Ah here.
This morning.
Dorset Street, Dublin 1
James Stratford writes:
That’s quite the effort…
Sponsored Link
Everything. As It Happens.
Ah here.
This morning.
Dorset Street, Dublin 1
James Stratford writes:
That’s quite the effort…
Interfering with their posters just lowers you down to the anti-choice level. Rise above it, they live on the wrong side of history..
Yeah, vandalizing posters is bad,
but I think this might merit protection as satire.
(Especially if they were clever enough to use stickers that didn’t damage the poster.)
Bravo!
This referendum is exactly about that photo
It will be killing that unborn what is to be baby. Distressing or not we are talking about that
Not making a cup of tea
So why the fuss?
Except it’s not really though. It’s a lot more complicated than just “they want to kill the babbies” and I’m sure you know that.
So
David
If that’s all true and correct
According to you like
Can you provide the details of the parents, and their permissions to allow their infant be photographed, published, replicated onto fly posters
Ta
Btw I surprised the referendum commission and the local authorities around the country haven’t requested same already
Really? I don’t actually think this is what the referendum is about at all. It’s about repealing the 8th amendment and legislation will come after.
And the pro-life campaign is riddled with propaganda and scaremongering. I would agree that the pro-choice side are less enthused to discuss some of the more harsh realities of abortion, but at least their campaign isn’t built on lies.
And to be honest, is it killing ‘a baby’? It’s stopping a potential life, yes, but at or before the 12 week mark can a fetus live outside the womb?
No, it can’t! In that case, are women just vessels to produce kids regardless of all the extenuating circumstances?
That’s the crux. It’s a choice a woman has to make, all depending on what else is going on in her life.
We already stop potential life every time we have sex and use contraception, otherwise we’d be breeding like rabbits!
It amazes me how so many on the pro choice either don’t understand or refuse to understand the pro life stance.
I’m pro choice, I’ll be voting yes. That doesn’t change the fact that a lot of people are of the firm belief that a foetus is a life and abortion takes that life. I don’t agree but for them, David is correct, its exactly what the referendum is about.
The Eighth is a podcast about the upcoming referendum. The podcaster is a Repealer but in the first episode she speaks, calmly and politely, with a lot of Retainers. It’s definitely worth a listen to get a better understanding of where they are coming from.
I disagree.
The referendum isn’t about abortion. Abortion currently happens in Ireland, and to Irish women. There were over 3000 Irish [resident] women that went to England last year to get an abortion. There are 100s of others that went to other EU countries. There were countless others that bought abortion pills online and self medicated, here in Ireland.
The referendum isn’t about abortion.
It is about how we treat women who have chosen to have an abortion. It is whether we will trust them and care for them – or whether we will continue to ignore them, and to shame them, and to force them abroad.
*edit: although, ironically, the poster is correct. It is all about the licence to legally abort in Ireland.
I don’t think so! As I stated in the opening line (the rest of what I said are my own musings) the referendum is about repealing the 8th amendment. Nothing can be done until the 8th is repealed. Legislation will then be brought in.
As an aside, I would uphold anyone’s views to not want to have an abortion. There are many women I know who are pro-choice, but outside of extreme cases, would wish to not have an abortion. But that’s not the salient point. The important aspect of the discussion should be the right of choice. The varying circumstances (as to why a woman would decide to have an abortion or not) are altogether too nuanced for the 8th to be a legal document in our constitution.
I also don’t agree with it being a life. It’s a potential life. It’s a potential life before you have sex too. The discourse, portraying the fetus as a life and calling it murder, merely discredits the woman who wants to have an abortion. As I stated, the harsh realities do have to be accepted. It’s a potential life that is being aborted, but I feel a woman can make that choice herself if abortion is legal.
The right to abortion is about providing safe and legal healthcare for all woman, no matter the circumstances.
And to be fair, I’ve seen posters stating that at 6 months abortions will be provided. That’s scaremongering to the highest degree. Only in extreme circumstances will that be the case. The pro-life campaign is propagandistic and built upon vitriol.
“I also don’t agree with it being a life. It’s a potential life. It’s a potential life before you have sex too……. As I stated, the harsh realities do have to be accepted.”
And yet you can’t accept the simple reality that abortion extinguishes a human life. Or the reality that removing the 8th Amendment will allow for abortion – even when the government (to be fair) are explicit in stating the terms of the legislation that is being proposed on the basis of repeal.
“I’ve seen posters stating that at 6 months abortions will be provided. That’s scaremongering to the highest degree. Only in extreme circumstances will that be the case. ”
Wait. So which is it Shane? Will abortion be allowed at 6 months or not? If it will (as you say yourself) then those posters are purely factual, not scaremongering.
I agree that people need to face the realities of repeal and abortion Shane. But you certainly aren’t doing so. You’re being typically vague as many pro-choice campaigners are.
I can’t seem to reply properly, so if this has been already put up I apologise for spamming.
To be fair, I don’t see how I’m being vague? I’ve given my opinion, as in my own opinion, that I don’t believe it’s murder, or killing baby, but it is ending a ‘potential life’. There is a difference in my opinion. As I also stated, using the term ‘murder’ is a tool to demonise women having abortion. At 12 weeks can the foetus survive outside the womb. Is the woman a vessel to make babies?
Having an abortion is something a woman will have to weigh up. Because, yes, there is a potential life that can be born at 9 months.
And yes, of course removing the 8th Amendment will allow for abortion. Where did I state it wouldn’t? However, this referendum is fundamentally about repealing the 8th as it is unworkable. Legislation, providing abortion, will then be brought in.
Also, I enjoy your liberal use of quotations. “I also don’t agree with it being a life. It’s a potential life. It’s a potential life before you have sex too……. As I stated, the harsh realities do have to be accepted.” Those were separate points, but of course, taking things out of context is a typically vague tactic of ‘pro-lifers’ I suppose.
This was the full quote: ‘As I stated, the harsh realities do have to be accepted. It’s a potential life that is being aborted, but I feel a woman can make that choice herself if abortion is legal’.
And hang on, when did I say abortion will be brought in at six months? I mean your take on my comment is mind boggling. Is that your tactic to muddy the water with so much misinformation that people will just get tired of arguing and you hope to garner some votes then? I stated that those were posters claiming abortion at six months. And it was heavily implied by my next few sentences that they were pro-life posters. I’m sorry I was too ‘vague’ to not state exactly that they were pro-life posters.
And it is scaremongering because Harris has already stated that the legislation will provide for abortion up to 12 weeks. Beyond that period, abortion will only be provided in extreme circumstances: serious health to the life of the woman, or in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities. But hey, we’ll just forget that was stated!!!
Shane. Why do you refer to it as a “potential life” and not a life? Is a foetus not alive pre-abortion and dead post-abortion?
“Is the woman a vessel to make babies?” No
“Because, yes, there is a potential life that can be born at 9 months.”
Again with the potential life thing. And this time up to 9 months. Do you really believe an 8 month foetus is not alive?
“And yes, of course removing the 8th Amendment will allow for abortion. Where did I state it wouldn’t? ”
In your previous post he said: “the referendum is about repealing the 8th amendment. Nothing can be done until the 8th is repealed.”
Forgive me if I picked you up wrongly there. It seemed you were taking the view that repeal and legislation were entirely seperate and that a vote for repeal wasn’t a vote for abortion.
“And hang on, when did I say abortion will be brought in at six months? ”
When you said: ” Only in extreme circumstances will that be the case. ” the case being abortion up to 6 months. It has nothing to do with them being pro-life or pro-choice posters. You can’t claim something is scaremongering and then admit it will happen (only in extreme circumstances).
As you know, abortion is to be legislated for up to 6 months on the basis of a risk to the health (mental or physical) of the mother. Nothing about a “serious” risk or a risk to life.
Fake news justin
“As you know, abortion is to be legislated for up to 6 months on the basis of a risk to the health (mental or physical) of the mother. Nothing about a “serious” risk or a risk to life.”
How many times will you repeat these lies. This was discussed last Thursday and Friday – you contributed. Anyway, for the avoidance of doubt I’ll repeat it here.
The proposed legislation says
“Head 4: Risk to life or health
(1) It shall be lawful to carry out a termination of pregnancy in accordance with this Head where 2 medical practitioners certify that, in their reasonable opinion formed in good faith
(a) there is a risk to the life of, or of serious harm to the health of, the pregnant woman,
(b) the foetus has not reached viability, and
(c) it is appropriate to carry out the termination of pregnancy in order to avert that risk”
(my emphasis)
http://health.gov.ie/blog/publications/general-scheme-of-a-bill-to-regulate-termination-of-pregnancy/
“Is the woman a vessel to make babies?” No
That’s all that needs to be said really!
How can anyone force any woman to have a baby so? Because by the logic of some pro-life people, they are vessels, even if a woman has been raped or the in the case of fat foetal abnormalities they should just carry on. There are varying mitigating circumstances that lead a woman to have an abortion, so why not repeal and allow those that need it, have access to it?
Also, I didn’t claim to make any statements in regards to the legislation. I stated that’s what Harris has said.
So why “potential life” Shane, and not a life? Is a foetus not alive pre-abortion and dead post-abortion?
And do you really believe an 8 month foetus is not alive?
“There are varying mitigating circumstances that lead a woman to have an abortion, so why not repeal and allow those that need it, have access to it?”
The only people that need an abortion are mothers whose life is at real risk because they are pregnant. The 8th does not prevent these abortions. There is no need to repeal the 8th.
The 8th does not prevent Irish women getting abortions, it only resentfully and childishly makes them suffer for it while denying other women access to health care. It’s a monstrously anti-woman piece of legislation.
It’s you who are cherry picking statements. You jump from one point to the next trying to pick holes in something, something that I never even stated but you inferred from my 9 months comment. So I’ll be careful with my words.
What I truly meant was that access to abortion will be available up to 12 weeks. Thereafter, only in extreme cases, as stated by Harris himself. To me that’s fine if it alleviates some Irish women having to travel abroad for an abortion.
What I meant by the 9 months comment, which you’ve taken out of context, is that fundamentally its the choice of an individual women to have an abortion if there are no mitigating circumstances (rape, strong risk of death etc) in place that will have nearly made the decision for her. If she chooses to have an abortion for other reasons, such as financial implications, the onus will be on the woman to decide because there is a potential life at 9 months… And yes, at 7 months, or 8 months, or 9 months. But anyway, in the majority, access to abortion will be up to 12 weeks. So yes, as I said earlier, stop with the scaremongering that makes it seems as if it will be abortion at any period of pregnancy.
I’m done with your dillydallying and cherrypicking. Your final comment is enough to know that you are truly blind to all the differing circumstances that is thrown at a woman in this situation.
Oh and on the ‘potential life’ bit: because the foetus cannot survive outside the womb at or before 12 weeks. As I said numerous times, and you’ve agreed with funnily, a woman is not a vessel to produce children.
And finally, I’ll say this: if a couple go to all the lengths possible to not have a baby via contraceptive means (which is stopping a potential life by the way) why is it so wrong to want to have an abortion (up to the 12 week period because not every woman will know right away that they’re pregnant) if you have actively tried to prevent it taking place from the very beginning?
“So why “potential life” Shane, and not a life? Is a foetus not alive pre-abortion and dead post-abortion?”
“life” has multiple meanings. It can either mean “the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter” or it can mean “the existence of an individual human being or animal” (example: “a disaster that claimed the lives of 266 people”)
So a foetus is a ‘life’ for meaning #1; but not #2
Shane.
“What I truly meant was that access to abortion will be available up to 12 weeks. Thereafter, only in extreme cases, as stated by Harris himself.”
So do you agree that an abortion will be legally possible up to 6 months? If so, the poster you claimed was scaremongering is entirely factual.
“If she chooses to have an abortion for other reasons, such as financial implications, the onus will be on the woman to decide because there is a potential life at 9 months… And yes, at 7 months, or 8 months, or 9 months.”
Why do you use “potential life” and not life Shane? You believe it’s up to a woman to decide if she wants an abortion at 6 months, 7 months?…
“And finally, I’ll say this: if a couple go to all the lengths possible to not have a baby via contraceptive means (which is stopping a potential life by the way) why is it so wrong to want to have an abortion (up to the 12 week period because not every woman will know right away that they’re pregnant) if you have actively tried to prevent it taking place from the very beginning?”
Because taking a human life because you don’t want it is indefensible, no matter how well you used contraception.
I stand corrected on the “serious” point Cian. Thanks. Very much like the UK situation in that regard.
Cian –
“….or it can mean “the existence of an individual human being or animal” (example: “a disaster that claimed the lives of 266 people”)
So a foetus is a ‘life’ for meaning #1; but not #2”
Are you seriously suggesting a foetus isn’t an individual human? That’s crazy.
Yes I am serious. I think the problem is that we are using English words that all have multiple meanings. e.g. ‘life’, ‘human’, ‘baby’, ‘child’, ‘person’.
Human: yes a foetus belongs to the genus Homo. No (an early-term) foetus isn’t human – doesn’t have the qualities that define humanity [characteristic of people as opposed to God or animals or machines].
Do you remember the Omagh bombing? 29 people were killed! (one of those people was a woman 8-months pregnant with twins). Notice that it is (almost) never stated that 31 people were killed – the unborn twins are counted separately.
If a person kills a pregnant woman, they can be charged with murder for the woman – but not against the unborn.
“No (an early-term) foetus isn’t human – doesn’t have the qualities that define humanity”
A human foetus isn’t human?
Wow.
That’s what it’s about for them. It’s not about that for the other side, and the other side are under no obligation, and it’s certainly not in their interests, to concede an inch on this, not when the rhetoric is that they want to kill babies.
The posters basically taken as an overall message say that women are ‘murderous harlots’. Beyond disgusting. Abuse heaped on abuse.
Saw that on the bus in, amazing indeed even if I have to repeat condemnation of poster vandalism.
Defacing the posters of your opponents, how fascistic.
This gave me a laugh in fairness.