Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

16-02-2019 1:17am

gctest50 wrote: »

Back to the baby-selling again, a pregnancy "advice" agency, believed to have associations with the Irish anti-abortion movement were caught at illegal adoptions :

i suppose it only costs a few cents for them to light a candle n seek forgiveness - they must find it profitable

Those pregnancy "advice" places need regulation by the government to help stop that happening again

.

They were supposed to be regulated under the proposal by labour in 2016

https://amp.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bill-to-tackle-rogue-crisis-pregnancy-agencies-430575.html

Around the same time as the story was published about the "clinic"
https://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/10/20/regulating-the-agencies/
Interesting that the same group are involved in protests in the UK apparently.

While physical premises can be shut down online advertising can't really be, so hopefully anyone needing advice makes sure that they contact the IFPA or HSE.

A register of know fake agencies could be set up and hosted by the HSE also if legislation allows

Loafing Oaf · 16-02-2019 10:53am

[QUOTE=DubInMeath;109438094
A register of know fake agencies could be set up and hosted by the HSE also if legislation allows[/QUOTE]

Maybe better a list of recognised ones? then you can warn women that they approach anyone outside this list at their own risk.

Hotblack Desiato · 16-02-2019 12:45pm

gctest50 wrote: »

he went to the Garda station to report unlawful killing

That lackwit should be prosecuted for wasting Garda time.

16-02-2019 7:22pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Maybe better a list of recognised ones? then you can warn women that they approach anyone outside this list at their own risk.

A list of both, a recognised legitimate list and one for know fake ones, even better?

aloyisious · 16-02-2019 10:31pm

DubInMeath wrote: »

A list of both, a recognised legitimate list and one for know fake ones, even better?

I'd be surprised if fake centres couldn't be controlled under existing health legislation, stop them masquerading as health advice centres putting women's lives at risk.

gctest50 · 17-02-2019 12:42am

All centres could be made put say a 40cm X 40cm APPROVED CENTRE sticker in the window to go with their new licence kinda thing

Not approved / no licence ? no sticker for you

No sticker ? get closed down by Gardai

Fake sticker ? Jail for you

Previously tried to steal babies ( like the case a few posts above ) - no licence for you ever

Bit like gun licences, pub licences, driving licences

Odhinn · 18-02-2019 12:40pm

RTE - "Today" with Sean O Rourke had a journalist on who had gone undercover with an anti-abortion group. Their plan is to target women attending facilities where abortions are carried out. They've been told to home in on women who look "upset" etc and try to refer them to anti-abortion run facilities. Fairly vile stuff - podcast should be up later.

Odhinn · 18-02-2019 5:32pm

More on the above

Minister for Health Simon Harris has described practices by a US anti-abortion group as chilling, manipulative and disrespectful of the democratic process.
Sidewalk Advocates for Life were the subject of an undercover investigation by the Times Ireland over a number of months.
The investigation revealed that the group is training people in Ireland to intercept women before they access abortion services to talk them out of it.
An undercover reporter received training material from Sidewalk Advocates for Life, including videos and documents.
The investigation revealed the group plans to get around new laws for exclusion or safe access zones by approaching women in car parks.
In a statement to the Times Ireland, the group said it is a "law-abiding organisation that teaches others to lovingly and peacefully reach out to women at abortion centres, offering them non-violent solutions to their crisis situation".

https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2019/0218/1031284-abortion-services/

Podcast of this mornings show - relevant section is third down
https://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_seanorourke.xml

....... · 18-02-2019 6:07pm

Approaching women in carparks?

WTF!?!?!?

Odhinn · 18-02-2019 6:59pm

....... wrote: »

Approaching women in carparks?

WTF!?!?!?

..wearing high vis vests to "fit in", giving out what sound like "goodie bags" while they're at it.

Igotadose · 18-02-2019 7:03pm

Odhinn wrote: »

..wearing high vis vests to "fit in", giving out what sound like "goodie bags" while they're at it.

Great. Back to escorting women to the Doctors office like we did in the US. Thuggishness is all it is. Lying, scheming, lackeys of the US anti-abortion industry who could give a rat's arse about anyone but themselves.

Would love to know what the relevant Irish laws are - like, if you shout at someone approaching you, "Go away! Keep your distance!" and they continue to approach, is that a crime?

And even so, would there be an arrest, a prosecution, a conviction, a sentence?

Beechwoodspark · 18-02-2019 7:05pm

Odhinn wrote: »

RTE - "Today" with Sean O Rourke had a journalist on who had gone undercover with an anti-abortion group. Their plan is to target women attending facilities where abortions are carried out. They've been told to home in on women who look "upset" etc and try to refer them to anti-abortion run facilities. Fairly vile stuff - podcast should be up later.

Devils advocate and all- If it saves even one life then maybe it’s worth it

eviltwin · 18-02-2019 7:09pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Devils advocate and all- If it saves even one life then maybe it’s worth it

maybe we should start harassing smokers or overweight people then, might save a life. Give me strength. Vulnerable women are not fair game for these nuts. The sooner we get exclusion zones the better.

Beechwoodspark · 18-02-2019 7:12pm

eviltwin wrote: »

maybe we should start harassing smokers or overweight people then, might save a life. Give me strength. Vulnerable women are not fair game for these nuts. The sooner we get exclusion zones the better.

Smokers or overweight not a valid comparison.

Literally a matter of life and death when it comes to abortion though. That’s what the choice in “pro choice” refers to

eviltwin · 18-02-2019 7:18pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Smokers or overweight not a valid comparison.

Literally a matter of life and death when it comes to abortion though. That’s what the choice in “pro choice” refers to

That doesn't make a difference, it's still someone who is vulnerable, doing something deeply personal and private. They don't deserve to be targeted like this.

Igotadose · 18-02-2019 7:23pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Devils advocate and all- If it saves even one life then maybe it’s worth it

It's not a life though. Life begins at birth, after all

Odhinn · 18-02-2019 7:40pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Devils advocate and all- If it saves even one life then maybe it’s worth it

did you listen to the podcast?

aloyisious · 18-02-2019 7:50pm

RTE's "DriveTime" news programme had an interview with a director of the U.S. organisation mentioned in the paper report. She gave their interest as being the wellbeing of the women that their Reps approached on the public sidewalk [sic:in the U.S] as distinct from a carpark approach. Not a mention of baby or unborn at all. She said they had no people in Ireland, the U.K. or the E.U. and had no contact with people here but in respect to the email contact they had with people in Ireland (which she had mentioned earlier to the DriveTime interviewer) it was in respect to what her organisation stated was its position/practice on women's wellbeing. The interview will be available - soon - on RTE's podcast system.

Beechwoodspark · 18-02-2019 7:59pm

Odhinn wrote: »

did you listen to the podcast?

I did yes

Odhinn · 18-02-2019 8:01pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I did yes

...and an organised group systematically targeting visibly distressed women doesn't strike you as in any way dodgy?

Beechwoodspark · 18-02-2019 8:04pm

Odhinn wrote: »

...and an organised group systematically targeting visibly distressed women doesn't strike you as in any way dodgy?

See my original post on this. Maybe it’ll save a few lives

eviltwin · 18-02-2019 8:08pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

See my original post on this. Maybe it’ll save a few lives?

and it upsets or traumatises a majority that's OK?

volchitsa · 18-02-2019 8:18pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

See my original post on this. Maybe it’ll save a few lives

Are you still playing devils advocate here, or is this your actual opinion?

Only it's a bit odd that you don't seem to want to consider the level of proof of this view that you're advocating.

aloyisious · 18-02-2019 8:20pm

Shannonside.ie reported a defacing of a Longford GP practice today with ugly anti-abortion graffiti which seems way over the top. The GP clinic is one currently in use. This follows on from a earlier attack on the local F/G TD's office after the passing of the abortion legislation bill.

https://www.shannonside.ie/news/local/longford/longford-gp-practice-defaced-anti-abortion-graffiti/?fbclid=IwAR2jhJ8X9sfTZSLp40TTwBA5TQDG0hsCX_4fz_bcelcXxvblm

Edit: for what must be a legal reason, the image of the graffiti on the right-side of the GP's practice building has been altered and a title and name removed from the top of the original published photo, though it's probably still available on computer memory banks (should the author of the graffiti be found).

end of the road · 18-02-2019 8:23pm

eviltwin wrote: »

maybe we should start harassing smokers or overweight people then, might save a life. Give me strength. Vulnerable women are not fair game for these nuts. The sooner we get exclusion zones the better.

not at all given they won't make any difference and will just be a money sink.

Igotadose wrote: »

It's not a life though. Life begins at birth, after all

given the life is alive before birth then it not being a life until birth is not possible.

Credit Checker Moose · 18-02-2019 8:23pm

Spelling is not their forte.

volchitsa · 18-02-2019 8:32pm

end of the road wrote: »

not at all given they won't make any difference and will just be a money sink.

given the life is alive before birth then it not being a life until birth is not possible.

Sperm is alive too, but it's not exactly a life. Never mind a person.

ohnonotgmail · 18-02-2019 8:45pm

end of the road wrote: »

not at all given they won't make any difference and will just be a money sink.

given the life is alive before birth then it not being a life until birth is not possible.

I thought you were asked not to post on this thread again? Or am i thinking of the thread in AH?

aloyisious · 18-02-2019 8:48pm

end of the road wrote: »

not at all given they won't make any difference and will just be a money sink.

given the life is alive before birth then it not being a life until birth is not possible.

Yes well, our current law and the opinion of the Irish SC disagree with you, along with the term "it's a live birth", when it comes to the birth of a HUMAN life.

Igotadose · 18-02-2019 9:12pm

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Spelling is not their forte.

Time for CCTV outside GP's? Tax the church to pay for it.
Or, confiscate a few churches and sell off the land. That'd do, too.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-02-2019 9:17pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

See my original post on this. Maybe it’ll save a few lives

"Devil's advocate" is often used when the truth would be more along the lines of "I don't have any kind of coherent argument, but here goes anway."

Didn't you claim to be a Yes voter? How do you reconcile that with "saving lives" by preventing women accessing the legal abortion services you voted to allow?

end of the road · 18-02-2019 10:33pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Sperm is alive too, but it's not exactly a life. Never mind a person.

that's not relevant though to be fair. the poster claimed the unborn is only a life at birth. given it is developing and moving and all else before birth then clearly it is a life and alive.

Igotadose wrote: »

Time for CCTV outside GP's? Tax the church to pay for it.
Or, confiscate a few churches and sell off the land. That'd do, too.

it is probably unlikely that this could be done. property rights and other laws would likely prevent the state simply taking property belonging to the church, at least without compensation.

aloyisious wrote: »

Yes well, our current law and the opinion of the Irish SC disagree with you, along with the term "it's a live birth", when it comes to the birth of a HUMAN life.

they may disagree with it but if it was the case that it isn't a life before birth or even a life then there wouldn't be a time limit on abortions at all surely? an unborn baby moving around in the womb before birth can't be not alive or a life in that case. i'm not seeing how it's possible for something living to not be living at the same time.

volchitsa · 18-02-2019 11:31pm

end of the road wrote: »

that's not relevant though to be fair. the poster claimed the unborn is only a life at birth. given it is developing and moving and all else before birth then clearly it is a life and alive.

You're carefully tailoring your definition of a life to fit your argument by adding criteria. Could you just give a definition once and for all of what you think deserves to be protected from killing and what doesn't? And why of course. Sperm? Fertilised egg? Fertilised implanted egg? Etc.

it is probably unlikely that this could be done. property rights and other laws would likely prevent the state simply taking property belonging to the church, at least without compensation.

We could always change the law. I'm sure you're against that though.

they may disagree with it but if it was the case that it isn't a life before birth or even a life then there wouldn't be a time limit on abortions at all surely? an unborn baby moving around in the womb before birth can't be not alive or a life in that case. i'm not seeing how it's possible for something living to not be living at the same time.

You've already seen that something can be alive but not a person so this is a pointless claim based on mere pedantry.

18-02-2019 11:45pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Devils advocate and all- If it saves even one life then maybe it’s worth it

That's what the three day period after the initial consultation is designed for, having a bunch of pricks hanging around a car park or the street leading up to a surgery, stopping and questioning people isn't.

19-02-2019 12:02am

Odhinn wrote: »

RTE - "Today" with Sean O Rourke had a journalist on who had gone undercover with an anti-abortion group. Their plan is to target women attending facilities where abortions are carried out. They've been told to home in on women who look "upset" etc and try to refer them to anti-abortion run facilities. Fairly vile stuff - podcast should be up later.

Sure we all know that the only reason you'd be upset coming or going to a hospital or gp surgery, would be if you wanted an abortion especially if your a woman.

I've got cancer fecken happy days why would I be looking worried or upset.

end of the road · 19-02-2019 12:42am

volchitsa wrote: »

You're carefully tailoring your definition of a life to fit your argument by adding criteria. Could you just give a definition once and for all of what you think deserves to be protected from killing and what doesn't? And why of course. Sperm? Fertilised egg? Fertilised implanted egg? Etc.

fertilised implanted egg because that is when real devopment is about to begin. my statement that an unborn baby is very much alive before birth is not me tailoring anything but simply coming to a logical conclusion based on what is actually going on.

volchitsa wrote: »

We could always change the law. I'm sure you're against that though.

i'm not sure it would be that easy to do but perhapse that is worth a discussion in itself, perhapse in the legal discussion forum sometime? personally i would be against such a change as i fear there may be unforseen repercussions which could effect all of us.

volchitsa wrote: »

You've already seen that something can be alive but not a person so this is a pointless claim based on mere pedantry.

i would have to disagree with you on that.

volchitsa · 19-02-2019 1:37am

end of the road wrote: »

fertilised implanted egg because that is when real devopment is about to begin. my statement that an unborn baby is very much alive before birth is not me tailoring anything but simply coming to a logical conclusion based on what is actually going on.

It's your conclusion though - that what comes before that point is less human, or less alive, or something, and therefore can be killed - that's where I have a problem with your views here.

And I say you're tailoring them because, for instance, you've now added implantation. A whole new criterion there. Just because.

Hannibal_Smith · 19-02-2019 9:05am

Imagine harrassing women and sticking your beak in to their medical treatment. Where do people get their sense of self importance from?

Just saw that Longford pic, it really is disgusting. 'If it saves One life '.... yeah..because women cant make their own decision about their own bodies so need medical centres spray painted with all kinds of sh*te to make them see 'sense'.

aloyisious · 19-02-2019 9:21am

end of the road wrote: »

they may disagree with it but if it was the case that it isn't a life before birth or even a life then there wouldn't be a time limit on abortions at all surely? an unborn baby moving around in the womb before birth can't be not alive or a life in that case. i'm not seeing how it's possible for something living to not be living at the same time.

I suppose the notion that anti-abortion (or Pro-Life if you like) people are OK with the waiting period up to the 12th week doesn't surprise you. How do you read that acceptance, what it envisages and how it affects what you see in the womb?

King Mob · 19-02-2019 9:52am

Just a couple of quotes I think deserve pointing out with this new information coming out.

end of the road wrote: »

simply protesting outside a hospital with banners, a perfectly legitimate act within a democracy even though i and most personally wouldn't do it, does not, directly or indirectly in itself, target women accessing actual forms of health care or abortion on demand. the protest is about the act itself.
if they are physically manhandling or getting in the face of such women, that would be targeting and in that case the gardai can and will become involved, either upon witnessing such actions themselves or being provided with evidence and being called to the scene.

end of the road wrote: »

kingmob wrote:

You also avoided the points made to you about how just being there and protesting is intimidating. You ran away from that point and never addressed it.

i didn't avoid or run away from it. i simply don't believe it is the case so there is nothing to adress as i see it.

kingmob wrote:

Again, you know why they really protest.
Shame and intimidation.

only in your opinion is that the real reason. in reality, it's not the real reason, for most anyway. a tiny few might be protesting in the aim of doing that but a tiny minority is all they are.

uptherebels · 19-02-2019 12:01pm

DubInMeath wrote: »

Sure we all know that the only reason you'd be upset coming or going to a hospital or gp surgery, would be if you wanted an abortion especially if your a woman.

I've got cancer fecken happy days why would I be looking worried or upset.

Funny thing is that the anti choicers spent so much time telling us that women would be using abortion as contraception and getting them for lifestyle choices and stuff, yet they are saying that women going for abortions will be upset?

SusieBlue · 19-02-2019 12:04pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

See my original post on this. Maybe it’ll save a few lives

It won't save any lives. What it will do is exploit vulnerable women, and distress others who are going through an already upsetting experience.

People have a right to procure legal medical procedures without interference and harassment from members of the general public who disagree with their choice of medical procedure.

Their target audience is anyone who looks upset, so without a doubt couples who are going through a natural miscarriage or who may have just gotten an awful diagnosis for a wanted pregnancy will also be earmarked by these self important loonies.
Do you think that's acceptable?
How would you feel if you got awful news like that and were approached by that group to try to talk you out of getting an abortion, when you weren't even going to have one in the first place????

But hey, its just a few traumatised women, its just a bit of interfering in other people's medical care, its just intimidating people who've just gotten some awful news about a wanted baby, all worth it right????
To "save" a life????

This attitude turns my stomach. Other people's medical care is none of your concern.

Bredabe · 19-02-2019 12:11pm

I have a condition that makes me irritable, this means I go to the hospital to have my twice yearly bloods done. This requires me to have fasted for 24 hours as well as stand in rail/cold for almost and hour for a bus to wait another few hours to be seen.

You bet I look upset when I leave, one of those types approaching me would just turn this into a slapping match/bloodshed. I dont believe any jury in the country would convict me in such circumstances.

They best have a clear criteria for who they approach or that senerio WILL happen and probably more than once.

Odhinn · 19-02-2019 12:17pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

See my original post on this. Maybe it’ll save a few lives

No. It may even cause more damage if somebody finds their loved one being harassed by these headers at a time of crisis.

....... · 19-02-2019 12:23pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

See my original post on this. Maybe it’ll save a few lives

By that logic imprisoning pregnant women might save a few lives - so why dont we do that?

Threatening them with jail time might save a few lives too eh? Oh hang on, we just voted against having that as the case.

What a disgusting view, thats its ok to harrass and intimidate women because YOU think that it might save a few lives.

What about the lives of the actual born living women who are being harrassed? They mean nothing I suppose.

end of the road · 19-02-2019 2:44pm

aloyisious wrote: »

I suppose the notion that anti-abortion (or Pro-Life if you like) people are OK with the waiting period up to the 12th week doesn't surprise you. How do you read that acceptance, what it envisages and how it affects what you see in the womb?

i don't really read anything into it tbh.

volchitsa · 19-02-2019 2:50pm

end of the road wrote: »

i don't really read anything into it tbh.

So, suddenly you have no opinion on a significant aspect of the abortion law?
Whistling and avoiding eye contact eh?

So much for your sig, then. Truth only when it suits you, would be a better description it seems.

Beechwoodspark · 19-02-2019 7:56pm

....... wrote: »

By that logic imprisoning pregnant women might save a few lives - so why dont we do that?

Threatening them with jail time might save a few lives too eh? Oh hang on, we just voted against having that as the case.

What a disgusting view, thats its ok to harrass and intimidate women because YOU think that it might save a few lives.

What about the lives of the actual born living women who are being harrassed? They mean nothing I suppose.

Sorry but I am for the right to protest, the right of free expression, the right to freedom of assembly in this country. Basic human rights.

I am NOT for exclusion zones aka censorship zones. Ireland is edging towards a very dark police state if we allow “exclusion zones” in this country.

And yes, ppl offering advice and assistance to women contemplating abortion, may save some lives also.

There are two lives involved. The unborn and the mother. Some ppl who are pro choice want to avoid that awkward fact.

eviltwin · 19-02-2019 8:03pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Sorry but I am for the right to protest, the right of free expression, the right to freedom of assembly in this country. Basic human rights.

I am NOT for exclusion zones aka censorship zones. Ireland is edging towards a very dark police state if we allow “exclusion zones” in this country.

And yes, ppl offering advice and assistance to women contemplating abortion, may save some lives also.

There are two lives involved. The unborn and the mother. Some ppl who are pro choice want to avoid that awkward fact.

This isn't protest, this is the direct targeting and interference with women using these services

That's harassment

Hannibal_Smith · 19-02-2019 8:17pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Sorry but I am for the right to protest, the right of free expression, the right to freedom of assembly in this country. Basic human rights.

I am NOT for exclusion zones aka censorship zones. Ireland is edging towards a very dark police state if we allow “exclusion zones” in this country.

And yes, ppl offering advice and assistance to women contemplating abortion, may save some lives also.

There are two lives involved. The unborn and the mother. Some ppl who are pro choice want to avoid that awkward fact.

Everyone has the right to protest. But why not protest outside the HSE or outside Dail Eireann. Harrassing people seeking medical help is just so low. Its making it personal to the people in a crisis.

Im not a fan of exclusion zones. They shouldnt be needed. But unfortunately some have lost all sense of common decency and forced it to be considered.

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Comments