At Least 25,000 Attend Anti-Abortion Vigil

smash · 21-01-2013 05:11PM

humanji wrote: »

Cut out the religion bashing.

Pretty hard to do when a serious discussion is derailed with comments such as:
"Jesus would be in favour of the 10 commandments.

Do not kill."

Min wrote: »

Pro-choice are concerned about allowing some life to be terminated, not all unborn life, to them it depends on the mind of the woman.

No, they're concerned about letting the woman make up her own mind about doing it if she wants.

hooradiation · 21-01-2013 05:12PM

Min wrote: »

I never said it was.

It was not I who said about legal and safe abortion. Notice you didn't have an issue with that person.

I have issue with you being complaining about medical procedures not being 100% safe.

Because it's a stupid complaint and a worthless observation.

Loafing Oaf · 21-01-2013 05:13PM

philologos wrote: »

I'm not in Ireland, but I think the X Case being legislated for is a good thing provided the suicide clause is on the basis of a psychologists assessment.

But X case legislation may not cover cases like Savita's, because it seems the failure to 'intervene' may have been on the basis that Savita's life was not in imminent danger. Would you favour the repeal of Article 40.3.3 if Ireland's obstetricians determined that it was necessary to give them full legal freedom to protect women's lives.

LivelineDipso · 21-01-2013 05:14PM

can we have a discussion on this issue without religious types and aetheist types having their boring mutual, symbiotic, co-dependency circle jerk?

Neither one are representative of most Irish people.

For which I am glad.

philologos · 21-01-2013 05:16PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But X case legislation may not cover cases like Savita's, because it seems the failure to 'intervene' may have been on the basis that Savita's life was not in imminent danger. Would you favour the repeal of Article 40.3.3 if Ireland's obstetricians determined that it was necessary to give them full legal freedom to protect women's lives.

Intervention by medical necessity is what I'm supportive of.

Its not my place anymore to day that people in Ireland should repeal by referendum Article 40.3.3.

I disagree strongly with pro-choice legislation in any country including where I am now.

Loafing Oaf · 21-01-2013 05:22PM

philologos wrote: »

Intervention by medical necessity is what I'm supportive of.

But 'intervention by medical necessity' is not sufficient in terms of guidelines for obstetricians, as was made clear at the recent Oireachtas hearings. You may not be prepared to stipulate the exact circumstances in which medical professionals should be allowed to abort/terminate/ intervene/whatever, but our legislators are obliged to...

Sarky · 21-01-2013 05:34PM

Phil et al. tend to be very enthusiastic about telling people what they think is wrong, but as soon as it comes to having to make the actual decision on what's right, they're all "oh it's not my place to say" (In which case it is also not for you to say what's wrong. Remember, there's supposed to be an objective morality, kids!), or "that's for medical professionals to decide" (When 99% of them recommend something you think is wrong, contradicting yourself), or "whichever option is best for both mother and unborn babby" (which is a cowardly dodge because you're scared of making a choice that will either confirm you as anti-woman, or show that you don't really believe what you say you do).

It really is very odd to see. I'd have thought with the power of the bible informing you you'd be less indecisive when it comes to moral grey areas.

hotmail.com · 21-01-2013 05:41PM

Min wrote: »

They should get proper medical care and any other help they need. Not what the pro-choice IFPA were telling them which was to conceal their abortions.

But if you believe it's murder, shouldn't they face punishment if that's your view?

tritium · 21-01-2013 05:42PM

I'm curious, after 39 pages of debate. I see lots of folks who are clearly at or near the extremes of both positions. Yet the standard tactic is to bait and nit pick the other side with the 'hard cases'- what about rape? What about people using it for contraception etc. Tbh it feels a bit dishonest- from the tone if many posts I doubt the posters would be happy if abortion was permitted but only in cases of rape, or if there was an absolute ban on only 'casual' abortions (sorry I know its an inelegant expression but I hope the meaning is obvious). So my question is this- what level of access to abortion are posters here looking for/ comfortable with? (I'm including medical procedures that lead to the death of the foetus in this). What's acceptable in terms of situation, number of weeks. If the X case was legislated for is that enough? Too much? Not nearly enough?

If you're going to reply please don't do the " oh it's not my business" call, I'm actually curious about people's personal position here!

kylith · 21-01-2013 05:45PM

Min wrote: »

Ireland is safer than most countries to have a baby.

No, it's really not. It's as safe as most other countries.
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=21361

Ireland's maternal mortality rate is twice as high as has been previously reported, new figures show.

Artful_Badger · 21-01-2013 05:47PM

tritium wrote: »

I'm curious, after 39 pages of debate. I see lots of folks who are clearly at or near the extremes of both positions. Yet the standard tactic is to bait and nit pick the other side with the 'hard cases'- what about rape? What about people using it for contraception etc. Tbh it feels a bit dishonest- from the tone if many posts I doubt the posters would be happy if abortion was permitted but only in cases of rape, or if there was an absolute ban on only 'casual' abortions (sorry I know its an inelegant expression but I hope the meaning is obvious). So my question is this- what level of access to abortion are posters here looking for/ comfortable with? (I'm including medical procedures that lead to the death of the foetus in this). What's acceptable in terms of situation, number of weeks. If the X case was legislated for is that enough? Too much? Not nearly enough?

If you're going to reply please don't do the " oh it's not my business" call, I'm actually curious about people's personal position here!

I'm all for abortion on demand. The fact we are still debating the x case shows how backwards this country actually is. Hopefully in future with the x case legislation paving the way to a more rational debate on abortion where it can be viewed by both sides in a reasonable way and not just shouted down because "This is a catholic country" .

krudler · 21-01-2013 05:49PM

Sarky wrote: »

Phil et al. tend to be very enthusiastic about telling people what they think is wrong, but as soon as it comes to having to make the actual decision on what's right, they're all "oh it's not my place to say" (In which case it is also not for you to say what's wrong. Remember, there's supposed to be an objective morality, kids!), or "that's for medical professionals to decide" (When 99% of them recommend something you think is wrong, contradicting yourself), or "whichever option is best for both mother and unborn babby" (which is a cowardly dodge because you're scared of making a choice that will either confirm you as anti-woman, or show that you don't really believe what you say you do).

It really is very odd to see. I'd have thought with the power of the bible informing you you'd be less indecisive when it comes to moral grey areas.

Its not for us to decide, but it is for us to judge, and round and round it goes.

RossFixxxed · 21-01-2013 05:52PM

Country in ruins. No real protest.
Getting screwed by budgets: No real protest.
No justice served in court case? No real protest.

Telling women what to do with their own body: 25,000 idiots.

Great work again Ireland. *clap*

*clap*

*clap*

Cosmicfox · 21-01-2013 05:59PM

tritium wrote: »

I'm curious, after 39 pages of debate. I see lots of folks who are clearly at or near the extremes of both positions. Yet the standard tactic is to bait and nit pick the other side with the 'hard cases'- what about rape? What about people using it for contraception etc. Tbh it feels a bit dishonest- from the tone if many posts I doubt the posters would be happy if abortion was permitted but only in cases of rape, or if there was an absolute ban on only 'casual' abortions (sorry I know its an inelegant expression but I hope the meaning is obvious). So my question is this- what level of access to abortion are posters here looking for/ comfortable with? (I'm including medical procedures that lead to the death of the foetus in this). What's acceptable in terms of situation, number of weeks. If the X case was legislated for is that enough? Too much? Not nearly enough?

If you're going to reply please don't do the " oh it's not my business" call, I'm actually curious about people's personal position here!

I personally think I'd only ever seek an abortion if I was raped , if the baby would be born seriously disabled or if there was a threat to my health but I'd want abortion on request in Ireland for any reason up until about 12 weeks or anytime before the foetus is able to survive outside the womb/can feel pain. Women's reasons for choosing to have an abortion, be it rape, incest, already have enough children, can't afford to raise a child, tokophobia etc are not my concern and I won't judge them for it.

The X case isn't enough imo.

Lingua Franca · 21-01-2013 06:01PM

tritium wrote: »

I'm curious, after 39 pages of debate. I see lots of folks who are clearly at or near the extremes of both positions. Yet the standard tactic is to bait and nit pick the other side with the 'hard cases'- what about rape? What about people using it for contraception etc. Tbh it feels a bit dishonest- from the tone if many posts I doubt the posters would be happy if abortion was permitted but only in cases of rape, or if there was an absolute ban on only 'casual' abortions (sorry I know its an inelegant expression but I hope the meaning is obvious). So my question is this- what level of access to abortion are posters here looking for/ comfortable with? (I'm including medical procedures that lead to the death of the foetus in this). What's acceptable in terms of situation, number of weeks. If the X case was legislated for is that enough? Too much? Not nearly enough?

If you're going to reply please don't do the " oh it's not my business" call, I'm actually curious about people's personal position here!

Ok, I'll bite. I'm pro choice.

I'd like to see women in Ireland have easy access to the abortion pill up to about 14 weeks and surgical abortion with counselling up to about 20 weeks. After that purely on a serious medical need basis. I think allowing early medical abortions will prevent most later surgical ones from taking place, since that what stats worldwide have shown since it was introduced. I believe most abortions in countries where it is available are now early medical abortions.

That's what I'd like to see. What I would consider acceptable is clear guidelines and protection for doctors to perform abortions in the case of severe risk of health to the mother (So for women like Savita where she was at risk of infection and no hope of saving the foetus, for Michelle Harte and Shelia Hodgers, for X) and importantly, on request TFMR which is termination for medical reasons. Malformed and terminally ill foetuses with no chance of survival outside of the womb. It is a crime that these women have to travel to Liverpool to terminate.

Miss Lockhart · 21-01-2013 06:04PM

There is never any rational debate on this subject because the only people who protest, who go on TV or who repeatedly post online about it are the rabid hardliners on both sides. This thread is good example.

Meanwhile everyone else keeps their mouth shut. If either side really wanted to hear what the general public think they would carry out a civil debate.

Hardly any of the posts online, and practically none of the slogans and posters from protests, represent the views of any of the educated, cultured, atheist/agnostic/moderately religious people I know in real life.

Continue to shout each other down with ridiculous accusations and outlandish hyperbole - but you aren't going to see the views of the majority of people in this country from either side of the debate.

reprazant · 21-01-2013 06:12PM

Cosmicfox wrote: »

I personally think I'd only ever seek an abortion if I was raped , if the baby would be born seriously disabled or if there was a threat to my health but I'd want abortion on request in Ireland for any reason up until about 12 weeks or anytime before the foetus is able to survive outside the womb/can feel pain. Women's reasons for choosing to have an abortion, be it rape, incest, already have enough children, can't afford to raise a child, tokophobia etc are not my concern and I won't judge them for it.

The X case isn't enough imo.

The X case was about rape and incest yet it is not enough?

I may have read you wrong here but you seem to contradict yourself.

smash · 21-01-2013 06:13PM

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Hardly any of the posts online, and practically none of the slogans and posters from protests, represent the views of any of the educated, cultured, atheist/agnostic/moderately religious people I know in real life.

Please share their views with us uneducated folk... :rolleyes:

Artful_Badger · 21-01-2013 06:17PM

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

There is never any rational debate on this subject because the only people who protest, who go on TV or who repeatedly post online about it are the rabid hardliners on both sides. This thread is good example.

Thats because those are the only people who care enough to do something about it. Others who will wax lyrical at home about what they think dont actually have any interest in achieving anything and even seem to think discussing opinions with anyone that holds a strong view as beneath them. They think their opinion is the right one, dont engage in public to defend it, sit at home and think that someone else should come to them seeking counsel not realising they are no different than every other hump who drew breath (Thank Dylan).

Miss Lockhart · 21-01-2013 06:17PM

smash wrote: »

Please share their views with us uneducated folk... :rolleyes:

More nonsense.

Nobody said anyone here was uneducated (except the poster who said all "anti-choice" people are unemployed, uneducated and religious) - I merely said that the views expressed by the aggressive majority on either side do not tally with the views of the educated normal people I know.

Feel free to take offence where it's not intended if it suits whatever agenda you're pushing here though.

snakeater84 · 21-01-2013 06:19PM

The Catholic Church think that the instant a foetus is created that the foetus now becomes their property slave like in a way. They hold control over a woman's choice to do with her own body as she pleases. It would not be a logical thought to ask advice off a celibate man who abstains from the natural creation of life and has no experience of the subject. If this celibate man has a collar we ignore this logical reasoning. I don't know a thing about speaking Japanese but the point is I don't claim to...as with anyone,I don't tell them what they should do in relation to anything with THEIR body!! And people who sit at home "wax lyrically" about the subject such as myself, it's not that we don't care, it's just that we don't want to force our opinions on anybody by ramming it down everybody's throats such as religious groups proceed to as they have done for hundreds of years. We've barely cleared the social exile that unmarried mothers had to face for years with their own family throwing them out in the name of religion. I would, as I'm sure many would like Ireland to move onward and use rational thought.

Cosmicfox · 21-01-2013 06:24PM

reprazant wrote: »

The X case was about rape and incest yet it is not enough?

I may have read you wrong here but you seem to contradict yourself.

I think abortion should be allowed on request for whatever reason with a limit, which isn't covered in the X case I don't think.

I personally would only look for an abortion myself if I was raped or if there was a serious health risk involved.That confused my last post, should have left it out.

Miss Lockhart · 21-01-2013 06:24PM

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Thats because those are the only people who care enough to do something about it. Others who will wax lyrical at home about what they think dont actually have any interest in achieving anything and even seem to think discussing opinions with anyone that holds a strong view as beneath them. They think their opinion is the right one, dont engage in public to defend it, sit at home and think that someone else should come to them seeking counsel not realising they are no different than every other hump who drew breath (Thank Dylan).

So the ridiculous assumptions and hyperbole continue. It's great that you know so much about everybody elses views. Everyone thinks their opinion is the right one. Some people choose to use worthwhile and meaningful forums (not in the online sense) for debate and to seek change where they feel it is needed.

Holding a strong view and behaving in a rude, aggressive manner while putting words in peoples' mouths is not debate.

smash · 21-01-2013 06:28PM

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

More nonsense.

Nobody said anyone here was uneducated (except the poster who said all "anti-choice" people are unemployed, uneducated and religious) - I merely said that the views expressed by the aggressive majority on either side do not tally with the views of the educated normal people I know.

Feel free to take offence where it's not intended if it suits whatever agenda you're pushing here though.

Well you said "Hardly any of the posts online, and practically none of the slogans and posters from protests, represent the views of any of the educated, cultured, atheist/agnostic/moderately religious people I know in real life." which would imply that the people stating these views are uneducated and uncultured, no?

So I asked you, what are your educated friends views?

Artful_Badger · 21-01-2013 06:33PM

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

So the ridiculous assumptions and hyperbole continue. It's great that you know so much about everybody elses views. Everyone thinks their opinion is the right one. Some people choose to use worthwhile and meaningful forums (not in the online sense) for debate and to seek change where they feel it is needed.

Holding a strong view and behaving in a rude, aggressive manner while putting words in peoples' mouths is not debate.

This is an internet forum, the only kind of debate here is going to be the online kind.

And please tell me what kind of forums available to the average Joe are meaningful ? Where do your educated and cultured friends do their meaningful discussing ? I think you are seriously underestimating the benefit of being able to express your views in public and engage in a lengthy debate about those views which this forum provides. I know its very easy to claim its beneath you and a waste of time but thats of even less contribution that being rude and aggressive.

Miss Lockhart · 21-01-2013 06:33PM

smash wrote: »

Well you said "Hardly any of the posts online, and practically none of the slogans and posters from protests, represent the views of any of the educated, cultured, atheist/agnostic/moderately religious people I know in real life." which would imply that the people stating these views are uneducated and uncultured, no?

So I asked you, what are your educated friends views?

No, that's not what it implies, as I've already said. My post was really in reference to the slurs of another poster. I didn't see you taking offence there.

My educated friends can share their views in their own chosen forum, they don't need me to do it for them. I'm merely observing that those who shout loudest on this topic don't represent the majority, no matter which side they fall on.

Pompey Magnus · 21-01-2013 06:33PM

Genuine question to all those who sneer at the pro life people for being so anti-woman that they would have the temerity to tell a woman what to do with her own body:

If a female friend, who you know to be pregnant, called over to you to visit and during the course of the visit requested you open a bottle of wine, would you have any problem with serving her with as much alcohol as she wanted up until you felt it would be hazardous to her own physical wellbeing? Would you feel that denying her drink, simply because she was pregnant, would be you "telling her what to do with her own body"?

I would at first advise her of the consequences of alcohol exposure to a developing foetus, which I imagine almost everyone on both sides of the debate would do, but if she still insisted on me serving her wine I would flat out refuse.

Now that would absolutely be me exercising whatever limited power I have whilst she is in my house to tell her what she can and can't do with her own body, but I would be interested in finding out who those who feel the mother should have final say with regards her own body would react.

Would the little inhuman ball of cells or parasite as some call it ever figure in your decision to serve drink to the fully developed human carrying it?

Miss Lockhart · 21-01-2013 06:38PM

Artful_Badger wrote: »

This is an internet forum, the only kind of debate here is going to be the online kind.

And please tell me what kind of forums available to the average Joe are meaningful ? Where do your educated and cultured friends do their meaningful discussing ? I think you are seriously underestimating the benefit of being able to express your views in public and engage in a lengthy debate about those views which this forum provides. I know its very easy to claim its beneath you and a waste of time but thats of even less contribution that being rude and aggressive.

I take part in this site and this forum, so clearly I don't believe it is "beneath me" (thanks for putting words in my mouth by the way).

However, those who come out to post on this topic at every hands turn seem incapable of remaining rational or civil, so unfortunately the quality of debate is poor in that instance.

I value any opportunity to discuss my opinions and listen to the arguments of others, but what is happening here, and on most online abortion discussions, is largely abuse and shouting each other down, with a liberal helping of stereotyping.

mikom · 21-01-2013 06:38PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If a female friend, who you know to be pregnant, called over to you to visit and during the course of the visit requested you open a bottle of wine, would you have any problem with serving her with as much alcohol as she wanted up until you felt it would be hazardous to her own physical wellbeing?

Would a barman?

old hippy · 21-01-2013 06:39PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Genuine question to all those who sneer at the pro life people for being so anti-woman that they would have the temerity to tell a woman what to do with her own body:

If a female friend, who you know to be pregnant, called over to you to visit and during the course of the visit requested you open a bottle of wine, would you have any problem with serving her with as much alcohol as she wanted up until you felt it would be hazardous to her own physical wellbeing? Would you feel that denying her drink, simply because she was pregnant, would be you "telling her what to do with her own body"?

I would at first advise her of the consequences of alcohol exposure to a developing foetus, which I imagine almost everyone on both sides of the debate would do, but if she still insisted on me serving her wine I would flat out refuse.

Now that would absolutely be me exercising whatever limited power I have whilst she is in my house to tell her what she can and can't do with her own body, but I would be interested in finding out who those who feel the mother should have final say with regards her own body would react.

Would the little inhuman ball of cells or parasite as some call it ever figure in your decision to serve drink to the fully developed human carrying it?

This isn't about a woman's right to drink, for pete's sake

At Least 25,000 Attend Anti-Abortion Vigil

Comments