Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

1…328329330332334

Comments

  • #9932
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,911 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    I said about twice or three times I’m happy for the courts to adjudicate on it. And I said I am definitely supportive of the right to assemble and protest. Basic civil liberty.


    and those rights end when they involve harassing somebody accessing a legal medical procedure.


  • #9933
    Beechwoodspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,042 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


    volchitsa wrote: »
    You would be hard pushed to find someone here who would disagree that there has to be a basic right to assemble and protest. The question you're being asked here is how you justify - as you seemed to do earlier - women being publicly harangued and/or lied to under the pretext of "providing information" as being part of that basic civil liberty.

    I think I’ve made my points in my contributions.


  • #9934
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    I said about twice or three times I’m happy for the courts to adjudicate on it. And I said I am definitely supportive of the right to assemble and protest. Basic civil liberty.


    Yes, I noticed that. But one of your initial contributions was the idea that exclusion zones are bad because they represent some kind of censorship or some kind of infringement on the right to protest. They don't. You're still entitled to make a protest, what's happening is that a restriction is being put in place on where that protest can take place.


    This shouldn't be a controversial idea. Most people would struggle to agree with the idea of anti-abortion protestors holding placards and protesting inside a hospital or even inside a maternity ward. People who wish to protest nuclear power plants are perfectly entitled to stand outside and make their protest. But they're not entitled to make their protest inside the power plant. Road tax protestors aren't entitled to make their protest in the middle of a busy motorway.



    A right to protest doesn't mean an absolute right. In fact, Article 40.6.1.2 of the constitution explicitly places limits on the right to protest:

    "Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas."

    This, to me, seems like a perfectly sensible precaution in our constitution, allowing for things like exclusion zones. I just don't understand your problem with it.


  • #9935
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    I said about twice or three times I’m happy for the courts to adjudicate on it. And I said I am definitely supportive of the right to assemble and protest. Basic civil liberty.

    The right to assemble and protest does not supersede someone else's right to avail of medical care without harassment, intimidation or interference.

    Protest to the Minister for Health, not in the face of the upset woman who's on her way for a termination.


  • #9936
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    This, to me, seems like a perfectly sensible precaution in our constitution, allowing for things like exclusion zones. I just don't understand your problem with it.
    The problem is that anti-abortion groups aren't actually interested in providing information or gaining attention.
    They specifically wish to target women who are seeking abortion and to dissuade them from getting the abortion they need through whatever means they can.

    Our good folks hear either know that and are being deliberately obtuse, or they are just falling for obvious spin.


  • Advertisement
  • #9937
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    This is all so vague I find it hard to give answers to these scenarios

    Say a trained counselor approaches a woman in a hospital carpark and offers support and advice. Is this to be made unlawful? You tell me.
    Is the counselor offering unbiased advice and support? Or supporting the woman to make what they think is the 'right" choice?
    Does the counselor work in the hospital?


  • #9938
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    I was a yes voter. Not sure how I’d vote if it were held again. I have no interest in this being about me. It is about the debate of the issues.

    Is this the new "I'm undecided/voting yes" but then does nothing but attack the pro choice side, that we had before the referendum?


  • #9939
    Odhinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,458 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    I said about twice or three times I’m happy for the courts to adjudicate on it. And I said I am definitely supportive of the right to assemble and protest. Basic civil liberty.




    ...which wasn't what was outlined by the Times reporter. You stated earlier that 'if it saved lives' it would be appropriate. Have you decided to row back on that view now? My own view is that you're just stirring it for the sake of it at this stage.


  • #9940
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    King Mob wrote: »
    The problem is that anti-abortion groups aren't actually interested in providing information or gaining attention.
    They specifically wish to target women who are seeking abortion and to dissuade them from getting the abortion they need through whatever means they can.

    Our good folks hear either know that and are being deliberately obtuse, or they are just falling for obvious spin.

    And this is what galls me.
    So they target the vulnerable woman, tell her anything necessary to change her mind, possibly even lying to her (they have form for this) she's emotional and upset and listens.. and then what?
    They head off on their merry way, confident in the knowledge they've "saved a life"?

    Where's the support and after care and help for the woman they've successfully talked into not having a termination?

    What are they going to PERSONALLY do to help the circumstances that caused her to seek the abortion in the first place, be it financial, emotional, health, support etc?

    I'll tell you what they'll do, they'll do nothing.
    Because they don't care. They only care about unborn babies, living women and children are no concern to them.

    They'll have basically coerced and manipulated someone into changing their mind, and they will do sweet f*ck all to help her afterwards.
    She'll be left to her own devices to bring up the baby and the health and financial implications that come with it.
    No help from them. No support.

    They don't care about her, or the subsequent child, they just don't want her to have the abortion.


  • #9941
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,492 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    eviltwin wrote: »
    So you said.

    You do support protest though

    The question is, does intercepting a woman on her way to have an abortion come under the definition of a protest. Is it harassment? That might not be the intention but if the woman, staff and other service users feel harassed then it becomes a problem that needs to be dealt with.


    if feeling harassed means harassment then anyone and everyone could potentially be before the courts for any old thing. that is ultimately the reality of your position and is not a viable position.
    eviltwin wrote: »
    So you have no problem with someone who may be vulnerable and open to coercion to be targeted by someone with a specific agenda?

    Does this work the other way? Are you okay with people standing outside crisis pregnancy agencies trying to convince a woman to have an abortion?

    i support their right to do it yes . as much as i would fundamentally disagree with them, the right to protest has to exist for all and not just those i agree with.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Well we already have countless examples of these kind of anti-abortion cranks using such lies.
    You assuming that these guys, who are being told to seek out and target people who look like they are upset and in distress, won't stoop to using similar misinformation is incredibly naive.


    But again, the person is seeking out people who look upset and who are on their way into the clinic.
    It should be a given that such people aren't interested in talking to random punters who want to stick their nose in their medical business.

    And again, they are already using slimy tactics like targeting upset people. Assuming that they'll just politely go away is naive to the point of dishonesty.

    But again, those people aren't upset and the "chuggers" aren't trying to stick their nose into their medical business.
    Not comparable.

    But you bring up a good point. Why can't these anti-abortion people offer their information on the high street instead of at a medical facility?
    Oh.. right... the targets...

    Or... crazy thought... some kind of "exclusion zone" to stop people from harassing them...

    as said, an exclusion zone wouldn't stop them from protesting or providing information or both. ireland isn't going to be the country where exclusion zones turn out to be successful i'm afraid. where abortion exists, protests are a fact of life, whether we like it or agree with it or not. it is the 1 thing that will never become 100% or even over 50% normalised.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #9942
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    end of the road wrote: »
    as said, an exclusion zone wouldn't stop them from protesting or providing information or both. ireland isn't going to be the country where exclusion zones turn out to be successful i'm afraid. where abortion exists, protests are a fact of life, whether we like it or agree with it or not. it is the 1 thing that will never become 100% or even over 50% normalised.
    Ah well, guess we just have to put up with the harassment then.:rolleyes:

    If you're not going to address my points, don't quote my post.


  • #9943
    Beechwoodspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,042 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


    Odhinn wrote: »
    ...which wasn't what was outlined by the Times reporter. You stated earlier that 'if it saved lives' it would be appropriate. Have you decided to row back on that view now? My own view is that you're just stirring it for the sake of it at this stage.

    Ok. Let’s lay it out step by step.

    If the protest /information point were legal, not harrassment, and provided accurate information not bias and not graphic imagery, then it may save lives.

    It may lead someone contemplating an abortion to change their mind and to have the child rather than going ahead with a termination.

    I’d expect pro choice protests and information points to fulfill the same requirements also.


  • #9944
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    Ok. Let’s lay it out step by step.

    If the protest /information point were legal, not harrassment, and provided accurate information not bias and not graphic imagery, then it may save lives.

    It may lead someone contemplating an abortion to change their mind and to have the child rather than going ahead with a termination.

    I’d expect pro choice protests and information points to fulfill the same requirements also.

    OR, we could just let people seek out information as needed from actual qualified professionals and support organisations?

    And not have unregulated vigilante groups propositioning people or potentially spreading fake news to distressed women in maternity car parks?


  • #9945
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,492 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    And this is what galls me.
    So they target the vulnerable woman, tell her anything necessary to change her mind, possibly even lying to her (they have form for this) she's emotional and upset and listens.. and then what?
    They head off on their merry way, confident in the knowledge they've "saved a life"?

    Where's the support and after care and help for the woman they've successfully talked into not having a termination?

    What are they going to PERSONALLY do to help the circumstances that caused her to seek the abortion in the first place, be it financial, emotional, health, support etc?

    I'll tell you what they'll do, they'll do nothing.
    Because they don't care. They only care about unborn babies, living women and children are no concern to them.

    They'll have basically coerced and manipulated someone into changing their mind, and they will do sweet f*ck all to help her afterwards.
    She'll be left to her own devices to bring up the baby and the health and financial implications that come with it.
    No help from them. No support.

    They don't care about her, or the subsequent child, they just don't want her to have the abortion.

    out of interest, how are you able to tell what a whole group of people are or aren't doing, what they do or don't care about, think or don't think etc? unless you have drones following them around i'm not sure it's possible for you to be able to tell such.
    what are you or others who make the above statement you made doing to help the same women? or must pro-life do all of the work while everyone else doesn't offer any help?

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #9946
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    end of the road wrote: »
    if feeling harassed means harassment then anyone and everyone could potentially be before the courts for any old thing. that is ultimately the reality of your position and is not a viable position.



    i support their right to do it yes . as much as i would fundamentally disagree with them, the right to protest has to exist for all and not just those i agree with.



    as said, an exclusion zone wouldn't stop them from protesting or providing information or both. ireland isn't going to be the country where exclusion zones turn out to be successful i'm afraid. where abortion exists, protests are a fact of life, whether we like it or agree with it or not. it is the 1 thing that will never become 100% or even over 50% normalised.

    Weren't you caught by the ninnies in stating that certain protesters should have been blasted with water cannons? Then attempted to track back and fail to cover your lie when confronted upon it? Gonna take a gander through your post history specifically to disprove more of this nonsense you spout out.

    EDIT: My mistake, I've clarified with my next post, it wasn't water cannons.


  • #9947
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    out of interest, how are you able to tell what a whole group of people are or aren't doing, what they do or don't care about, think or don't think etc? unless you have drones following them around i'm not sure it's possible for you to be able to tell such.
    what are you or others who make the above statement you made doing to help the same women? or must pro-life do all of the work while everyone else doesn't offer any help?

    The US group that is setting up to approach women in car parks didn't publicise any plans about after care or support to the woman after changing her mind.

    Plenty about how to target and corner women, plenty about how to coerce them, but not a dickybird about measures they'll take to help the women afterwards.

    If pro-life people want to proposition people en route for a termination to change their mind, then yes, they should absolutely be obliged to help those women afterwards.
    I for one have never and will never interfere in someone else's medical care so your point is irrelevant.
    I'm not the one manipulating and coercing her into not having an abortion.


  • #9948
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    EOTR, are only some protests allowed? I thought that even though you don't agree with someone's point you'd defend their right to protest it?

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97376847&postcount=564
    not their job to "conform" to anything. nobody has to "conform" to "social norms" . all one has to do is be decent. if they aren't, plenty of systems exist to deal with them. no matter what travelers do it would never be good enough. their way of life is their way of life. the residents are obstructing the council and the full force of the law and full force must be used to remove from the site. we have a system to object to council proposals which these blockaders refused to use because they would rather seek attention using a tragedy to do so. vilify them, remove them from the site, make the site permenant. let people know that if you don't engage via the proper channels then the council will go ahead with its plans. if you want to object, use the proper channels or keep quiet

    Wow, that directly contradicts your "right to protest" statement.

    As does this - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97377191&postcount=594
    they had choices. they don't get to block a public road. their cars should have been toed away and they be removed by the public order unit.

    Or this - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97365732&postcount=280
    fcuk them. the full force of the state should be brought down upon them if whats been reported is true. ERU army if needs be and whatever charges can stick. use whatever force is necessary to insure this emergency accommodation can be installed

    Aaaaand this - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97369774&postcount=315
    they are blocking a council site, so they are possibly commiting a crime and should be removed hard. i don't care what their reasons are

    So.....


    What were you saying again?
    end of the road wrote: »
    i support their right to do it yes . as much as i would fundamentally disagree with them, the right to protest has to exist for all and not just those i agree with.

    Dear oh dear oh dear....


  • #9949
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,853 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    EOTR, are only some protests allowed? I thought that even though you don't agree with someone's point you'd defend their right to protest it?

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97376847&postcount=564



    Wow, that directly contradicts your "right to protest" statement.

    As does this - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97377191&postcount=594



    Or this - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97365732&postcount=280



    Aaaaand this - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97369774&postcount=315



    So.....


    What were you saying again?

    EOTR also once said protesters should be baton charged if they attempted to stop a Garth Brookes concert!


  • #9950
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    EOTR also once said protesters should be baton charged if they attempted to stop a Garth Brookes concert!

    Didn’t he also say that anyone who attempts to cross a picket line should expect to be met with violence?

    Seems that protest is only OK when End o agrees with the protesters.


  • #9951
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    amcalester wrote: »
    Didn’t he also say that anyone who attempts to cross a picket line should expect to be met with violence?

    Seems that protest is only OK when End o agrees with the protesters.

    Well according to EOTR some abortions are ok too.

    He never minded rich women being able to travel for abortions. Abortions that happened elsewhere were always ok with him.


  • Advertisement
  • #9952
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,492 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    Well according to EOTR some abortions are ok too.

    He never minded rich women being able to travel for abortions. Abortions that happened elsewhere were always ok with him.

    nope, never said any such thing.
    what i said was, that while people leaving the country to go to the uk or elsewhere to procure an abortion were wrong, that it was not really possible to stop them.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #9953
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    end of the road wrote: »
    nope, never said any such thing.
    what i said was, that while people leaving the country to go to the uk or elsewhere to procure an abortion were wrong, that it was not really possible to stop them.

    Ah no - stop going back changing the story after the event.

    We all saw your posts back then, you continued to pretend you hadnt said that for a long time but it was proven to you more than once that you did.


  • #9954
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    end of the road wrote: »
    nope, never said any such thing.
    what i said was, that while people leaving the country to go to the uk or elsewhere to procure an abortion were wrong, that it was not really possible to stop them.
    Lol, do you honestly expect anyone to believe you on this?
    Really?


  • #9955
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol, do you honestly expect anyone to believe you on this?
    Really?

    Don't forget this absolute diamond.
    end of the road wrote: »
    if feeling harassed means harassment then anyone and everyone could potentially be before the courts for any old thing. that is ultimately the reality of your position and is not a viable position.



    Feeling harassed is the basis of harassment. It is not up to anyone else bar the individual "feeling" harassed to adjudicate on this. If someone is "feeling" harassed, it is because they are being subjected to unwanted or unwelcome interactions.
    Harassment is unwanted conduct that occurs with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of an individual or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. It can be carried out by an individual or group of individuals.
    Differences in attitude, background or culture can mean that what is perceived as harassment by one person may not seem so to another.

    Most people would not deliberately seek to cause upset or distress. However, it is important to recognise that behaviour that is acceptable to you may not be acceptable to others.


  • #9956
    Hannibal_Smith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,426 ✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    end of the road wrote: »
    if feeling harassed means harassment then anyone and everyone could potentially be before the courts for any old thing. that is ultimately the reality of your position and is not a viable position.



    i support their right to do it yes . as much as i would fundamentally disagree with them, the right to protest has to exist for all and not just those i agree with.

    .

    No...not any old thing..the discussion is quite specific.

    Everyone has the right to protest. But, as you say yourself the protesting outside isnt your thing. So
    I think everyone agreee that the protesting outside the health clinics isnt agreeable? So protest outside the dail?

    Did you clarify in the end who was providing information to whom?


  • #9957
    Marengo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭Marengo


    EOTR

    Don't feed them! You're currently being harassed by a large group of posters.

    All questioning you as if you were in a court of law. While 50 posters only have to question you once or twice. You're being harassed and expected to reply coherently to them all. And they know that.

    Trying to trip up a good man with quotes from 9 months ago said in different contexts :)


  • #9958
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Marengo wrote: »
    EOTR

    Don't feed them! You're currently being harassed by a large group of posters.

    All questioning you as if you were in a court of law. While 50 posters only have to question you once or twice. You're being harassed and expected to reply coherently to them all. And they know that.

    Trying to trip up a good man with quotes from 9 months ago said in different contexts :)

    It’s not harassment because if it was I have full confidents in the mods taking action and as they haven’t it can’t be harassment.


  • #9959
    Marengo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭Marengo


    amcalester wrote: »
    It’s not harassment because if it was I have full confidents in the mods taking action and as they haven’t it can’t be harassment.

    I wouldn't share your 'confidents'. It's subtle and no one can be reprimanded for asking a question.


  • #9960
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Marengo wrote: »
    I wouldn't share your 'confidents'. It's subtle and no one can be reprimanded for asking a question.

    I honestly believe that asking questions much like offering information is not harassment if asking questions was harassment then people would be harassed every time they go to the bank or the doctor which is obviously nonsense


  • Advertisement
  • #9961
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Marengo wrote: »
    EOTR

    Don't feed them! You're currently being harassed by a large group of posters.

    All questioning you as if you were in a court of law. While 50 posters only have to question you once or twice. You're being harassed and expected to reply coherently to them all. And they know that.

    Trying to trip up a good man with quotes from 9 months ago said in different contexts :)

    Imagine how the poor women being harassed outside hospitals feel.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement