Pro-choice group put banner advertising abortion pills on Galway Cathedral

Pumpkinseeds · 07-12-2014 11:48pm

They could've picked a more user friendly name, I'm an Irish woman and I've no idea how to pronounce it.:D

PucaMama · 07-12-2014 11:50pm

Morag wrote: »

If they were directing women to a site which was not womenonweb or womenhelp.org then I would be worried.

Both those sites ofer an online medical consultation, an actual persecribtion which is filled by a licensed pharmacist, with the same pills which our pharmacists hand over the counter here for a range of reasons, but can not hand them over to end a pregnancy.

I have read the guides both womenonweb and womenhelp send out with the directions on how to take the series of pill correctly and at the right times needed and what symptoms are normal and expected and what ones mean seek medical help right away.

If I despite my best efforts, ended up pregnant I would have no hesitation using womenonweb or womenhelp, if my 14 year old daughter was raped and ended up pregnant I would also be contacting womenonweb or womenhelp.

there are other, permanent, ways to avoid pregnancy without abortion.

Manach · 07-12-2014 11:53pm

Perhaps the abortionists need to co-op religion. I believe certain beliefs, such as the ancient Punic's Baal, were positively encouraged to sacrifice the new born. They are simply taking in one stage further by ridding themselves of the next generation.

Ghost Buster · 07-12-2014 11:54pm

PucaMama wrote: »

there are other, permanent, ways to avoid pregnancy without abortion.

At the risk of stating the obvious, abortion doesn't avoid pregnancy but comes about as a result of pregnancy. What point are you making?

volchitsa · 07-12-2014 11:56pm

PucaMama wrote: »

there are other, permanent, ways to avoid pregnancy without abortion.

I presume you mean sterilisation. I don't know whether you realize that the main complication with sterilisation, excepting the initial surgery, is pregnancy?

Morag · 07-12-2014 11:57pm

PucaMama wrote: »

there are other, permanent, ways to avoid pregnancy without abortion.

And?

Death is one of them, a hysterectomy is another, anything other then those two are not 100% effective.

Ghost Buster · 07-12-2014 11:57pm

volchitsa wrote: »

I presume you mean sterilisation. I don't know whether you realize that the main complication with sterilisation, excepting the initial surgery, is pregnancy?

Isn't that a sin?

volchitsa · 08-12-2014 12:05am

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Isn't that a sin?

I don't think we need to worry about that. For some unfathomable reason, Boards and other Irish forums seem to be full of atheist but nevertheless pro-life people, all of whom by amazing coincidence have come to pretty much identical beliefs about abortion as those taught by the Catholic Church.

Tis a miracle!

feargale · 08-12-2014 12:05am

Simi wrote: »

I don't think sticking a banner on a church really equates to shoving pictures of aborted fetus's in people's faces.

Give us the name of a person whose face was assaulted by this activity.

volchitsa · 08-12-2014 12:08am

Morag wrote: »

And?

Death is one of them, a hysterectomy is another, anything other then those two are not 100% effective.

Make that just one - death. Even a hysterectomy is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. http://surgery.about.com/od/aftersurgery/f/HysterectomyPre.htm

PucaMama · 08-12-2014 12:13am

volchitsa wrote: »

Make that just one - death. Even a hysterectomy is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. http://surgery.about.com/od/aftersurgery/f/HysterectomyPre.htm

the issue seems to be intact ovaries, so have them removed also

feargale · 08-12-2014 12:15am

FullblownRose wrote: »

As long as the banner did not have any kind of graphic imagery or wording - but that's usually more the style of the 'pro life' groups.

And should they also ban those pictures of half dead prisoners taken when Auschwicz and other camps were liberated?

Morag · 08-12-2014 12:16am

PucaMama wrote: »

the issue seems to be intact ovaries, so have them removed also

it's hard enough to get a tubal ligation in this country never mind getting the ovaries removed.

and what if a person wants to have children later on in life?
Or has a child already and is trying to space them out?

volchitsa · 08-12-2014 12:18am

PucaMama wrote: »

the issue seems to be intact ovaries, so have them removed also

That's stupid and dangerous advice, removal of the ovaries causes immediate premature menopause with all the side effects of the menopause, and an increased risk of osteoporosis and endometrial cancer. It should only be done for a genuine medical indication.

PucaMama · 08-12-2014 12:19am

Morag wrote: »

it's hard enough to get a tubal ligation in this country never mind getting the ovaries removed.

and what if a person wants to have children later on in life?
Or has a child already and is trying to space them out?

if they want children at some stage its hardly the end of the world to have them a little earlier. thats life it doesnt always go to plan.

also, plenty of people go abroad for cheaper cosmetic surgeries so that could be done

FactCheck · 08-12-2014 12:19am

PucaMama wrote: »

the issue seems to be intact ovaries, so have them removed also

The odds of complications from surgery to remove one's womb and ovaries are significantly higher than the odds of complications from taking mifepristone and misoprostol as directed before 10 weeks.

Here is a very interesting New York Times article about the doctors behind Women On Web.

ProLife · 08-12-2014 12:20am

volchitsa wrote: »

That's stupid and dangerous advice, removal of the ovaries causes immediate premature menopause with all the side effects of the menopause, and an increased risk of osteoporosis and endometrial cancer. It should only be done for a genuine medical indication.

You mean a woman is better off having kids when she's 24, rather than 44?

Makes sense.

For Forks Sake · 08-12-2014 12:20am

ProLife wrote: »

So basically, an anti-life group broke the law by disregarding:

- Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994, Section 11 (trespass)
- Prohibition Of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989

Thugs and bigots should be locked up. Feminists pretend to represent women who have been raped. I'd like to to see how they like the soap on a rope on the inside.

I suspect you may have a vested interest. Don't exactly know why.....but my spidey-senses are tingling

PucaMama · 08-12-2014 12:20am

volchitsa wrote: »

That's stupid and dangerous advice, removal of the ovaries causes immediate premature menopause with all the side effects of the menopause, and an increased risk of osteoporosis and endometrial cancer. It should only be done for a genuine medical indication.

menopause is the goal if you want to remove all chances of a pregnancy

jam_mac_jam · 08-12-2014 12:22am

PucaMama wrote: »

menopause is the goal if you want to remove all chances of a pregnancy

Do you actually have any remote clue about what you are talking about here? You are really doing your arguement no favours. You are making no sense. At all. You should get your ovaries removed to be sure you don't get pregnant.....wow just wow

hotmail.com · 08-12-2014 12:22am

It's a protest to bring attention to a serious issue that seems to have gone off the media's attention. I hope that it has done that and people sit up and realise that women still have to go to England to get an abortion.

feargale · 08-12-2014 12:24am

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think we need to worry about that. For some unfathomable reason, Boards and other Irish forums seem to be full of atheist but nevertheless pro-life people, all of whom by amazing coincidence have come to pretty much identical beliefs about abortion as those taught by the Catholic Church.

Tis a miracle!

You mean they are not thinking for themselves unless they reject every single stance of the Catholic Church? They are not following the correct line? That's an interesting viewpoint. I think Enver Hoxha would like it.

hotmail.com · 08-12-2014 12:25am

Red Alert wrote: »

I notice TheJournal putting its usual anti-Catholic spin on the story as well. Forget that this place is a church, this group entered property that they weren't permitted to enter and hung something on it - that's not what reasonable people do, that's the same as scumbags who daub graffiti on bus shelters do.

Where exactly is there anti-Catholic bias?

PucaMama · 08-12-2014 12:26am

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Do you actually have any remote clue about what you are talking about here? You are really doing your arguement no favours. You are making no sense. At all.

if a woman never wants a pregnancy then what else will she do? menopause means she wont have to deal with one. and the only person affected will be the woman.

volchitsa · 08-12-2014 12:29am

PucaMama wrote: »

if a woman never wants a pregnancy then what else will she do? menopause means she wont have to deal with one. and the only person affected will be the woman.

So in her 20s she has to artificially make her body into that of a 50 year old just because you think a fertilised egg is the same as a new born baby?

PucaMama · 08-12-2014 12:30am

volchitsa wrote: »

So in her 20s she has to artificially make her body into that of a 50 year old just because you think a fertilised egg is the same as a new born baby?

:rolleyes:

volchitsa · 08-12-2014 12:32am

feargale wrote: »

You mean they are not thinking for themselves unless they reject every single stance of the Catholic Church? They are not following the correct line? That's an interesting viewpoint. I think Enver Hoxha would like it.

I think you haven't read my post properly.

I'm pointing out that none of the prolife posters I have come across so far are ever prepared to admit that their views on that subject have been decided by the Catholic Church.

Which is strange, because IRL anyone I know who is strongly prolife is always, always, a fervent catholic. Or a fundamentalist Protestant.

I'm sure there are others who are neither, but they are thin on the ground in real life. So it's funny they seem so frequent here in an anonymous forum.

What about yourself?

jam_mac_jam · 08-12-2014 12:33am

PucaMama wrote: »

if a woman never wants a pregnancy then what else will she do? menopause means she wont have to deal with one. and the only person affected will be the woman.

If you think that's a valid method of contraception then you are proving my point that you really don't have any clue what you are taking about.
And if you thought through your crazy suggestion and the effects on society for a few minutes I think you would see that.

The fact you would suggest is a little bit sinister really. I don't think you could be serious.

volchitsa · 08-12-2014 12:35am

ProLife wrote: »

You mean a woman is better off having kids when she's 24, rather than 44?

Makes sense.

What's that got to do with anything? The question ws the suggestion that a woman who didn't want any (or any more) children should have a ovariectomy along with a hysterectomy as a way of increasing its contraceptive reliability. That would be completely stupid and in fact dangerous.

PucaMama · 08-12-2014 12:39am

so a complete hysterectomy and removal of ovaries is sinister in some way, yet abortion is ok

Pro-choice group put banner advertising abortion pills on Galway Cathedral

Comments