nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SusieBlue

uptherebels wrote: »

That abortion causes cancer etc.

Abortion causes women to molest other children was another delightful one trotted out.

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I think she’d know they were pro life by time they are trying to convince her of the immorality of abortion. Duh?

For there to be a case, they would have had to deliberately misinformed her that she couldn’t have an abortion or that there would be some fictitious health complication if she did.

This is exactly what they say, they link abortion to cancer, to psychological problems and even to abuse of future children - all based on discredited "studies", often by prolife groups or people paid by them.

It’s not misinforming someone to have a conversation with them as to the morality of something. What they are saying to her is based on a belief system. She’s not being forced to believe in that system. Nobody can force you to believe in something.

But they don't have to say who they really are, so if she assumes that they are an officlal counselling service, she is likely to credit them with providing objective information. When in fact we know it isn't.

If she doesn’t go through with the abortion at that point it’s beacause she chose to believe in values promulgated to her by the people at the counseling service, not because they fed her false facts.

Ah, so they can't provide cherry picked information about alleged cancer risks?

They won't like that.

As I said, she could sue them if she changes what she’s choosing to believe in after the fact when she believed it at the time.

Or maybe she will discover that by telling her she had to come back for further "counselling" when she herself knew she wanted an abortion, they had managed to get her just over the 12 week limit.

Why would she know the law and how many counselling sessions are obligatory? So if she believes that she has to come for a further session, and then another, and possibly another, and then she's past 12 weeks, then by dishonestly presenting who they were, they will have prevented her from having an abortion.

Acceptable? And you know that's the sort of carry on they're going to be at.

uptherebels

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Give me an example of how these places would lie.

That abortion causes cancer etc.

Sean.3516

King Mob wrote: »

Great.
Then they are lying predator vultures who will do some real damage to the vulnerable women they trick.

And you defend them, making you no better.

Give me an example of how these places would lie.

Sean.3516

King Mob wrote: »

Not really. It's spliting hairs at that point.

But pretending to be an impartial service with no bias to trick people into coming to you absolutely is lying. It's disgusting for people to do so in a medical setting.
And you keep trying to justify it.

When did I say they would be pretending to be impartial?
I said they wouldn’t advertise the fact that they weren’t impartial. The goal of this is to get more people in the door of the counseling service to reach the maximum amount of people.

And they’d know the place was pro life when they start trying to persuade the woman that abortion is immoral.

I don’t think they should try to prevent people from having abortions based on stuff about supposed complications afterwards and whatnot. They should try to prevent them by convincing them that abortion is immoral.

You can’t call moral counseling misinformation because you disagree with the moral values being promulgated by the counselor.

Sean.3516

volchitsa wrote: »

Not if she didn't know they were prolife and weren't acting in her interests but because they had their own agenda. Let's say you have a foreign woman who doesn't speak perfect English and, importantly, doesn't know that Irish free speech extends to counselling services lying about what their real agenda is.

Naively, this woman imagines that she's being given reliable information. By the time she discovers otherwise, it's past 12 weeks. Why won't she be entitled to sue?

I think she’d know they were pro life by time they are trying to convince her of the immorality of abortion. Duh?

For there to be a case, they would have had to deliberately misinformed her that she couldn’t have an abortion or that there would be some fictitious health complication if she did.

It’s not misinforming someone to have a conversation with them as to the morality of something. What they are saying to her is based on a belief system. She’s not being forced to believe in that system. Nobody can force you to believe in something.

If she doesn’t go through with the abortion at that point it’s beacause she chose to believe in values promulgated to her by the people at the counseling service, not because they fed her false facts.

As I said, she could sue them if she changes what she’s choosing to believe in after the fact when she believed it at the time.

[Deleted User]

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes that would be covered in free speech.

See? I can tolerate your right to free speech cos I’m a very tolerant person.

Great.
Then they are lying predator vultures who will do some real damage to the vulnerable women they trick.

And you defend them, making you no better.

[Deleted User]

Sean.3516 wrote: »

There’s a difference between lying and not openly advertising information.

Not really. It's spliting hairs at that point.

But pretending to be an impartial service with no bias to trick people into coming to you absolutely is lying. It's disgusting for people to do so in a medical setting.
And you keep trying to justify it.

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I would argue that the person was never prevented from getting an abortion by being advised against it on moral grounds. The pro life counselors wouldn’t be hiding the fact that abortion exists as an option. They’d just be trying to steer the woman towards the other options by convincing them it’s immoral.

If the woman doesn’t get an abortion, it’s not because she was told she couldn’t but because she was told that it was immoral for her to do so. And she would have agreed to this of her own accord at the time and decided not to go through with it.

So no, I couldn’t see a legal case for her to sue the counseling service after the fact.

Not if she didn't know they were prolife and weren't acting in her interests but because they had their own agenda. Let's say you have a foreign woman who doesn't speak perfect English and, importantly, doesn't know that Irish free speech extends to counselling services lying about what their real agenda is.

Naively, this woman imagines that she's being given reliable information. By the time she discovers otherwise, it's past 12 weeks. Why won't she be entitled to sue?

Sean.3516

King Mob wrote: »

And this is called tricking vulnerable people.
It's something most people would call disgusting and wrong.

You are fine with it though.

I assume you're ok with people pointing out that these scumbags are in fact pro-life biased and with people doing their best to make sure that everyone knows they are in fact both pro-life and scum?
Or is that not covered by free speech?

Yes that would be covered in free speech.

See? I can tolerate your right to free speech cos I’m a very tolerant person.

Sean.3516

King Mob wrote: »

That's ****ing lying!
You are defending them lying.

It's a bit hypocritical for you to whine about immorality when you seem fine with it when it suits you.
You guys are all fine with lying and tricking people and being utterly dishonest with your own position even when you know it's wrong and harmful.

And I bet you still wonder why your side lost...

There’s a difference between lying and not openly advertising information.

Sean.3516

volchitsa wrote: »

So you are defending their right to lie so as to prevent women who want an abortion from realising that they are losing time which is counting down to 12 weeks talking to people who have no intention of providing an abortion?

You mentioned shouting "fire" and creating a panic - but people don't only have to die for this to be a problem you know. If someone gets injured in the crush, or even just loses their wallet with their money, do you think a judge will find in favour of "free speech", or will the person have to pay significant damages?

If someone doesn't get an abortion within 12 weeks because a prolife clinic pushed them over that time limit by lying to them, do you think that is an acceptable act?

And do you think a judge will think so?

I would argue that the person was never prevented from getting an abortion by being advised against it on moral grounds. The pro life counselors wouldn’t be hiding the fact that abortion exists as an option. They’d just be trying to steer the woman towards the other options by convincing them it’s immoral.

If the woman doesn’t get an abortion, it’s not because she was told she couldn’t but because she was told that it was immoral for her to do so. And she would have agreed to this of her own accord at the time and decided not to go through with it.

So no, I couldn’t see a legal case for her to sue the counseling service after the fact.

[Deleted User]

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’m only saying they wouldn’t openly advertise themselves as pro life. As this would drive away their target market so to speak. If a woman went into on of these places and asked about having an abortion, my expectation would be that the counselors there would steer her away from it by trying to persuade her of the brutality and immorality of the procedure. At this point they are not hiding the fact that they’re pro life. I’m only saying they shouldn’t be obliged to advertise themselves as such

And this is called tricking vulnerable people.
It's something most people would call disgusting and wrong.

You are fine with it though.

I assume you're ok with people pointing out that these scumbags are in fact pro-life biased and with people doing their best to make sure that everyone knows they are in fact both pro-life and scum?
Or is that not covered by free speech?

Sean.3516

SusieBlue wrote: »

If they had a ‘preconceived bias in favour of abortion’ as you so charmingly put it, you can be damn straight that they wouldn’t intentionally approach a pro-life organization for help.

So the fact that the pro-life organization is hiding this fact is not in the woman’s best interest, it’s in their own.

If all they truly cared about was spreading their pro-life message they would have no problem being transparent about their position, but they know this will not be supported or garner much interest so they repeatedly resort to lying and manipulating in order to push their agenda.

An agenda which happens to only look after their own self interest and not the interest of the woman they are trying to ‘help’.

It’s actually really really disgusting when you think about it.

First of all, thanks for complementing my charming diction.

As I’ve previously said, this isn’t an argument in favor of the woman’s best interest.

I’m only saying they wouldn’t openly advertise themselves as pro life. As this would drive away their target market so to speak. If a woman went into on of these places and asked about having an abortion, my expectation would be that the counselors there would steer her away from it by trying to persuade her of the brutality and immorality of the procedure. At this point they are not hiding the fact that they’re pro life. I’m only saying they shouldn’t be obliged to advertise themselves as such

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The motive would be to not repel women who had a preconceived bias in favor of abortion as an option.

So you are defending their right to lie so as to prevent women who want an abortion from realising that they are losing time which is counting down to 12 weeks talking to people who have no intention of providing an abortion?

You mentioned shouting "fire" and creating a panic - but people don't only have to die for this to be a problem you know. If someone gets injured in the crush, or even just loses their wallet with their money, do you think a judge will find in favour of "free speech", or will the person have to pay significant damages?

If someone doesn't get an abortion within 12 weeks because a prolife clinic pushed them over that time limit by lying to them, do you think that is an acceptable act?

And do you think a judge will think so?

[Deleted User]

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’m not defending them lying. I’m defending them for not openly advertising as a pro life service. This would inhibit them from reaching as many people as possible and would less efficacious as to preventing abortions.

That's ****ing lying!
You are defending them lying.

It's a bit hypocritical for you to whine about immorality when you seem fine with it when it suits you.
You guys are all fine with lying and tricking people and being utterly dishonest with your own position even when you know it's wrong and harmful.

And I bet you still wonder why your side lost...

Sean.3516

volchitsa wrote: »

But you're still defending them lying to women. Even though you now agree that they are in fact acting for their own agenda, not to provide the best care for women. So why are you defending them doing that?

What do you think of my plant-based alternative cancer care clinic that I'm thinking of setting up - in the name of free speech should I be allowed to pick and choose which "facts" I provide to any cancer patients who turn up at my clinics not knowing that I'm not actually a cancer specialist?

I’m not defending them lying. I’m defending them for not openly advertising as a pro life service. This would inhibit them from reaching as many people as possible and would less efficacious as to preventing abortions.

And for the record. I’m not in favoring of these groups promoting pseudoscientific nonsense about fertility and whatnot. I’d rather they just tried to persuade women of the immorality of abortion.

As a prolife person I don’t disagree with you guys on the science of reproduction, just the moral implications of that science.

SusieBlue

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The motive would be to not repel women who had a preconceived bias in favor of abortion as an option.

If they had a ‘preconceived bias in favour of abortion’ as you so charmingly put it, you can be damn straight that they wouldn’t intentionally approach a pro-life organization for help.

So the fact that the pro-life organization is hiding this fact is not in the woman’s best interest, it’s in their own.

If all they truly cared about was spreading their pro-life message they would have no problem being transparent about their position, but they know this will not be supported or garner much interest so they repeatedly resort to lying and manipulating in order to push their agenda.

An agenda which happens to only look after their own self interest and not the interest of the woman they are trying to ‘help’.

It’s actually really really disgusting when you think about it.

[Deleted User]

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The motive would be to not repel women who had a preconceived bias in favor of abortion as an option.

So they want to trick people?
And you think that's ok.

Also, **** off with that nonsense.
Women who have a preconceived bias in favor of abortion as an option.
What the **** are you on about?

Sean.3516

King Mob wrote: »

So please explain why wouldn't they want to disclose their bias? Why would they want to keep their bias secret?
Please explain the motive there.
Then please explain why you think that's an ok reason for them to do that.

The motive would be to not repel women who had a preconceived bias in favor of abortion as an option.

Sean.3516

volchitsa wrote: »

By which logic I can set up a cancer care service that treats cancer cases with plants and I don't have to tell cancer patients that I'm not actually linked to the HSE and won't be sending them for chemo because I think Granny Wax's plant mixtures are just as effective, and plus I get the money from selling them to you.

Instead I'll set up a really professional looking site that provides all sorts of "alternative facts" about my success rates and it's fine and dandy.

Free speech, yeah?

The offense wouldn’t be illegal speech. It would be that your misinformation and probably malpractice led to people dying. That actions taken by other people as a result of your misinformation is what you’d get in trouble for.

If you yelled fire in a crowded cinema and caused a stampede that killed people, the crime isn’t that you yelled “fire”, it’s that you issued a call to action based on a lie that people followed and died as a result. You’d be allowed to shout “fire” if there was a fire obviously.

[Deleted User]

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The concept of free speech means you shouldn’t have to say ANYTHING you don’t consent to saying. Yes, this would extend to counseling service not having to disclose its biases.

So please explain why wouldn't they want to disclose their bias? Why would they want to keep their bias secret?
Please explain the motive there.
Then please explain why you think that's an ok reason for them to do that.

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’ve given up on the bests interests argument cos I’ve realized the flaws it has. I’ve ceded that ground to u

But you're still defending them lying to women. Even though you now agree that they are in fact acting for their own agenda, not to provide the best care for women. So why are you defending them doing that?

What do you think of my plant-based alternative cancer care clinic that I'm thinking of setting up - in the name of free speech should I be allowed to pick and choose which "facts" I provide to any cancer patients who turn up at my clinics not knowing that I'm not actually a cancer specialist?

SusieBlue

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Either you don’t understand the word “ironic” or “free speech”.

The concept of free speech means you shouldn’t have to say ANYTHING you don’t consent to saying. Yes, this would extend to counseling service not having to disclose its biases.

If pro lifers are disingenuous in their concern for babies, then why would they be against aborting them. Point out the ulterior motive there.

Above all else a counseling service, of all services, should have to disclose its bias.
The client should know and have full disclosure of the type of organization that are providing the advice.

Who’s more important here, the woman or the counseling service?
Is it in a clients best interest to not have all options of treatment made available to them?

Should they not be told there are other options, but unfortunately they cannot provide advice, so the client will have to ask elsewhere?
I’m not saying they have to give the information. They just need to make it clear it’s available elsewhere.
Is that really too much to fecking ask?

If disclosing that they aren’t impartial is too much to trouble then maybe they shouldn’t be giving advice to anyone.

[Deleted User]

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Morally it isn’t. But legally yes.

And by the way, it’s not deceptive to recommend someone not have an abortion.

But it is deceptive to pretend to be an impartial organisation that has the person's best interest in mind rather than being an anti-abortion organisation that will put their anti-abort agenda over a person's welfare.

And you are ok with that kind of deception.
Because you anti-abortion guys are fine with lying and deception and dodging and avoiding.
And I'm sick of it.

Sean.3516

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yet the pro-life gang still objected to POLDPA, the very thing that only very recently gave us the power to save women whose lives were in danger(albeit in very limited, unclear circumstances), pre the successful repeal of the 8th amendment.

Go figure. Mustn’t be all that mainstream.

POLDPA was a legal affirmation of a right that already existed due to a Supreme Court case in the nineties. It’s purpose was to end the ambiguity so as to prevent another Savita case.

The pro life rationale for opposing was the “slippery slope” argument which I think was acceptable given that abortions in case of threat to life would have been allowed whether the act was passed or not.

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Either you don’t understand the word “ironic” or “free speech”.

The concept of free speech means you shouldn’t have to say ANYTHING you don’t consent to saying. Yes, this would extend to counseling service not having to disclose its biases.

By which logic I can set up a cancer care service that treats cancer cases with plants and I don't have to tell cancer patients that I'm not actually linked to the HSE and won't be sending them for chemo because I think Granny Wax's plant mixtures are just as effective, and plus I get the money from selling them to you.

Instead I'll set up a really professional looking site that provides all sorts of "alternative facts" about my success rates and it's fine and dandy.

Free speech, yeah?

Sean.3516

volchitsa wrote: »

I see you did (sort of) answer my question, but you haven't explained how you can describe this as being in the interests of the woman, when in plenty of instances it is not in her interests to remain pregnant.

"You won't die of it" isn't the same as "it's in your best interests", is it?

So as I said earlier, they aren't acting in her best interests, they are (at best) acting in what they feel are the fetus' best interests, aren't they?

I’ve given up on the bests interests argument cos I’ve realized the flaws it has. I’ve ceded that ground to u

Sean.3516

SusieBlue wrote: »

The irony of you harping on about free speech while saying the LoveBoats crowd shouldn’t have to disclose their blatant pro-life stance while giving support to women in the midst of a crisis isn’t lost on me.

The pro-life campaign has proved over and over again that they are liars and cannot be trusted. This is just the latest, and certainly not the last stunt they are going to pull to this effect.

The only saving grace is that the public now see them for exactly what they are and they can’t hide behind their faux concern for all the innocent babbies any more.

Either you don’t understand the word “ironic” or “free speech”.

The concept of free speech means you shouldn’t have to say ANYTHING you don’t consent to saying. Yes, this would extend to counseling service not having to disclose its biases.

If pro lifers are disingenuous in their concern for babies, then why would they be against aborting them. Point out the ulterior motive there.

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The circumstances I’d expect a catholic group to recommend a woman have an abortion would be if her life was in danger.

It’s a pretty mainstream pro life belief that abortion should be allowed if there’s a threat to life.

I see you did (sort of) answer my question, but you haven't explained how you can describe this as being in the interests of the woman, when in plenty of instances it is not in her interests to remain pregnant.

"You won't die of it" isn't the same as "it's in your best interests", is it?

So as I said earlier, they aren't acting in her best interests, they are (at best) acting in what they feel are the fetus' best interests, aren't they?