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

Son Of A Vidic · 08-12-2014 11:37pm

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.

obplayer · 10-12-2014 2:00am

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?

PopePalpatine · 10-12-2014 9:18am

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.

Little CuChulainn · 10-12-2014 9:28am

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.

volchitsa · 10-12-2014 2:36pm

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?

Little CuChulainn · 10-12-2014 3:33pm

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?

volchitsa · 10-12-2014 3:35pm

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?

LoganRice · 10-12-2014 3:39pm

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

One eyed Jack · 10-12-2014 3:40pm

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?

Little CuChulainn · 10-12-2014 3:46pm

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.

volchitsa · 10-12-2014 3:50pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

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

Not sure what you mean - you don't subscribe to what you yourself described as basic humanity?

Or maybe you do, and you are out regularly protesting at the airport and the ferry ports, trying to save all those babies?

In which case, fair enough. I just have never seen you, or anyone else, doing so.

Grayson · 10-12-2014 3:55pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

I don't think that's what he's (She's?) getting at.
If abortion is actually the same as the taking of human life then a pro life person should be doing everything to stop it.
At this point I'm running the risk of becoming hyperbolic, but to a pro lifer an abortion clinic is literally a death camp. It's up there with Auschwitz.

If I knew of a camp like Auschwitz I'd try everything, in and outside the law, to stop it. Especially if it was killing only babies.

Pro lifers don't do this though.If they truly believed what they say they do, they'd be doing more to stop it.

I think that's what he/she means.

Little CuChulainn · 10-12-2014 3:59pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Not sure what you mean - you don't subscribe to what you yourself described as basic humanity?

Or maybe you do, and you are out regularly protesting at the airport and the ferry ports, trying to save all those babies?

In which case, fair enough. I just have never seen you, or anyone else, doing so.

You made up a set of views and attributed them to me then demanded I justify them. But they are not my views.

volchitsa · 10-12-2014 4:01pm

Grayson wrote: »

I don't think that's what he's (She's?) getting at.
If abortion is actually the same as the taking of human life then a pro life person should be doing everything to stop it.
At this point I'm running the risk of becoming hyperbolic, but to a pro lifer an abortion clinic is literally a death camp. It's up there with Auschwitz.

If I knew of a camp like Auschwitz I'd try everything, in and outside the law, to stop it. Especially if it was killing only babies.

Pro lifers don't do this though.If they truly believed what they say they do, they'd be doing more to stop it.

I think that's what he/she means.

She.

And yes, exactly.

Another example - if, say, a Yemeni father living in Ireland announced that they got a really good bride price for his 9 hear old daughter back home in the Yemen, or some other country where child marriage is legal, would any decent person really just tut a little and say, what a shame we can't do anything to help the child?

Yet we are expected to believe that one can simultaneously believe that a woman must be forced to risk death before being allowed to abort a dying fetus, but that if the same woman decided to take a perfectly healthy fetus to another country to abort it, it would be an unacceptable attack on her personal liberty to try to stop her.

Those are incompatible, and no sane person could genuinely believe both. It really is that simple.

volchitsa · 10-12-2014 4:04pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You made up a set of views and attributed them to me then demanded I justify them. But they are not my views.

You were the one who said it was basic humanity. I pointed out a glaring inconsistency for anyone who thinks that abortion is an attack on basic humanity. But I'm quite prepared to accept that you don't really think that about abortion, you just appeared to, by your use of emotive language.

Little CuChulainn · 10-12-2014 4:08pm

volchitsa wrote: »

You were the one who said it was basic humanity. I pointed out a glaring inconsistency for anyone who thinks that abortion is an attack on basic humanity. But I'm quite prepared to accept that you don't really think that about abortion, you just appeared to, by your use of emotive language.

I said it was basic humanity to want to defend the vulnerable and not simply a catholic doctrine. Most people would agree with that, they just disagree on when this protection should kick in.

strobe · 10-12-2014 4:16pm

volchitsa wrote: »

You were the one who said it was basic humanity. I pointed out a glaring inconsistency for anyone who thinks that abortion is an attack on basic humanity. But I'm quite prepared to accept that you don't really think that about abortion, you just appeared to, by your use of emotive language.

What a ****ing ****ty disingenuous argument. You know quite well that the vast majority, if not all, pro life people strongly disagree with people traveling to Britain for abortions. What inconsistency? Uggh.

volchitsa · 10-12-2014 4:21pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I said it was basic humanity to want to defend the vulnerable and not simply a catholic doctrine. Most people would agree with that, they just disagree on when this protection should kick in.

You posted that comment in reply to a post about people having identical views on abortion to those of the Catholic Church, and you put no riders at that point. So either you have rowed right back from your original point, or you were just trolling.

volchitsa · 10-12-2014 4:25pm

strobe wrote: »

What a ****ing ****ty disingenuous argument. You know quite well that the vast majority, if not all, pro life people strongly disagree with people traveling to Britain for abortions. What inconsistency? Uggh.

Are you really serious? How many of the people out protesting in Merrion Square against a law allowing women to have an abortion to save their lives have ever risked arrest by protesting at the airport or the ferry terminals about women going to the Uk to abort perfectly healthy fetuses?

They're against it, in the way I'm against the X factor, but no more than that. Do you really think if hundreds, indeed thousands, of Irish children were being taken out of the country to be killed no-one would get off their backsides and try to physically stop it happening?

I know I would.

Little CuChulainn · 10-12-2014 4:28pm

volchitsa wrote: »

You posted that comment in reply to a post about people having identical views on abortion to those of the Catholic Church, and you put no riders at that point. So either you have rowed right back from your original point, or you were just trolling.

I'll take option 3, you were looking for an argument so you made one up. Or option 4, my point went right over your head.

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you really serious? How many of the people out protesting in Merrion Square against a law allowing women to have an abortion to save their lives have ever risked arrest by protesting at the airport or the ferry terminals about women going to the Uk to abort perfectly healthy fetuses?

They're against it, in the way I'm against the X factor, but no more than that. Do you really think if hundreds, indeed thousands, of Irish children were being taken out of the country to be killed no-one would get off their backsides and try to physically stop it happening?

I know I would.

It's a ridiculous point. But let's expand on it. I take it you don't agree with child soldiers in Somalia? Why aren't you over there protesting it?

strobe · 10-12-2014 4:29pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you really serious? How many of the people out protesting in Merrion Square against a law allowing women to have an abortion to save their lives have ever risked arrest by protesting at the airport or the ferry terminals about women going to the Uk to abort perfectly healthy fetuses?

They're against it, in the way I'm against the X factor, but no more than that. Do you really think if hundreds, indeed thousands, of Irish children were being taken out of the country to be killed no-one would get off their backsides and try to physically stop it happening?

I know I would.

If I post up a bunch of links of horrendous things that are happening are you going to score a couple of M16's,sling them across yourself and head off to stop them? Are you ****.

volchitsa · 10-12-2014 4:35pm

strobe wrote: »

If I post up a bunch of links of horrendous things that are happening are you going to score a couple of M16's,sling them across yourself and head off to stop them? Are you ****.

Thing is, we have to live with the fact that we don't all head off to Syria or Ethiopia or wherever, to save people (though some people do do it, and just look at the stick Geldoff got over Ethiopia - there's always a price to pay. And an Irish-Egyptian lad is currently at risk of the death penalty for political agitation in Egypt.) But most of us live with our inaction in these faraway cases for the same reason we don't send our dinners off to Africa every day - because it is far away, and we don't know the political situation and we suppose - probably correctly - that things are more complicated than just riding in and saving the poor. Also, it's all so overwhelming - which country, which oppressed minority do we try to help and who else are we not saving?

None of those points are relevant wrt Irish women having abortions. In one case, people are protesting against allowing ill women abortions to save their lives, yet they are perfectly willing to allow possibly the very same women abort the same babies as long as it happens a hundred miles away.

So no, your comparison is nonsensical. Sorry.

OldNotWIse · 10-12-2014 4:39pm

lennyloulou wrote: »

I am pro choice.
However I get tired of the blatant aggressive methods often used by the pro choice group... ultimately it does them no favours in the public eye!

I am pro-life and I get tired of the same aggressive methods used by pro life groups! Damaging the cause etc. I find a lot of animal rights groups fall into this trap too by demanding we all go vegan etc. Give people enough amunition to label you a loony and your cause is doomed.

volchitsa · 10-12-2014 4:42pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'll take option 3, you were looking for an argument so you made one up. Or option 4, my point went right over your head.

It's a ridiculous point. But let's expand on it. I take it you don't agree with child soldiers in Somalia? Why aren't you over there protesting it?

I already answered that. Quite apart from the fact that you don't know anything about what I do to help other countries, it would be impossible just to go out and stop child soldiers being made to fight in Somalia. You'd need to speak the language, for starters. But that doesn't stop us preventing Irish children from fighting in the Irish Army. Or indeed stopping them form going abroad to fight in foreign wars, when we know of it happening.

Your point is unutterably stupid, because people did protest about abortion law, and yet accept the fact that the same women can go to England to have abortions. They not only know it's happening, they actually allow it to be organized from within Ireland.

strobe · 10-12-2014 4:45pm

volchitsa wrote: »

I already answered that. Quite apart from the fact that you don't know anything about what I do to help other countries, it would be impossible just to go out and stop child soldiers being made to fight in Somalia. You'd need to speak the language, for starters. But that doesn't stop us preventing Irish children from fighting in the Irish Army. Or indeed stopping them form going abroad to fight in foreign wars, when we know of it happening.

Your point is unutterably stupid, because people did protest about abortion law, and yet accept the fact that the same women can go to England to have abortions. They not only know it's happening, they actually allow it to be organized from within Ireland.

Gah! , you're so full of crap. If pro-lifers went to Dublin airport and started rugby tackling pregnant women to the ground you'd be on here talking about what scumbags they were. You don't appear to be stupid. You know quite well your point is bollox and just looking for a cheap (horrendously transparent) shot to take.

One eyed Jack · 10-12-2014 4:58pm

Grayson wrote: »

I don't think that's what he's (She's?) getting at.
If abortion is actually the same as the taking of human life then a pro life person should be doing everything to stop it.

That would be projecting a position on someone else, based on a label ascribed to them for a position you (not you personally) assume they should hold.

It's basically taking one opinion in isolation, and filling in the background with your own prejudices. It's a very simplistic, black and white point of view that doesn't allow for the fact that people are far more nuanced than simplistic labels that actually mean fcukall when you really think about it -

"pro-life" - Handy label for clutching at the moral high ground, yet I've never met anyone who relishes the thought of an abortion.

"pro-choice" - Another handy label for clutching the moral high ground, yet again I've never met anyone who relished the thought of having to make that choice.

At this point I'm running the risk of becoming hyperbolic, but to a pro lifer an abortion clinic is literally a death camp. It's up there with Auschwitz.

If I knew of a camp like Auschwitz I'd try everything, in and outside the law, to stop it. Especially if it was killing only babies.

Pro lifers don't do this though.If they truly believed what they say they do, they'd be doing more to stop it.

I think that's what he/she means.

A tad hyperbolic alright, but again, you're working under the assumption that if a person objects to something, they must go all in, for everyone, whereas for most people, it's simply a case of "I don't support the idea of abortion", it doesn't mean they have to do what you think they should be doing. Most people aren't so black and white in their thinking.

OldNotWIse · 10-12-2014 5:04pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would be projecting a position on someone else, based on a label ascribed to them for a position you (not you personally) assume they should hold.

It's basically taking one opinion in isolation, and filling in the background with your own prejudices. It's a very simplistic, black and white point of view that doesn't allow for the fact that people are far more nuanced than simplistic labels that actually mean fcukall when you really think about it -

"pro-life" - Handy label for clutching at the moral high ground, yet I've never met anyone who relishes the thought of an abortion.

"pro-choice" - Another handy label for clutching the moral high ground, yet again I've never met anyone who relished the thought of having to make that choice.

A tad hyperbolic alright, but again, you're working under the assumption that if a person objects to something, they must go all in, for everyone, whereas for most people, it's simply a case of "I don't support the idea of abortion", it doesn't mean they have to do what you think they should be doing. Most people aren't so black and white in their thinking.

Indeed. I've lost count of the amount of times a pro-choice person has asked, "well, would you be willing to house the foetus in your womb, would would you?!" - it's a physical impossibility

volchitsa · 10-12-2014 6:21pm

strobe wrote: »

Gah! , you're so full of crap. If pro-lifers went to Dublin airport and started rugby tackling pregnant women to the ground you'd be on here talking about what scumbags they were.

But that's because I don't believe a pregnant woman going for an abortion is killing a child. If I did, then I might actually consider that it was acceptable to rugby tackle them in order to save a child.

But of course you know very well that all this talk of rugby tackle is pure hyperbole (which you were so quick to accuse others of - projection, much?) and that all I ever said was that they could protest at airports etc, as they did in Dublin against the Protection of life during pregnancy Act. If they can't be bothered even protesting peacefully, they can't really care that much about the unborn babies they claim are being killed, can they?

volchitsa · 10-12-2014 6:29pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would be projecting a position on someone else, based on a label ascribed to them for a position you (not you personally) assume they should hold.

It's basically taking one opinion in isolation, and filling in the background with your own prejudices. It's a very simplistic, black and white point of view that doesn't allow for the fact that people are far more nuanced than simplistic labels that actually mean fcukall when you really think about it -

"pro-life" - Handy label for clutching at the moral high ground, yet I've never met anyone who relishes the thought of an abortion.

"pro-choice" - Another handy label for clutching the moral high ground, yet again I've never met anyone who relished the thought of having to make that choice.

A tad hyperbolic alright, but again, you're working under the assumption that if a person objects to something, they must go all in, for everyone, whereas for most people, it's simply a case of "I don't support the idea of abortion", it doesn't mean they have to do what you think they should be doing. Most people aren't so black and white in their thinking.

The problem with that is that there are unavoidable consequences of adopting certain stances though. If I want to ban divorce but I go abroad to get a divorce myself, then people are entitled to point that out, and you can claim human inconsistency if you like, but the right word is hypocrisy.

Similarly, if I march around Dublin calling for laws whereby other people must pay with their health if necessary for my declared beliefs about fetuses, then my failing to protest a law which specifically allows fetuses to be killed when there is no risk to the health of the mother carrying it is in complete contradiction with the grounds on which I base my support for a ban on abortion. And again, other people are entitled to point this out.

One eyed Jack · 10-12-2014 10:44pm

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem with that is that there are unavoidable consequences of adopting certain stances though. If I want to ban divorce but I go abroad to get a divorce myself, then people are entitled to point that out, and you can claim human inconsistency if you like, but the right word is hypocrisy.

You're trying again to ascribe positions to other people that suit your line of reasoning and the way you think. I haven't chosen to claim human inconsistency. My first post in this thread said that I can think of plenty of reasons why a non-religious person would object to the idea of an abortion, and I gave one reason that was given to me that they base their reasoning on humanitarian grounds. I can understand the reasoning behind that. You can't understand that, or rather - that explanation doesn't suit you.

You claim that there are unavoidable consequences to adopting certain stances, and yet, your judgment, derision, and hypocrisy is easily avoided by simply not bothering to engage with you. The unavoidable consequence of your own stance means that you effectively alienate people from the discussion, so it just becomes an online echo chamber for you and those who agree with you. Everyone else bailed out because I can understand why quite frankly, they couldn't be arsed.

Similarly, if I march around Dublin calling for laws whereby other people must pay with their health if necessary for my declared beliefs about fetuses, then my failing to protest a law which specifically allows fetuses to be killed when there is no risk to the health of the mother carrying it is in complete contradiction with the grounds on which I base my support for a ban on abortion. And again, other people are entitled to point this out.

Of course you're entitled to point out what you want, but where does it get you? What have you actually achieved? You've achieved nothing, only missed your own hypocrisy in calling other people out on their use of emotive language, yet your own posts are full of emotive language.

To put it quite simply - to you it seems on the one hand an abortion for you is the equivalent of having a tooth pulled, but you'll hold other people up to a higher standard that they must not care like you do if they don't do what you think they should be doing.

To me that simply smacks of petty point scoring self-righteousness against arguments that were never made, and all you're doing is like the nutbars in the OP - simply trivialising the issue of abortion so you can feel like you're better than the people who have a different opinion to your own.

Grayson · 11-12-2014 9:47am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would be projecting a position on someone else, based on a label ascribed to them for a position you (not you personally) assume they should hold.

It's basically taking one opinion in isolation, and filling in the background with your own prejudices. It's a very simplistic, black and white point of view that doesn't allow for the fact that people are far more nuanced than simplistic labels that actually mean fcukall when you really think about it -

"pro-life" - Handy label for clutching at the moral high ground, yet I've never met anyone who relishes the thought of an abortion.

"pro-choice" - Another handy label for clutching the moral high ground, yet again I've never met anyone who relished the thought of having to make that choice.

Pro choice doesn't mean that someone what's to make the choice. It's that they think women should have a choice. That there should be options for them to chose from.

It's not like anyone actually enjoys an abortion. Even if they are 100% in favour of it. It's an unpleasant procedure, like an endoscopy.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A tad hyperbolic alright, but again, you're working under the assumption that if a person objects to something, they must go all in, for everyone, whereas for most people, it's simply a case of "I don't support the idea of abortion", it doesn't mean they have to do what you think they should be doing. Most people aren't so black and white in their thinking.

The point about being pro life is that they believe a foetus is a person. It's because of those beliefs that they think a foetus has the right of a person. As far as their concerned there's no difference between a 10 week foetus and an actual child.

We all like to think that if we lived near Auschwitz or Dachau or anywhere like that, we would have done something to help (If we'd known). If I believed there was a building where children were being killed I'd do everything I could to stop it. That's what pro lifers believe. They believe that babies are being murdered, yet they're not stopping it.
So either they don't really care that much, or they don't really believe it. It's probably some other kind of psychological reason why someone can believe in one way but not act in the expected manner. maybe some kind of dissonance.

Personally I'm glad they aren't running around blowing up doctors offices and clinics.

One eyed Jack · 11-12-2014 2:10pm

Grayson wrote: »

Pro choice doesn't mean that someone what's to make the choice. It's that they think women should have a choice. That there should be options for them to chose from.

It's not like anyone actually enjoys an abortion. Even if they are 100% in favour of it. It's an unpleasant procedure, like an endoscopy.

That's kinda my point though - the labels just don't work. As you quite rightly point out above, nobody actually wants to end a life, so by definition, everyone is pro-life. Pro-choice isn't really much of a choice - if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant and doesn't want to give birth, then she has no choice, but to end the pregnancy.

The point about being pro life is that they believe a foetus is a person. It's because of those beliefs that they think a foetus has the right of a person. As far as their concerned there's no difference between a 10 week foetus and an actual child.

We all like to think that if we lived near Auschwitz or Dachau or anywhere like that, we would have done something to help (If we'd known). If I believed there was a building where children were being killed I'd do everything I could to stop it. That's what pro lifers believe. They believe that babies are being murdered, yet they're not stopping it.
So either they don't really care that much, or they don't really believe it. It's probably some other kind of psychological reason why someone can believe in one way but not act in the expected manner. maybe some kind of dissonance.

Personally I'm glad they aren't running around blowing up doctors offices and clinics.

I don't think it's any kind of cognitive dissonance at all. Any woman I've talked to about abortion, who was opposed to abortion, I didn't expect that they should be blowing up clinics, any more than I would expect a woman who is "pro-choice" (if we really must use those labels) should be shimmying up Church buildings and hanging out banners, etc.

I think grown women are able to decide for themselves what is right for them, whatever their position on the issue, and I wouldn't be interested in making a woman feel guilty for whatever reasons she has for her opinion. I would support someone either way no matter what their decision, because trying to make them feel guilty or point fingers at them or trying to claim moral superiority because a woman doesn't behave the way they're "expected to" is simply a shìtty thing to do to any human being.

volchitsa · 11-12-2014 5:57pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Pro-choice isn't really much of a choice - if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant and doesn't want to give birth, then she has no choice, but to end the pregnancy.

I think that is a very narrow definition of the term "choice" though. I see what you mean, in that the woman may feel she has no alternative that would not destroy her life - but in the context of a law banning abortion altogether, calling "pro-choice" those people who want abortion to be available for those women who choose to avail of it is not that much of a misnomer. Certainly not compared to labeling "pro-life", those people who are prepared to force women to risk their lives for a doomed fetus.

But I have no emotional attachment to the term pro choice either so let's say you have a point - what term would suit you to use for both parties?

One eyed Jack · 11-12-2014 6:39pm

volchitsa wrote: »

I think that is a very narrow definition of the term "choice" though. I see what you mean, in that the woman may feel she has no alternative that would not destroy her life - but in the context of a law banning abortion altogether, calling "pro-choice" those people who want abortion to be available for those women who choose to avail of it is not that much of a misnomer. Certainly not compared to labeling "pro-life", those people who are prepared to force women to risk their lives for a doomed fetus.

But I have no emotional attachment to the term pro choice either so let's say you have a point - what term would suit you to use for both parties?

Do you see what you did there though? You have no emotional attachment to the term "pro-choice", grand, but you place quite the emotional burden on the term "pro-life", in claiming that anyone who identifies as pro-life is prepared to force women to risk their lives for a doomed foetus. That's as judgemental as someone who says "I have no emotional attachment to the term "pro-life", unlike those baby killers!". The labelling doesn't help anyone, and only serves to polarise in the most simplistic terms what for any woman is an incredibly personal and complex issue.

This is why I don't use any term for either party, except to say that one camp of extremists is as bad as the other, and both camps tend to forget about the people they're supposed to be advocating for.

I've talked women who were staunchly in the pro-choice camp before they found themselves unexpectedly pregnant, and instead of "I'll be having that out of there asap!", they were emotionally torn up over whether or not to continue their pregnancy. I've talked to women who were staunchly in the pro-life camp before they found themselves unexpectedly pregnant, and instead of "I'm keeping the baby", they too were emotionally torn up over whether or not to end their pregnancy.

This is why I hate the mud flinging matches that go on in these threads sometimes, and why I can understand that people would rather avoid getting into them and feeling like they should have to justify themselves to other people who are trying to claim they're a horrible person for feeling the way they do about the issue of abortion.

Like I originally said, I would prefer if the State would allow for women who wanted to, to end their pregnancy as safely and humanely as possible in this country, but that isn't the fault of the RCC any more, it's the fault of politicians who are more concerned with keeping the electorate happy, the same electorate who have no interest in religion, but still have their reservations about abortion for their own individual reasons.

Shimmyimg up a church building might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but they're targeting the wrong people IMO. They should be trying to support women, but instead they seem more concerned with gaining publicity for their own little special interest group.

branie2 · 11-12-2014 6:43pm

I think this is case of secularism treading on church toes

volchitsa · 11-12-2014 6:55pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Do you see what you did there though? You have no emotional attachment to the term "pro-choice", grand, but you place quite the emotional burden on the term "pro-life", in claiming that anyone who identifies as pro-life is prepared to force women to risk their lives for a doomed foetus. That's as judgemental as someone who says "I have no emotional attachment to the term "pro-life", unlike those baby killers!".

But it's not the same thing at all, because in Ireland it is literally true that a woman's life must be at clear risk (which can only lead to some women occasionally dying, since medicine is not a perfect science) before an abortion becomes legal. So no, you are trying to establish a false equivalence.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The labelling doesn't help anyone, and only serves to polarise in the most simplistic terms what for any woman is an incredibly personal and complex issue.

Perhaps if you explained how you suggest we refer to both groups then, rather than jump up and down in apparent frustration. Because refusing labels is all very well, but how, in practice, do you suggest we refer to them?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've talked women who were staunchly in the pro-choice camp before they found themselves unexpectedly pregnant, and instead of "I'll be having that out of there asap!", they were emotionally torn up over whether or not to continue their pregnancy. I've talked to women who were staunchly in the pro-life camp before they found themselves unexpectedly pregnant, and instead of "I'm keeping the baby", they too were emotionally torn up over whether or not to end their pregnancy.

This is why I hate the mud flinging matches that go on in these threads sometimes, and why I can understand that people would rather avoid getting into them and feeling like they should have to justify themselves to other people who are trying to claim they're a horrible person for feeling the way they do about the issue of abortion.

Like I originally said, I would prefer if the State would allow for women who wanted to, to end their pregnancy as safely and humanely as possible in this country, but that isn't the fault of the RCC any more, it's the fault of politicians who are more concerned with keeping the electorate happy, the same electorate who have no interest in religion, but still have their reservations about abortion for their own individual reasons.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that, except you trying to slip in a pass for the Catholic Church there. That's dishonest. Even the bishops were out marching last year. The fact that they no longer have the same clout they once did is in no way to their credit, since it happened very much against their will.
If they could still dictate they would, and they are still there trying to manipulate in the wings.

Edit : I see I accidentally cut off your last paragraph. I don't have a strong opinion on that particular action anyway, it could, I suppose, be counter productive, but tbh I think not. The people who care about churches being targeted in that way are never going to vote to relax the law on abortion anyway, and the others, even if they think it is a tad OTT, know well the church in its heyday is at the origin of the current situation on abortion, and as such is still to some extent a valid target, despite its present bedraggled aspect.

One eyed Jack · 11-12-2014 8:58pm

volchitsa wrote: »

But it's not the same thing at all, because in Ireland it is literally true that a woman's life must be at clear risk (which can only lead to some women occasionally dying, since medicine is not a perfect science) before an abortion becomes legal. So no, you are trying to establish a false equivalence.

It's not a false equivalence at all though. You're looking at the issue solely from the side of a person who is pro-choice, whereas from the point of view of a person who is pro-life, they're seeing that in every circumstance, the end result is that an unborn baby ends up dying.

Perhaps if you explained how you suggest we refer to both groups then, rather than jump up and down in apparent frustration. Because refusing labels is all very well, but how, in practice, do you suggest we refer to them?

I don't think it can simply be nailed down to "both groups" though, that's my point. I can't tell you how to refer to them, but I myself prefer to see people as a whole, and not just pass judgement on them based solely on their opinion on one single issue. That's why even though I may not share their point of view on some issues, I'm not going to fall out with them over it. If someone tells me they're pro-life or pro-choice or whatever, I wouldn't make anything of it. If they start climbing churches or hanging out at airports though, that might be cause to sit them down for a chat.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that, except you trying to slip in a pass for the Catholic Church there. That's dishonest. Even the bishops were out marching last year. The fact that they no longer have the same clout they once did is in no way to their credit, since it happened very much against their will.
If they could still dictate they would, and they are still there trying to manipulate in the wings.

I'm genuinely not trying to be dishonest here, and I wasn't trying to slip in a pass for the church. My point was that the church (and specifically the RCC) aren't as relevant, or as influential in Irish society as they once were. They still hold some sway in political circles, but the law is mainly the way it is in this country because the vast majority of people in this country aren't particularly interested in seeing abortion introduced in this country (that is even despite the number of high profile cases in the media in recent years - once they hype dies down, it's back to business as usual for most people).

Edit : I see I accidentally cut off your last paragraph. I don't have a strong opinion on that particular action anyway, it could, I suppose, be counter productive, but tbh I think not. The people who care about churches being targeted in that way are never going to vote to relax the law on abortion anyway, and the others, even if they think it is a tad OTT, know well the church in its heyday is at the origin of the current situation on abortion, and as such is still to some extent a valid target, despite its present bedraggled aspect.

I may as well be talking to myself at this stage. I think you're determined to stand by your already preconceived notions about people, despite any evidence to the contrary. I'm old enough too to know well the church in it's heyday is NOT at the origin of the current situation on abortion. The church merely gave people a justification for their need to feel morally superior to each other. Now with the demise of the church, that's one less justification for people to feel morally superior to each other, and yet, they still do it. The church is nothing more than an easy scapegoat for people to make their point, a point that doesn't explain why a vast majority of non-religious people have no wish to support abortion in this country.

Targeting the church is just a lazy excuse for a frivolous publicity stunt that really achieved nothing. If you want to change people's minds in this country with regard to abortion in this country, then you have to listen to them first, instead of substituting in your own reasons for why they won't support it.

obplayer · 11-12-2014 9:14pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a false equivalence at all though. You're looking at the issue solely from the side of a person who is pro-choice, whereas from the point of view of a person who is pro-life, they're seeing that in every circumstance, the end result is that an unborn baby ends up dying.

I don't think it can simply be nailed down to "both groups" though, that's my point. I can't tell you how to refer to them, but I myself prefer to see people as a whole, and not just pass judgement on them based solely on their opinion on one single issue. That's why even though I may not share their point of view on some issues, I'm not going to fall out with them over it. If someone tells me they're pro-life or pro-choice or whatever, I wouldn't make anything of it. If they start climbing churches or hanging out at airports though, that might be cause to sit them down for a chat.

I'm genuinely not trying to be dishonest here, and I wasn't trying to slip in a pass for the church. My point was that the church (and specifically the RCC) aren't as relevant, or as influential in Irish society as they once were. They still hold some sway in political circles, but the law is mainly the way it is in this country because the vast majority of people in this country aren't particularly interested in seeing abortion introduced in this country (that is even despite the number of high profile cases in the media in recent years - once they hype dies down, it's back to business as usual for most people).

I may as well be talking to myself at this stage. I think you're determined to stand by your already preconceived notions about people, despite any evidence to the contrary. I'm old enough too to know well the church in it's heyday is NOT at the origin of the current situation on abortion. The church merely gave people a justification for their need to feel morally superior to each other. Now with the demise of the church, that's one less justification for people to feel morally superior to each other, and yet, they still do it. The church is nothing more than an easy scapegoat for people to make their point, a point that doesn't explain why a vast majority of non-religious people have no wish to support abortion in this country.

Targeting the church is just a lazy excuse for a frivolous publicity stunt that really achieved nothing. If you want to change people's minds in this country with regard to abortion in this country, then you have to listen to them first, instead of substituting in your own reasons for why they won't support it.

Not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

A 1997 Irish Times/MRBI poll found that 18% believed that abortion should never be permitted, 77% believed that it should be allowed in certain circumstances (this was broken down into: 35% that one should be allowed in the event that the woman's life is threatened; 14% if her health is at risk; 28% that "an abortion should be provided to those who need it") and 5% were undecided./COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]23[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc

volchitsa · 11-12-2014 9:37pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a false equivalence at all though. You're looking at the issue solely from the side of a person who is pro-choice, whereas from the point of view of a person who is pro-life, they're seeing that in every circumstance, the end result is that an unborn baby ends up dying.

But this is where I came in. If anyone really thought that, how could they possibly ignore all the exactly equivalent "deaths" in IVF clinics, or those organized for Irish women from within Ireland but simply carried out on a weekend trip to Liverpool instead? It makes no sense to protest about a law that would allow a woman who is seriously ill to protect her life by having an abortion but not about the same woman being legally allowed to go to England to destroy a perfectly healthy fetus for any reason whatsoever.

There is only one plausible explanation for that - no-one really believes the fetuses being take to England are really the same as "babies dying". If they did, they would make an effort to save all these "babies". Either that, or the pro-life protesters against the Protection of life Act are all inhuman monsters.

volchitsa · 11-12-2014 9:49pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I may as well be talking to myself at this stage. I think you're determined to stand by your already preconceived notions about people, despite any evidence to the contrary.

I haven't seen any evidence that anything I have said is wrong - maybe you'd like to try bringing some of this evidence to the debate, instead of more of your assertion-filled but remarkably fact-free posts.

You've also misrepresented my posts several times, so if by "my preconceived notions" you actually mean your misinterpretations, then I can't be responsible for that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm old enough too to know well the church in it's heyday is NOT at the origin of the current situation on abortion. The church merely gave people a justification for their need to feel morally superior to each other. Now with the demise of the church, that's one less justification for people to feel morally superior to each other, and yet, they still do it. The church is nothing more than an easy scapegoat for people to make their point, a point that doesn't explain why a vast majority of non-religious people have no wish to support abortion in this country.

Targeting the church is just a lazy excuse for a frivolous publicity stunt that really achieved nothing.

More misrepresentation, this time of the entire history of abortion law in the country. And you talk about other people having preconceived notions!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you want to change people's minds in this country with regard to abortion in this country, then you have to listen to them first, instead of substituting in your own reasons for why they won't support it.

Who did you say was ascribing attitudes? Oh yes, that must have been yourself you meant. Did I say I was trying to change people's minds? I'm expressing my own opinions, nothing else.

One eyed Jack · 11-12-2014 9:52pm

obplayer wrote: »

Not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

I'm still not sure how that contradicts what I said that most people aren't particularly interested in seeing abortion introduced in this country? Opinion poll from seven years ago, and since then we've had:

The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act of 2013
The Mother and baby homes cases
The symphysiotomy cases
The death of Savita Halappanavar
No repeal of the 8th Amendment
Suicidal woman denied abortion and forced to have a caesarean
Politicians threatened with excommunication if they were to vote for abortion

And of course numerous crocodile tears from Enda as he yet again apologised to the nation time after time for the State's role in shoring up the views of the RCC, then telling them not to interfere in Irish politics, then giving them pretty much what they want anyway.

So, tell me again what's changed since 2007?

volchitsa · 11-12-2014 9:56pm

Since there hasn't been a referendum on the subject, I don't see how any of that proves that the majority of people actively want the ban on abortion to continue. Which is your claim, whereas all we have to go on are opinion polls, and they tend to show the opposite.

obplayer · 11-12-2014 10:00pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm still not sure how that contradicts what I said that most people aren't particularly interested in seeing abortion introduced in this country? Opinion poll from seven years ago, and since then we've had:

The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act of 2013
The Mother and baby homes cases
The symphysiotomy cases
The death of Savita Halappanavar
No repeal of the 8th Amendment
Suicidal woman denied abortion and forced to have a caesarean
Politicians threatened with excommunication if they were to vote for abortion

And of course numerous crocodile tears from Enda as he yet again apologised to the nation time after time for the State's role in shoring up the views of the RCC, then telling them not to interfere in Irish politics, then giving them pretty much what they want anyway.

So, tell me again what's changed since 2007?

No, the government are not interested in upsetting the religious lobby. If it was the will of the people which counted here then abortion would be legal, at least in many cases. It is instead the wishes of a minority which have ruled due to the cowardice of successive governments. Your examples are classic examples of exactly that.

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

Comments