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

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

Options
1234579

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I don't think I did. I just remarked on a discrepancy I have experienced here about the declared belief-sets of posters who identify as pro-life on an anonymous forum compared to those who do so IRL, where they can less easily conceal other aspects of their views and attitudes.


    You don't believe that someone can be pro-life and atheist, or that someone can be Roman Catholic and pro-choice?

    The fact that a person's views on abortion may correlate with the RCC views on abortion doesn't mean a whole lot really. They may also for their own reasons they disagree with abortion, and a person who is Roman Catholic may have their own reasons why they choose not to align themselves with the RCC doctrine on the issue.

    I know many women who fundamentally disagree with abortion on humanitarian grounds, and these women aren't particularly religious, or if you prefer - would identify as atheist.

    I myself am a practicing Roman Catholic but I have a fundamental disagreement with the State imposing restrictions on a woman's reproductive rights. I do wish abortion were an unnecessary procedure that no woman should have to go through, but until medical science advances to a point where the procedure is unnecessary, it really doesn't leave a woman with much of a choice.

    With regard to the actions of the group in the OP, well, I personally think they do more harm than good by antagonising people with their ridiculous publicity stunts. They do themselves, and the people they purport to be advocating for, no favours really IMO.


  • Options
    #183
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You don't believe that someone can be pro-life and atheist, or that someone can be Roman Catholic and pro-choice?

    The fact that a person's views on abortion may correlate with the RCC views on abortion doesn't mean a whole lot really. They may also for their own reasons they disagree with abortion, and a person who is Roman Catholic may have their own reasons why they choose not to align themselves with the RCC doctrine on the issue.

    I know many women who fundamentally disagree with abortion on humanitarian grounds, and these women aren't particularly religious, or if you prefer - would identify as atheist.

    I myself am a practicing Roman Catholic but I have a fundamental disagreement with the State imposing restrictions on a woman's reproductive rights. I do wish abortion were an unnecessary procedure that no woman should have to go through, but until medical science advances to a point where the procedure is unnecessary, it really doesn't leave a woman with much of a choice.

    With regard to the actions of the group in the OP, well, I personally think they do more harm than good by antagonising people with their ridiculous publicity stunts. They do themselves, and the people they purport to be advocating for, no favours really IMO.

    While I would agree with you that a persons religion or lack of may not the reason of their views but if you look at a lot of the groups who are against abortion they are nearly always connected to a religious group or part of one. I remember looking to see if there was any active in Ireland who had nothing to do with religion and came across one. Of course thats just with me googling a little so not exactly fully scientific but non religious groups aren't as common as the religious ones.


  • Options
    #184
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You don't believe that someone can be pro-life and atheist, or that someone can be Roman Catholic and pro-choice?
    Of course I do, that isnt what I said at all. I do think, from real life, that they are very much in the minority though, and actually I think pro-life means a different thing to atheists than to Catholics - in particular I don't know of a single pro-lifer who is anywhere near as hard-line as the catholic stance on the issue, so that in terms of the Irish debate they are mostly in effect mild pro-choicers.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The fact that a person's views on abortion may correlate with the RCC views on abortion doesn't mean a whole lot really. They may also for their own reasons they disagree with abortion, and a person who is Roman Catholic may have their own reasons why they choose not to align themselves with the RCC doctrine on the issue.

    I know many women who fundamentally disagree with abortion on humanitarian grounds, and these women aren't particularly religious, or if you prefer - would identify as atheist.

    I myself am a practicing Roman Catholic but I have a fundamental disagreement with the State imposing restrictions on a woman's reproductive rights. I do wish abortion were an unnecessary procedure that no woman should have to go through, but until medical science advances to a point where the procedure is unnecessary, it really doesn't leave a woman with much of a choice.
    I realize there many Catholics who are more or less pro-choice. In fact many Catholics have had abortions, or there would be far fewer women going to the UK, so that isn't the question.

    The hierarchy aren't though, and it was their line I was referring to.


  • Options
    #185
    wendell borton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭wendell borton


    The church has done awful things and rightfully there was a backslash against them, but are things now going to far. People are entitled to their believes as long as they don't cause harm to or interfere with others way of life.
    The shock tactics up until now was a tactic used by the pro life head bangers, the pro choice really don't need to stoop to their level.


  • Options
    #186
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    While I would agree with you that a persons religion or lack of may not the reason of their views but if you look at a lot of the groups who are against abortion they are nearly always connected to a religious group or part of one. I remember looking to see if there was any active in Ireland who had nothing to do with religion and came across one. Of course thats just with me googling a little so not exactly fully scientific but non religious groups aren't as common as the religious ones.

    As I said, if you look at non-religiously-affiliated pro-life groups, they would all, afaik, be considered pro-choice in Ireland. They are only ever against abortion on demand, and I have not yet seen one that does not accept abortion in cases of rape, incest, serious fetal or maternal health issues (and not just risk to life). A stance which is normally considered pro-choice here.

    I just think it funny that none of these extreme pro-lifers who claim not to be influenced by religion are nowhere to be found in real life. One would almost be tempted to think they were the traditional religious pro-lifers denying their religion. Though I thought that was banned by the story of the cock crowing!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    RobertKK wrote: »
    If abortion is ok, what is wrong with pictures of a life that ended in abortion?

    If accident prevention is ok, what is wrong with showing the dismembered body of someone hit by a train?


  • Options
    #188
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I would say with the Savita case.

    Which reports said had nothing to do with Catholic teaching, but had everything to do with bad practice as it says in the reports.

    Dr Peter Boylan, former Master of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, disagrees.

    A leading obstetrician claimed the inability to end Savita Halappanavar's pregnancy until there was a substantial and real risk of her death ultimately cost the 31-year-old her life. Peter Boylan revealed that by the time she was sick enough to justify an abortion on the morning of Wednesday October 24 last year, she was already suffering from sepsis blood infection.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-29201735.html

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22185690


    Halapannavar’s husband maintains that her death could have been prevented if hospital officials had intervened earlier to terminate her non-viable fetus. Now, after a two-week review of the coroner’s report, that position has been confirmed by an Irish jury

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...abortion-care/

    SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she received a termination within two days of her admission to Galway Hospital.

    http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/abo...-29205695.html

    The reports do not say what you claim.


  • Options
    #189
    Backspinswerve
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 22 ✭Backspinswerve


    I'm an atheist and and believe it is immoral to kill a foetus once it can has sense perceptions and can feel pain.


  • Options
    #190
    FullblownRose
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    The trouble is that people, for their various reasons, can be reluctant to sit in front of a doctor or more than one doctor and profess to be suicidal. The rules need to be less stringent and women need to have more privacy and less stringency to face at a time like that.
    Foetal abnormalities obviously dont even come into it for women who wish to have a terination in the early weeks pre-ultrasound etc.


  • Options
    #191
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Backspinswerve wrote: »
    I'm an atheist and and believe it is immoral to about a foetus once it can has sense perceptions and can feel pain.

    Does that include fetuses suffering from a condition that is incompatible with life?

    And secondly, at what stage do you consider that a fetus can feel pain?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Backspinswerve
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 22 ✭Backspinswerve


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Does that include fetuses suffering from a condition that is incompatible with life?

    And secondly, at what stage do you consider that a fetus can feel pain?

    I don't know what stage that is, if the foetus has no chance of life then it's best to minimise it's suffering and abort it.


  • Options
    #193
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Backspinswerve wrote: »
    I don't know what stage that is
    Certainly not before 20 weeks, and probably not until several weeks after that.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385812/#!po=35.7143

    The reason for that is that even if the nervous system is sufficiently developed at something after 20 weeks to trigger pain stimuli, (which is possible but not certain), it appears that the brain itself is not well enough developed to interpret them, and therefore can't process such stimuli as painful.
    Backspinswerve wrote: »
    if the foetus has no chance of life then it's best to minimise it's suffering and abort it.
    That seems curiously peremptory, for someone who says they are pro-life. What about the couple, don't they have a choice in the matter?

    What do you mean by "has no chance of life" - do you agree for example that a fetus with anencephaly has no chance of life?


  • Options
    #194
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    But if its bad to speak for all women about X its bad to say it about Y. What about that yank that made the youtube video, I know its just one person on the extreme but it shows the fallacy of universal statements

    It still wasn't a whim, for some it's an easy decision to make when they find they are pregnant and don't' want to be because they have already done the thinking and feeling they need to.

    Contraception is not 100% most sexually active women can say pretty quickly given their current life if they would continue a pregnancy or not, because they have already thought about it and considered the issue.


  • Options
    #195
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,155 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Backspinswerve wrote: »
    I don't know what stage that is, if the foetus has no chance of life then it's best to minimise it's suffering and abort it.

    Maybe you should find out a bit more about these things. You may s till have the same opinion afterwards but at least it'll be educated/informed.


  • Options
    #196
    Letree
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Letree


    I don't think radical feminists like these are doing the movement any favours.


  • Options
    #197
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Letree wrote: »
    I don't think radical feminists like these are doing the movement any favours.

    I can cope with the radicalism, it's the gobbledygook English I object to.
    "Smashing the heteronormative, patriarchal, white-supremacist, imperialist,
    ableist capitalist system."


  • Options
    #198
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,106 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Letree wrote: »
    I don't think radical feminists like these are doing the movement any favours.

    This is radical?


  • Options
    #199
    Letree
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Letree


    obplayer wrote: »
    I can cope with the radicalism, it's the gobbledygook English I object to.


    That could only be written by some greasy 20 year old student.


  • Options
    #200
    NotASheeple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 424 ✭✭NotASheeple


    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.



    Tbh, I don't think there's a difference between either set of scumbags.


  • Options
    #201
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Morag wrote: »
    It still wasn't a whim, for some it's an easy decision to make when they find they are pregnant and don't' want to be because they have already done the thinking and feeling they need to.
    Did you watch the same video I did, its the Emily Lett's one where she talks about abortion with the backstory that she had deliberately not used contraception? (the original video seems to be taken down). Her view on if she wanted a child might have been clear cut for her but the rest of her deliberate actions indicate that pregnancy and abortion are a trivial thing to her. I'm not suggesting that this is in anyway a "normal" viewpoint but when you talk about people you simply can not talk in universals about their motivations and feelings.

    In relation to the debate in general, this it always tends to boil down to black and white positions but if you dig a bit deeper surprisingly few people are fully Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, and as BeardedLady points out we have to deal with the real world.
    Abortion as an act, separate to the person undertaking it and their reasonings makes me uncomfortable at an emotional/philosophical (but not scientific) level but I've been surprised to find out from other threads (the Contraception train one in particular) that leaving aside the moral arguments about bodily integrity and so on simply from a harm reduction point of view I'd favour a more liberal legal regime than some posters who have no issue aligning themselves strongly as Pro-Choice.

    This act by this group was just stupid and polarizing though


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    RobYourBuilder wrote: »
    Pro-choice group put banner advertising abortion pills on Galway Cathedral

    A time and a place for everything, but this wasn't the time or the place. Attention whorism at its worst.


  • Options
    #203
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I would say with the Savita case.

    Which reports said had nothing to do with Catholic teaching, but had everything to do with bad practice as it says in the reports.
    obplayer wrote: »
    Dr Peter Boylan, former Master of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, disagrees.

    A leading obstetrician claimed the inability to end Savita Halappanavar's pregnancy until there was a substantial and real risk of her death ultimately cost the 31-year-old her life. Peter Boylan revealed that by the time she was sick enough to justify an abortion on the morning of Wednesday October 24 last year, she was already suffering from sepsis blood infection.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-29201735.html

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22185690


    Halapannavar’s husband maintains that her death could have been prevented if hospital officials had intervened earlier to terminate her non-viable fetus. Now, after a two-week review of the coroner’s report, that position has been confirmed by an Irish jury

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...abortion-care/

    SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she received a termination within two days of her admission to Galway Hospital.

    http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/abo...-29205695.html

    The reports do not say what you claim.

    Why did you get this wrong please? These reports have been in the public domain for over a year. Was it just that you did not bother to check up on what your parish priest told you?
    Did you read the reports but not pay attention?
    Or were you hoping that if you simply stated an untruth that people would believe you?


  • Options
    #204
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,849 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    obplayer wrote: »
    Why did you get this wrong please? These reports have been in the public domain for over a year. Was it just that you did not bother to check up on what your parish priest told you?
    Did you read the reports but not pay attention?
    Or were you hoping that if you simply stated an untruth that people would believe you?

    That's probably the case.


  • Options
    #205
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    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 don't need to be religious to respect and defend a vulnerable life. I would consider that basic humanity.


  • Options
    #206
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    You don't need to be religious to respect and defend a vulnerable life. I would consider that basic humanity.

    That is just an empty slogan though. It means exactly nothing in practice. The same people who claim to be motivated to "protect life", in some vague way, by forcing women to risk their lives due to pregnancy, including non viable pregnancies, are perfectly willing to allow women to go abroad to destroy that same supposedly vulnerable life. If they really believed what they claim, how could they possibly live with themselves?


  • Options
    #207
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    volchitsa wrote: »
    That is just an empty slogan though. It means exactly nothing in practice. The same people who claim to be motivated to "protect life", in some vague way, by forcing women to risk their lives due to pregnancy, including non viable pregnancies, are perfectly willing to allow women to go abroad to destroy that same supposedly vulnerable life. If they really believed what they claim, how could they possibly live with themselves?

    Why don't you ask them?


  • Options
    #208
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    Why don't you ask them?

    I do, regularly.

    Never yet got a straight answer, though.

    Hey, who knows - maybe you'll be the first? :)


  • Options
    #209
    LoganRice
    Registered Users Posts: 424 ✭✭LoganRice


    i hope the government just legalises abortion and all this other civil rights related stuff so that people will stop complaining about it all and just get back to work, live let live


  • Options
    #210
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    That is just an empty slogan though. It means exactly nothing in practice.


    It means nothing to you in practice. That's why to some people, it isn't just an empty slogan, and were they to find themselves in a position where they were unexpectedly pregnant, it would certainly mean a lot more in practice than as you put it "just an empty slogan".

    The same people who claim to be motivated to "protect life", in some vague way, by forcing women to risk their lives due to pregnancy, including non viable pregnancies, are perfectly willing to allow women to go abroad to destroy that same supposedly vulnerable life.


    That's a lot of assumptions about other people you're making, based on nothing more than the fact they don't agree with your opinion. You did the same earlier, and then backtracked to suggest you really meant you were talking about the RCC Hierarchy. You clearly weren't, and now that you have twice been presented with people who haven't declared any religious motivation for their objection to abortion, you've dismissed them both out of hand and tried to tell them what they think, without giving them much of a chance to engage in the discussion.

    If they really believed what they claim, how could they possibly live with themselves?


    In case you're ever wondering in future why a non-religious person who does not support abortion avoids expressing their opinion online and on social media, well, there you have it. Passing judgment on people you don't even know, and then you wonder why people prefer to avoid being judged by complete strangers?

    I'm guessing you've never met a non-religious person who passed judgment on people who are complete strangers to them, or is that something you think only religious people must do?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I do, regularly.

    Never yet got a straight answer, though.

    Hey, who knows - maybe you'll be the first? :)

    Those aren't my views so I can't help you there.


Advertisement