To really want to say something to these abortion protestors?

[Crocodileclip]

Firstly, I know I will probably never say anything as I appreciate that the protestors have the right to protest but it really pisses me off.

A small group of people have been protesting outside the Marie Stoppes clinic in Belfast since it opened in 2012. They stand outside the door on the days it is open holding anti abortion posters and trying to gather signatures for a petition. I pass them on my way to get to the station at home time and every time it annoys me. I can't imagine how offputting they would be if you were young and scared and just wanting some advice. Lots of pics of aborted foetuses etc. I find it intimidating enough myself and I am just walking past. I actually put my head down and walk quicker so that nobody asks me to sign the petition.

I'm currently pregnant with my second and am lucky never to have been in a position where abortion was an option but am of the opinion that there are situations in which it may be the best option available.

The clinic itself operates within NI law so only offers abortions up to 9 weeks and as far as I know is the only such clinic in Northern Ireland. I think I would be ok with the protestors doing their stuff elsewhere in the city centre it is the fact that it is just outside the only entrance to the clinc that makes me irrationally angry. Does this happen at other Marie Stoppes clinics elsewhere in the UK?

Apologies if I sounded flippant. I'm not very bright. But sweeping generalisations are a bad idea. They do weaken an argument. On that basis, are the pro-life activists outside the Belfast clinic (the original reason for the thread) able to acquaint themselves with the details of women's individual circumstances and situations before they opt to condemn or condone the act of abortion? Are they interested?

If not, the problem of making "sweeping generalisations" appears to be intrinsic to an absolute pro-life stance...

...and we're back to the shades of grey.

FAIRNOTFAIR :lots of people who dont believe in abortion also disagree with the death penalty WHO ON EARTH ARE ALL THESE PROLIFERS YOU'VE MET ????????
if a woman's life is in danger it's obviously grounds for an abortion......that case in ireland when the woman died is a disgrace
OP : YANBU

ALSO.....Rather a "sweeping generalisation" you made there yourself

Demi - no need to shout. It just happens that, out of my circle of acquaintances, the individuals who are strongly anti-abortion also happen to be in favour of the death penalty. They also display a strong aversion to single mothers on benefits etc.

I have made my own choice not to socialise with them.

"ALSO.....Rather a "sweeping generalisation" you made there yourself"

Yes, that's true. It was rather the point. Apologies for not making that clear.

well you should've said that then instead of making out that anti-abortionists are all/mainly pro-death-penalty[and now apparently anti-benefits or whatever too]...stop stereotyping based on folk you know

Demi, in the name of not making generalisations, perhaps you should note that I said "Every pro-lifer I've ever met" (09:52:58) and "out of my circle of acquaintances" (10:55:56).

I have only drawn on my own personal experience when posting on this thread.

Nowhere did I suggest that they are "all/mainly" anything.

"It's telling that every prolifer I have ever met has also been vehemently in support of the death penalty"
Have to say that came over pretty strong to me in implying you know 'lots of them ' and have had discussions on same

also you only said the "circle of aquaintances" bit after I picked you up

Demi, you're perfectly entitled to interpret anything I say however you like.

Again, I will point out that I was referring to my own personal experience, which is not unreasonable.

However, I appear to have upset you, and I apologise if that's the case.

Many pro lifers DO support the death penalty, particularly in places like America where these are huge political issues. I mentioned it earlier in the thread. It is highly relevant because it contradicts the 'right to life' argument and shows them up to be massive hypocrites.

and another great sweeping,inaccurate and offensive generalisation!!

but we have contraception in non Catholic countries and also tuition at schools about what to expect from unprotected intercourse

You are aware that contraception fails, aren't you? I was failed by 2 methods at the same time. It was only a few yrs ago & I was adamant that I didn't want anymore children, so I knew I used them properly.

And how do you propose a woman/girl who has been raped to prove it was rape?

www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

Pretty clear pro life stance of Republicans there.

This poll shows that 84% of Republicans also support the death penalty:

www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71156.html

It has long been a bone of contention in political discussion that this bizarre paradox exists, it's hardly an inaccurate generalisation.

www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71156.html

What about contraception It fails. Get your head out of your backside & understand that!!!

what about abstinence and what about self control? Sorry, are we just incubators now? Are you telling me that YOU have never had sex just because it feel good? Have all your encounters led to pregnancy? Having sex isn't just about having babies, it is quite enjoyable.

I have had sex 100s of times. Got pregnant 3 times. Twice while TTcing, once after being refused a permanent solution.

Why should I bring an unwanted baby into this world?

Do you think I should have been punished for having (double protected) sex?

BASGETTI 84% is not everybody, and btw didn't think this was all meant to be about about Republican American attitudes anyway seeing as how mumsnet's like....british? or are prolifers now responsible for sarah palin,george bush and the like as well??????- honestly!
and again OP.....YANBU(just in case anyone forgot)

Well access to safe, legal abortion is a global issue so I'm not sure why it shouldn't matter what is happening in America. I find it deeply concerning, and the hypocrisy of those same politicians being pro death penalty sickening. Is that okay with you?

OK, I'll assume there's a lot of cross-posting here (reasonable when you are fielding questions from multiple posters) and see what I can catch up with.

Now, if you believe that then I'm not sure why you think that abortion seeks the death of the foetus as its primary aim

By "that", I assume you are referring to the premise I set forward that medical technology is unable to enact the right of the mother to bodily autonomy while maintaining the life of the fetus? Yes, I believe that it is currently impossible to preserve the woman's right to bodily autonomy and maintain fetal right to life. I do NOT believe that the primary aim of abortion is to cause death of the fetus. For me, fetal death is always a secondary outcome.

The only time I have deviated from this (and it was intended as conversational sarcasm rather than a formal point, but I appreciate my lack of clarity on this, apologies) was to illustrate the inconsistency with YOUR position on when fetal death is a primary aim (elective abortion) or a secondary outcome (abortion to preserve the mother's right not to die). Where the life of the mother is at risk, you appear to sanction abortion, and my understanding is that fetal death is presented as a secondary outcome rather than primary aim in such cases. However, when that abortion happens some time before the onset of treatment (say for chemotherapy), then the purpose of the abortion is (by your own definition) to cause fetal death - fetal death is not an outcome of the mother's treatment, it is preparation for said treatment.

I have no problem with this. As far as I'm concerned, fetal death is still a secondary outcome to the primary aim of the woman's right to bodily autonomy. I asked before but here it is again: you have stated that:

it is not a case of preserving her 'right not to die'. If it is a case of the pregnancy actually killing her then it is a case of preserving her right not to be killed

So you sanction abortion in the case of, say, ectopic pregnancy, but not in the case of prompt access to chemotherapy, where it is "merely" the mother's long term health at risk, not her immediate life?

You appear able to differentiate between fetal death as a primary outcome (as you think happens in "elective" abortion) and fetal death as a secondary outcome (as you think happens in abortion to preserve the right of the mother not to die). The difference between us is that we afford different rights the legitimacy to effect fetal death as a secondary outcome. In your case, only the maternal right to life supercedes fetal right to life, in my case maternal right to bodily autonomy supercedes fetal right to life. In order to allow your premise to hold, you need to frame the maternal right to life in terms of the pregnancy actively killing her. You cannot defend her right not to die, because that right falls under the right to bodily autonomy (and her ability to take measures to prevent her own death), not the right to life.

This is not an interrogation, I agree. I am trying to understand your position on various aspects of the issues at hand.

BASGETTI I strongly agree with you about those peoples' attitudes actually, but you mustn't see them as 'typical' of 'prolifers' in their attitudes ,which you actually seem to [possibly accidentally] infer

YANBU. they have a right to protest. Likewise you have a right to protest their protest.
I respect their beliefs etc etc, but they are cunts. I'd hate to be vulnerable and walking past all that. It's not like they are still their 9 months later on hand to help out if they change your mind....

I do admire your stamina, MaidOfStars

"But sweeping generalisations are a bad idea. They do weaken an argument."

I agree. There have been several from the 'pro-choicers' on this thread. Including you. It does not strengthen their/your argument in the slightest.

"On that basis, are the pro-life activists outside the Belfast clinic (the original reason for the thread) able to acquaint themselves with the details of women's individual circumstances and situations before they opt to condemn or condone the act of abortion?"

Most people who are pro-life believe the foetus has the right to life regardless of the circumstances under which it was conceived. They do not attach conditions to their beliefs. In the same way genuine 'pro-choicers' would not attach conditions to the situations in which the woman should be allowed to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Eg. the gestation of the foetus.

Maid, "I believe that it is currently impossible to preserve the woman's right to bodily autonomy and maintain fetal right to life." Depends on what stage the abortion is carried out.

"I do NOT believe that the primary aim of abortion is to cause death of the fetus. For me, fetal death is always a secondary outcome. "

That is your opinion. We will just have to agree to disagree on it. Although given that you have recognised that abortion aims to terminate the foetus rather than maintain its right to life I do not understand how you can still have that opinion.

Again, you seem to have missed that when I was talking about termination of pregnancy to preserve the life of the mother I was talking about the legal position of abortion in Ireland - not my personal opinion on the issue. I actually directed you to the relevant post(s) and you still don't seem to have picked up on that. In any case, I was not saying that foetal death was the secondary outcome.

I don't deem removing an ectopic pregnancy abortion. We discussed this earlier.

I am not defending the woman's right not to die. I am defending her right not to be killed.

My comment about the interrogation was because you were asking questions without replying to mine. I cross posted with one of your replies. Some other posters need to take note.

franksleftfoot - "It's not like they are still their 9 months later on hand to help out if they change your mind...."

I think you are new to the thread so you must have missed the link to the leading pro-life charity in the UK that also provides help to the women and children including baby products, housing etc.

twofingers, seeing as I've posted considerably more than Maid AND answered questions from several different posters at the same time AND have not resorted to petty insults or sweeping generalisations despite some pretty rude and offensive comments, I'm going to take that as a compliment too. I know you won't like that but hey ho! Credit where credit is due and all that :)

[the preservation of the woman's right to bodily autonomy and maintenance fetal right to life] Depends on what stage the abortion is carried out

I agree in principle, I disagree in practice. Until there is a method of fetal removal that does not impinge on a woman's bodily autonomy, I cannot see how to circumvent this. If you feel that such methods exist (I have seen people advocate forced CS, for example), please share and it can be discussed. If not, we'll stalemate at this?

Although given that you have recognised that abortion aims to terminate the foetus rather than maintain its right to life I do not understand how you can still have that opinion

This is not true. Where have I said that? Unless there has been some massive glitch in the Matrix where the words I write no longer mean what I think they do, I do not see how you can say this.

Let me reiterate once more and have it be done with: I do not believe that the primary aim of abortion is to kill the fetus or terminate its life. I believe the primary aim of abortion is to assert the woman's right to bodily autonomy. By current methods, this means the fetus will die. That is a secondary (unfortunate but unavoidable) outcome.

when I was talking about termination of pregnancy to preserve the life of the mother I was talking about the legal position of abortion in Ireland - not my personal opinion on the issue

Oh no, I am now aware you were outlining the legal position in Ireland. I then asked you what YOUR position was.

I don't deem removing an ectopic pregnancy abortion. We discussed this earlier

This is, in my opinion, sophistry, but one maintained by your government so I don't really blame you. Is this position because you don't believe the embryo worthy of moral consideration at this stage, or because you prioritise maternal health? If you think your only response to the premise of abortion in ectopic pregnancy - depends when you think life begins - forms a discussion, I can see where we have all been going wrong...