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

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

Death and Taxes

I'm no fan of Alan Shatter but this anti choice gang are disgusting!
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/shatter-condemns-bullyboy-posters-in-antiabortion-row-3324970.html

Posters containing bloodied photographs and the slogan "Every Child Matters Except to Alan Shatter" – with the words "Stop Abortion" underneath – were placed adjacent to a creche as well as the upmarket Wesley College School.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1213/1224327804841.html

The posters were customised versions of Fine Gael’s children’s referendum campaign posters, which carried the slogan “Every child matters”.

The original image of a boy holding a teddy bear was covered over with a graphic image of a gloved hand holding what appear to be the legs of a bloodied foetus.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

FoxT

That poster is revolting. It would, perhaps be excusable if there was a remote chance that it might achieve something - but it won't.

It certainly will not contribute in any way to the reasoned discussion that needs to happen in this country in order to make progress on this difficult issue.

It seems to me that extreme posters like this from the anti-abortion lobby serve only to incite anger at the anti-abortion people themselves, and not at the actual act of abortion.

double fail.

tony007

VinLieger wrote: »

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

No it doesn't imply that at all. I didn't say they were equal.

VinLieger

tony007 wrote: »

No it doesn't imply that at all. I didn't say they were equal.

Yes you did, the poster you replied to was talking about how the pictures were physically disgusting and children shouldnt be exposed to them, you then asked if the starving children ads should be taken off the tv for the same reason.

PopePalpatine

LookingFor wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately you're not the first: link

tony007

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes you did, the poster you replied to was talking about how the pictures were physically disgusting and children shouldnt be exposed to them, you then asked if the starving children ads should be taken off the tv for the same reason.

He didn't use the word disgusting in that post believe.

old hippy

Dean09 wrote: »

Oh come on!
Do you honestly believe that?!
Stop playing the sexism card and making out that the whole world is against women. It's like the way some extreme feminists go out looking to be insulted so they can scream "Sexist!" in someone's face.

Not the whole world. Just the patriarchal religions, governments, corporations and so on

VinLieger

tony007 wrote: »

He didn't use the word disgusting in that post believe.

No fair enough he didnt but he stated it was "common ****ing decency" to not show pictures like that.
Still the point stands that you suggested not showing pictures of starving kids for the same reason

poeticseraphim

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I'm no fan of Alan Shatter but this anti choice gang are disgusting!
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/shatter-condemns-bullyboy-posters-in-antiabortion-row-3324970.html

Posters containing bloodied photographs and the slogan "Every Child Matters Except to Alan Shatter" – with the words "Stop Abortion" underneath – were placed adjacent to a creche as well as the upmarket Wesley College School.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1213/1224327804841.html

The posters were customised versions of Fine Gael’s children’s referendum campaign posters, which carried the slogan “Every child matters”.

The original image of a boy holding a teddy bear was covered over with a graphic image of a gloved hand holding what appear to be the legs of a bloodied foetus.

They ever depict an actual abortion or a real fetus.

The pictures are always Doctored.

Remember the film called 'The Silent Scream' ? It was described as science fiction by Doctors...yet pro-lifers here and elsewhere still show films like this on 'courses'. Physicians have rebutted the claims of fetal pain and purposeful movement and any claims of sentience or sensation.

Real abortions particularly before 12 weeks look nothing like the depictions.

Most abortions happen in the first trimester. During the first trimester it is called an embryo. The fetal period begins at the 10th week gestation (or 8th week embryonic age). Up until the birth it is called a fetus and after week 20 if is often viable outside the womb. Like it or not, it's mostly called a baby only when it is born.

I have no issues with procedures being shown if a woman consents to it.

But the lies regarding abortion myths like a fake link between breast cancer and abortion or the myth of abortion syndrome show up these people for what they are.

You cannot reason with them. They destroy their own position slowly.

poeticseraphim

Would you to show pictures of smear tests or a live births the very same people who show pro-life propaganda would go nuts.

I say show it all.

GalwayGuy2

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

Wouldn't a sociopath class them as equally undisturbing?

VinLieger

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Wouldn't a sociopath class them as equally undisturbing?

Yes and no, I was simply making the point he seems to think they are the same thing

tony007

VinLieger wrote: »

No fair enough he didnt but he stated it was "common ****ing decency" to not show pictures like that.
Still the point stands that you suggested not showing pictures of starving kids for the same reason

Yes, on the same lines.

tony007

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes and no, I was simply making the point he seems to think they are the same thing

I don't seem to think that. I was saying they could garner a similar reaction, ie I don't want to watch this.

VinLieger

tony007 wrote: »

I don't seem to think that. I was saying they could garner a similar reaction, ie I don't want to watch this.

Yes but one is because its disgusting the other is because it evokes a sense of embarrassment and shame.
You may not like watching them but it isnt for the same reasons

kylith

CroatoanCat wrote: »

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.

Many pro-life posters also use pictures of stillbirths and late-term miscarriages. Truely reprehensible behaviour.

Min wrote: »

Outside a creche, the young children wouldn't understand it, but the parents would.

You'd be amazed what children understand. When my niece was three she could easily spot a foetus in an abstract painting. I haven't seen the posters myself, but if there is a picture which is recognisable to an adult then it is also recognisable to a child.

Idjit

This situation reminds me of a couple of years ago when I was in town with my little sister (six at the time). A group of pro-life folk were shouting about murder and had signs even more graphic than the one the OP posted. My sister started bawling "What happened to those babies?".

A child should not have to view that sort of thing, they aren't old enough to grasp such a complex issue and even if they could at that age they shouldn't be subjected to such gruesome imagery.

There's a watershed with TV for a reason and the fact that they put this poster near a creche is just sickening.

tony007

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes but one is because its disgusting the other is because it evokes a sense of embarrassment and shame.
You may not like watching them but it isnt for the same reasons

Your opinion. I think that may change from person to person.