Alan Shatter condemns "bullyboy" anti-abortion posters, See Mod warning post #25

Leftist · 13-12-2012 11:31AM

that's odd, my post disappeared...

philologos · 13-12-2012 11:32AM

bluewolf wrote: »

Some anti choice propaganda is taken from miscarriages or the fake/doctored images that guy released in the 80s. I think it was the 80s.

Secondly, we don't wave around pictures of open heart surgery on the streets because it's common fcuking decency. We also don't wave around pictures of the up close parts of childbirth because we don't need that shoved in our faces either. "That looks gross so it must be wrong" is not logic.
If people want to learn what happens then they can go find out from themselves without misleading sensationalistic nonsense.

And NOT in front of children

I agree they shouldn't be displayed in public. I think abortion is horrific.

I do think it the injustice that abortion-by-choice is should be made light.

What I find interesting though is that pro-choice activists don't encourage awareness of what happens to mother and child in that procedure. I don't think abortion-by-choice should exist so I guess that I have justification for wanting no mention of it.

It is a barbaric procedure which destroys human life. I think that should be made clear. We should be trying to move past this rather than furthering it.

ciaran12 · 13-12-2012 11:33AM

philologos wrote: »

In one sense I think the poster shouldn't have been displayed, it is horrific. But it is only horrific for much the same reason as abortion-by-choice is horrific. It should never be witnessed or be a reality in society.

Its interesting to notice from a pro-choice perspective that discussing or displaying the procedure seems to be wrong. How can one know what to choose if they aren't informed about what will happen to them and to the unborn child?

I've copied this post I case it vanishes again.

Hmmm.. I think I'd have to agree that in some cases using photos of the procedure is justified, as it's an attempt at showing an uncomfortable reality.

Children should not be exposed to those images though. Also, I'm not sure anyone's opinion can ever be changed in either direction by extreme/shock tactics like that.
If I wanted to change someone's mind about abortion I wouldn't try to do it by shoving grotesque pictures in their face. Just as they wouldn't have a hope of changing my mind by yelling about ovary ownership.
It takes more meaningful discussion to change someone's mind on this. Any extreme tactics just tend to drive people further in the opposite direction, and take the debate away from the real issues.

So these posters should not have been used in this case. And even if I don't think these images should be actually hidden from the public, I don't think they're a very useful tool in getting a pro-life message across. The debate will always end up about the images themselves rather than what they represent

EDIT: Nevermind, just saw your last post Philologos, I think we seem to be of roughly the same mind after all!

Zulu · 13-12-2012 11:36AM

WileyCoyote wrote: »

It takes a particularly sick or evil mind....

So after ciaran12's honest and considerate post, you can only insult these people as sick or evil?

It's time to take a look in the mirror WileyCoyote. Intolerance isn't nice no matter what way it cuts.

Leftist · 13-12-2012 11:37AM

philologos wrote: »

I agree they shouldn't be displayed in public. I think abortion is horrific.

I do think it the injustice that abortion-by-choice is should be made light.

What I find interesting though is that pro-choice activists don't encourage awareness of what happens to mother and child in that procedure. I don't think abortion-by-choice should exist so I guess that I have justification for wanting no mention of it.

It is a barbaric procedure which destroys human life. I think that should be made clear. We should be trying to move past this rather than furthering it.

who's going around putting pro-choice for abortion on demand posters outside anywhere let alone schools? this has nothing to do with the abortion debate. This is religious fanatics pushing their agenda with complete disregard, even for kids.

K-9 · 13-12-2012 11:38AM

philologos wrote: »

I've copied this post I case it vanishes again.

Leftist wrote: »

that's odd, my post disappeared...

Stick to the thread topic which after 2 warnings now and a notice in the title, posters should be perfectly clear on.

Zulu · 13-12-2012 11:39AM

bluewolf wrote: »

Some anti choice propaganda...

Why descend into petty name calling bluewolf? Whats "anti choice" about considering the choice of the father? Whats "anti choice" about considering the choice of the child.

...but once we only concern ourselves with the woman's choice (one of the 3 choices) we're "pro choice". Propaganda indeed.

Leftist · 13-12-2012 11:39AM

K-9 wrote: »

Stick to the thread topic which after 2 warnings now and a notice in the title, posters should be perfectly clear on.

that is exactly what I'm talking about..

the action of putting these posters in public and outside sensitive areas and the agenda that compels the people to do that.

What is hard to understand about that?

13-12-2012 11:40AM

philologos wrote: »

I agree they shouldn't be displayed in public. I think abortion is horrific.

I do think it the injustice that abortion-by-choice is should be made light.

What I find interesting though is that pro-choice activists don't encourage awareness of what happens to mother and child in that procedure. I don't think abortion-by-choice should exist so I guess that I have justification for wanting no mention of it.

It is a barbaric procedure which destroys human life. I think that should be made clear. We should be trying to move past this rather than furthering it.

Some women are fine. Some women are not. Neither tends to be shouted about due to stigma of the whole thing. There are women who have posted about telling "friends" who promptly turned on them and reacted aggressively.
Counselling services are available to women going through it which is well known enough

o1s1n · 13-12-2012 11:41AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yes...Pro-Choice would never try to exploit a tragedy...................

So if an abortion could have saved the life of a mother, yet they were denied one - pointing this out as an example of why legistlation needs to be changed is exploitative?

How exactly are we meant to act upon tragedies then so that they don't happen again? Just ignore them at least we be accused of exploiting a situation?

I think the likes of Youth Defense freaked out regarding what happened recently, recoiled in fear as it renders the term 'pro life' meaningless, then sat down to work out how best to retort.

Their result? 'oh, how dare you exploit a tragedy!'

It's a good one as it relies heavily on emotion (like most of their arguements). Reminds me of when you're debating with a religious person and they fall back on faith and emotional responses.

13-12-2012 11:41AM

Zulu wrote: »

Why descend into petty name calling bluewolf?

I don't see the need to be civil to or about the ones who display grotesque pictures on o'connell street or at creches.

I also don't see how it's "petty name calling", I haven't called them a thing.

philologos · 13-12-2012 11:42AM

K-9 wrote: »

Stick to the thread topic which after 2 warnings now and a notice in the title, posters should be perfectly clear on.

Its impossible to discuss this topic without reference to the ethics behind abortion.

I'll probably be taking this to Feedback. This is the last post I'll make in this thread.

General Zod · 13-12-2012 11:43AM

The people behind Youth Defence and all its fellow astroturf front organisations that originate from the same grubby office on Capel St. are a bunch of right-wing fanatics who want women barefoot and pregnant.

Zulu · 13-12-2012 11:43AM

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't see the need to be civil to or about the ones who display grotesque pictures on o'connell street or at creches.

And yet not all "anti abortion" partake in these actions. Why won't you consider being civil to me?

Tabnabs · 13-12-2012 11:46AM

philologos wrote: »

Its interesting to notice from a pro-choice perspective that discussing or displaying the procedure seems to be wrong. How can one know what to choose if they aren't informed about what will happen to them and to the unborn child?

I have absolutely no wish to see heart transplant images or caesarean section pictures, does that make these procedures wrong as well?

starbelgrade · 13-12-2012 11:46AM

Whoever made that poster took the phrase "cut and paste" a bit too literally.

13-12-2012 11:48AM

Zulu wrote: »

And yet not all "anti abortion" partake in these actions. Why won't you consider being civil to me?

I didn't say they did. I said anti choice propaganda. Not "all those awful evil prolifers are actually anti choice".

K-9 · 13-12-2012 11:50AM

philologos wrote: »

Its impossible to discuss this topic without reference to the ethics behind abortion.

I'll probably be taking this to Feedback. This is the last post I'll make in this thread.

Well others can post perfectly fine without referring to the wider issues so it doesn't seem impossible at all. Feedback is open to you or pm me if you have any issues.

LookingFor · 13-12-2012 12:12PM

Slightly OT, but just got a an automated telephone call telling me how abortion was destroying families across Ireland. I hung up at that point. But first time I've had, or even heard or someone, getting one of those automated political spam calls. They're very common in the US but could do without it being imported here.

CroatoanCat · 13-12-2012 12:13PM

philologos wrote: »

In one sense I think the poster shouldn't have been displayed, it is horrific. But it is only horrific for much the same reason as abortion-by-choice is horrific. It should never be witnessed or be a reality in society.

Its interesting to notice from a pro-choice perspective that discussing or displaying the procedure seems to be wrong. How can one know what to choose if they aren't informed about what will happen to them and to the unborn child?

I've copied this post I case it vanishes again.

I'm pro-choice and have no difficulty in discussions or displays of the procedure of abortion. I do have a general difficulty with the tendency of anti-choice campaigners to use images of aborted foetuses of late gestation when, in fact, the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester - I understand almost 90% of abortions in the UK are conducted where the pregancy is of less than ten weeks duration.

Of course, if one is of the view that human life begins at conception, an image of an aborted six-week old embryo and an image of an aborted 22-week old foetus will be equally horrific. For people in the middle ground, which I imagine constitues the majority of people in this country, there is most likely a difference. An embryo of six weeks gestation certainly does lnot look the same as a 20-week foetus. A policy of using images of aborted foetuses of late gestation does not reflect the reality that most abortions take place well within the first trimester.

In this particular instance, using images of an aborted foetus to intimidate and traduce a named politican is a loathsome practice.

Zulu · 13-12-2012 12:15PM

Tabnabs wrote: »

I have absolutely no wish to see heart transplant images or caesarean section pictures, does that make these procedures wrong as well?

I don't see how it makes them "sick" & "evil" either. What's your point?

Should we censer all images of medical procedures from public places just in case?

opinion guy · 13-12-2012 12:16PM

I note that the people who post these posters up did not have the courage of their convictions to put their organization or names on the posters. :rolleyes:

tony007 · 13-12-2012 12:17PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Secondly, we don't wave around pictures of open heart surgery on the streets because it's common fcuking decency. We also don't wave around pictures of the up close parts of childbirth because we don't need that shoved in our faces either. "That looks gross so it must be wrong" is not logic.
If people want to learn what happens then they can go find out from themselves without misleading sensationalistic nonsense.

And NOT in front of children

So would you agree that the ads on the telly showing starving children should be stopped too? Kids see them.

Zulu · 13-12-2012 12:17PM

CroatoanCat wrote: »

In this particular instance, using images of an aborted foetus to intimidate and traduce a named politican is a loathsome practice.

I don't think anyone here will dispute that. Thankfully we can all agree on that one thing, at least!

Min · 13-12-2012 12:29PM

Outside a creche, the young children wouldn't understand it, but the parents would.
I don't think we should be shielded from what happens, Alan Shatter comes from a party that gave commitments before the last election.
I wouldn't put up such posters, but sometimes politicians need a reality check.
They don't mind using their power to target people in what could be termed bully boy tactics, like Alan Shatter's party agreed to cutting respite grant for carers rather than a 3% rise in the USC for people who earn over €100,000.
I don't think he is really in a position to talk about bully boy tactics when high earners are protected while those who save the state millions, possibly billions are targetted.
Alan Shatter should look in a mirror when he is upset that he has been targetted and want to cry bully boy at people.
It is not like he doesn't be involved in the same practice.

upstairs for coffee · 13-12-2012 12:30PM

Zulu wrote: »

I don't think anyone here will dispute that. Thankfully we can all agree on that one thing, at least!

Seems as if you were defending it just a few moments ago. :rolleyes:

Zulu · 13-12-2012 12:36PM

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Seems as if you were defending it just a few moments ago. :rolleyes:

Well save your ":rolleyes:", I wasn't.

VinLieger · 13-12-2012 12:39PM

tony007 wrote: »

So would you agree that the ads on the telly showing starving children should be stopped too? Kids see them.

Moronic argument

tony007 · 13-12-2012 12:40PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Moronic argument

Why so?

VinLieger · 13-12-2012 12:47PM

tony007 wrote: »

Why so?

Well it implies you consider the sight of starving children as physically disturbing as a picture of say someone during the middle of open heart surgery or in the middle of a c-section, generally those of a non sociopathic nature wouldnt equate the 2 as being equal

Alan Shatter condemns "bullyboy" anti-abortion posters, See Mod warning post #25

Comments