched for “abortion” on the search bar and clicked on the thread with the most recent posts. I forgot I had been here before during the ref campaign. My sincerest apologies for not declaring myself to you properly. Can we continue with the discussion now?
Sean.3516 wrote: » Exactly they don’t offer impartial advice. They don’t promote the solutions they disagree with. And why should they be forced to if they don’t agree with them. How is it unchristian to try and steer people away from abortion which is definitonally unchristian.
