No Defence

It’s hard to describe the shock and outrage experienced in Ireland upon hearing of the latest tasteless stunt by Youth Defence. In a move which goes against all basic decency, the group parked a horrendously offensive anti-abortion billboard outside the office of Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. After being swamped by a torrent of indignation, Youth Defence now claims that the van was not supposed to park there, but was stuck in traffic or having a break and its all just a giant coincidence. Its twitter feed began unleashing attacks upon all critics as though it was the victim. The ad company has since cancelled its contract with Youth Defence. Regardless of intention, the refusal to apologise and the lack of shame over the hurt caused has no defence.

This shocking billboard was parked outside Dublin's Rape Crisis Centre
This shocking billboard was parked outside Dublin’s Rape Crisis Centre

(Youth Defence has shown it has learned nothing by placing anti-abortion posters outside the same Rape Crisis Centre)

Youth Defence is an extreme anti-abortion group with a quasi-Fascist sounding name. It was set up in 1992 in the home of Una Bean Mhic Mhathuna, a woman who had campaigned to keep divorce, homosexuality, contraception and abortion illegal (that these things were illegal in the first place shows that Ireland in the 80s was not a very open place). She condemned feminists (who were working on such radical proposals as equal pay, access to contraception and abolition of the marriage bar) as “fornicators” and “sluts”. She is best known for her exclamation during the 1996 divorce referendum, where she shouted at the pro-divorce side “Go away you wipe-swapping sodomites!” (Ireland sometimes gives scenes you literally couldn’t make up). The group was set up as anti-abortion group to protest the X case decision. I discuss the X case elsewhere, but in essence a 14 year old girl was raped and went to England to get an abortion. Youth Defence was outraged about this and campaigned to restrict her freedom of movement and freedom to information to abortion material (thankfully both issues were defeated in a referendum).

How could such a vile group have support in Ireland? The answer is that they don’t. Studies of their Twitter and Facebook followers found that only a tiny minority live in Ireland, the overwhelming majority live in the United States. Only 9,000 of its 58,000 likes (at time of study, it has since grown to 72,000 likes) or 15% were from people living in Ireland while 69% were resident in America. Similarly, an examination of their twitter followers found that only 14% were living in Ireland while 59% were living in either the US or Canada (14% of their followers had an unknown location). It is a telling sign that most people who are familiar with the work of Youth Defence avoid it leaving it to rely on those who know little about it.

Few Of Youth Defence's followers live in Ireland
Few Of Youth Defence’s followers live in Ireland

The group is also heavily dependent on American anti-abortion groups for funding (the nature of which it does its best to keep secret). Joseph Scheidler, spokesman for the American Pro-Life Action League has admitted that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been sent from America to Irish anti-abortion groups. However, its secrecy has led to it being investigated for possible breaches of political campaign law. Under Irish law, a group must register if it engages in political lobbying, which limits the amount of donations it can receive and prevents it from receiving money from abroad. Youth Defence has stonewalled these investigations by refusing to co-operate (what have they got to hide?). Unfortunately, the Irish political watchdog lacks the power to force groups to comply.

Attempts to deny that women can get pregnant from rape on Youth Defence's website - since removed
Attempts to deny that women can get pregnant from rape on Youth Defence’s website – since removed

Youth Defence seems to live in a time warp, like a relic of the 50s. They harp on about the dangers of contraception and benefits of keeping people ignorant of sex like religious morality story that time forgot. It still refuses to accept that women might have a choice over their decisions, instead portraying them as baby-killing villains. This poster gives an idea of their blame-the-women-let-men-decide mind set. They even cling to the outrageous idea that rape is the womens’ fault. It even misses the Magdalene Laundries as though they were beneficial places that kept promiscuous women in line rather than cruel and oppressive institutions of abuse.

Notice how it makes the woman the villain and tries to justify denying her a choice?
Notice how it makes the woman the villain and tries to justify denying her a choice?

Youth Defence argues that women regret their abortions as though the chance of regret justified denying them the choiuce in the first place. In fact, the Crisis Pregnancy Agency found that 87% of women who had abortions still believed they were the “right outcome”.

Lastly, they are wrong. Their claims are false, sensational and hysterical. But most of all, wrong. They are currently launching a media blitz (probably with American money) displaying offensive and inaccurate posters all over the country. Now, I am pro-choice, but that doesn’t mean I can’t see the other side of the argument. Abortion is a very complicated issue and there are no easy answers. It is possible to mount a reasonable opposition to it, that while I would not agree with it, I would respect. I am opposed to the current Irish system where abortions are illegal, but I do not support completely unrestricted abortion. I believe mature and balanced debate can help us find the middle ground that protects women while keeping the number of abortion to a minimum. However, Youth Defence are a disgrace to the anti-abortion cause, whose extreme tactics only discredit their side.  They do not try to engage in debate but merely the rants of a fanatic. They produce nothing beneficial to society, only outrage and disgust.

Billboards being rolled out across the country by Youth Defence
Billboards being rolled out across the country by Youth Defence

Take this poster here (which incidentally was taken, like most of their photos, from a database without the owner’s permission). How is using a target on a women’s face helpful to the debate? Instead of using logic and reason, they rely on emotionally manipulation.

YD

They further claim that abortion is damaging to women. However their claims of mental health damage are unverified and fall apart upon scrutiny by experts. A host of studies has no found no correlation and Youth Defence fails to provide any evidence of its own. The experts are clear, abortion does not cause psychological trauma, fertility problems or cancer. The only time where women may feel guilt over abortions are in cultures where abortion is unacceptable. These stigmas are usually religiously based and caused by extremists claiming abortion is murdering an innocent baby. In other words, the greatest cause of mental anguish is not abortion but extremists like Youth Defence. Their lies are not just incorrect and misleading, but downright dangerous. The campaign where they claimed abortion was never necessary to save a woman’s life is nothing short of a lie.

The best review of the literature is by the Crisis Pregnancy Agency which states that there is:

 “overwhelming indication that legal and voluntary termination of pregnancy rarely causes immediate or lasting negative psychological consequences in healthy women”

So in conclusion, there is no defence for the actions of this vile group of Ultra Catholic extremists and their backward policies belonging to a long gong era. The people of Ireland reject their dishonest and emotionally manipulative campaigns and it is only true the support of foreigners that Youth Defence still functions. Thus we must continue to suffer the fanaticism of people with no shame, for whom there is no depth they won’t sink to in order to score cheap points. They are a disgraceful pariah organisation for which there is truly no defence.

Advertisements

47 thoughts on “No Defence”

  1. I agree that the way Youth Defence is going about promoting their views is probably inappropriate. However, I just don’t see how you can justify abortion under any circumstances. You are murdering innocent children, and all of those billboards did have truth to them. There are many other alternatives.

      1. The thing inside a woman will become life the majority of the time no matter what the official starting point is. That fetus is one if a kind and that person will never ever have the chance to live if it is aborted.

      2. I recently responded to this pov also Robert by pro-lifers here in my home state of Texas in the U.S. as the religious right continues to push draconian abortion laws that limit access to professional clinics who offer abortion services for women and young girls with unwanted pregnancies. You can read it here

    1. During the earliest stages of pregnancy, when most abortions occur, you’re flushing an embryo out of your body. An embryo, if allowed to grow, would in most cases grow into a child. But at 6 weeks, it is not a child yet. It is not even a fetus yet. So – “you’re murdering innocent children” – well no. Anyway, nobody should be required by law to give up their body to save other people. I notice the bone marrow registry isn’t compulsory. God forbid people are forced to go through a two days of pain and discomfort to give another person life. Yet women are expected to go through nine months of pain and discomfort, have not only their physical and mental health, but their entire lives disrupted by pregnancy, whatever the circumstances, to give another person life? Never mind the life long physical effects some women suffer such as prolapse. If it was men’s precious willies that might be permanently damaged by childbirth, there’d be abortion clinics on every street corner.

  2. I have to say that I am pro-life…BUT in no way to find these tactics acceptable or do I support Youth defense..just the same way I find the Westboro Baptists’ tactics deplorable. Taking things to the extreme will ONLY polarize people, and people just start to tune them out. There has to be ways to reach people without scaring or polarizing them.

  3. Wow, quite the story. I’m surprised at first but not shocked that the money and influence comes from America.Putting America in perspective – the state of Arizona has passed a law defining life as beginning at the end of a woman’s last period. Holy shit!

  4. Great write up! and to the commentor above – no matter what the circumstances are of an unwanted pregnancy, the woman who is pregnant has a greater right to her life than something that may or may not even become a life form. How can you even think of deciding for someone else what they should do with their body? It’s their body, their right. If a woman decides to have a baby, her body, her right. If she decides not to, again, her body, her right.

    1. “How can you even think of deciding for someone else what they should do with their body? It’s their body, their right.”

      What you said is pretty ironic seeing as your deciding for someone else (the baby) what they should do with their body. It’s the baby’s body it should have a right to live. Nobody has the right to murder someone else.

      1. @Pierro P

        What you said is pretty ironic seeing as your deciding for someone else

        And you preventing women from accessing reproductive services is NOT deciding for someone else? Irony is thick around here as of late, no?

        No one has the right to enslave another for their benefit, thus a woman’s bodily autonomy must be preserved and protected.

        1. Preventing a woman from accessing reproductive services is a pretty nice way to say preventing the means to murder. You know what’s pretty funny? All of the people supporting abortion are alive. What if you were murdered as a result of abortion? Would you justify your own death because it was an inconvenience to someone else?

          1. Preventing a woman from accessing reproductive services is a pretty nice way to say preventing the means to murder.

            Self defence is not murder. And somehow conflating the mother life with that of a fetus speaks a great deal about your regard for women.

            You know what’s pretty funny?

            The painfully bad arguments you make? Oh…wait… that was a rhetorical question? Check.

            All of the people supporting abortion are alive.

            Ooo… Awkward. See first half of previous statement of mine.

            What if you were murdered as a result of abortion?

            That is kind of difficult to answer since consciousness is a requirement of forming cogent thought. Thus, if I was aborted, I would not be here typing this response to you. However, I am sure someone else would be here telling you how wrong your forced-birth anti-woman platform is and gently vivisecting what you are putting forward as “argumentation”.

            The “what if” ploy rejoinder is quite simple. What if an asteroid hit the earth tomorrow? Or what if the atmosphere decided to take a vacation. Hypothetical situations are great – unless used in attempt to strip a woman of her rights – then its just a tacit admission that you don’t have any *good* arguments to offer.

            Would you justify your own death because it was an inconvenience to someone else?

            Do you know who the best judge of whether or not to have a child/family is? The mother.

            Let that sink in.

            If she is not prepared, or does not want to add to her family (or start one) then we should trust her judgment as it is her future and her life on the line during and after pregnancy.

            Did you read this entire response, how long did it take? Say 5 minutes? 105 children just died, from preventable causes. Instead of chipping away at women’s hard won autonomy, would it not be better to try and actually save children that are dying? You know little things like addressing child poverty, immunizations, even mosquito netting would make a tremendous difference.

            I’m guessing the response will be, “Yes, but… ”

            The words after the “but” firmly qualify your position not as “pro-life”, but anti-choice and therefore, anti-woman.

            1. How is abortion self-defense (learn how to spell first off) other than the rare case when a pregnancy is life-threatening? The majority of the time both the child and mother end up perfectly healthy. Funny how you judge my regard for women when there is a 50% chance you are killing one with every abortion.

              Saying I make a bad argument and not backing it up? Yeah you might wanna check out my blog on how to win an argument because lets just say you have some work to do.

              You wanna know what’s awkward? Your complete lack of a valid reason against my 3rd statement.

              Now you’re really just losing credibility. Telling me I’m wrong and you’re right without backing it up. You sound like a whining child…one that wasn’t murdered anyway.

              News flash: If the mother is not prepared, then don’t get pregnant. No excuse whatsoever for this except the case of rape. Why don’t I just decide to kill my enemy because it’s my choice? Pro-choice is the worst term on the planet. You do not have a right to choose whatever you want and that’s just simple plain common sense fact.

              I did just read 5 minutes of complete nonsense. And don’t be a hypocrite, you could be supporting all of those causes instead of supporting murdering children.

              Anti choice does not mean anti women. It means anti-murder. Funny how you say I am anti-women when you are anti-man and anti-women seeing as those are the victims you advocate murdering.

              You can dance around the question all day and make as many excuses as you want, but until you tell me why you support murder I just cannot take you seriously.

              1. How is abortion self-defense (learn how to spell first off)

                I would recommend that before you try to be pedantic, you get your facts straight. Defense and Defence are both acceptable. Furthermore, no being has the right to use my body without my consent, if my resources are being used against my consent I have the right to defend myself.

                Saying I make a bad argument and not backing it up?

                Yes. And how would going to your blog fix your lack of cogent argumentation here?

                Funny how you judge my regard for women […]

                Not respecting women’s bodily autonomy is fairly clear sign of low regard for women.

                News flash: If the mother is not prepared, then don’t get pregnant.

                Women’s rights to their bodies do not change post coitus/fertilization. It is still her body and her resources.

                Why don’t I just decide to kill my enemy because it’s my choice?

                You certainly can, and then most likely you would go to jail.

                Pro-choice is the worst term on the planet.

                You opinion, as well as the deep wisdom behind this statement, is noted.

                And don’t be a hypocrite, you could be supporting all of those causes instead of supporting murdering children.

                What I support or do not support is irrelevant to the initial assertion. Presenting a tu quoque, as your rebuttal is tantamount to conceding the point. Thank you.

                Anti choice does not mean anti women.

                It most certainly does as evinced by your assertion that a woman does not have sovereignty over her body, and thus does not possess full human rights. Advocating for such state of affairs is most decidedly anti-woman.

                You can dance around the question all day and make as many excuses as you want, but until you tell me why you support murder

                Conflating the murder with abortion might score points with the forced birth lobby, but that is about it. You can start assigning the term murder to ending a life when said infant is born.

                So there is no dancing persay, only a consistent defence of women against those who would see them stripped of their rights as human beings.

                1. You say no being can use your body without your consent. Yet you think doctors should use a baby’s body against its consent? contradictory.

                  Going to my blog would fix your lack if argumentation. Mine is fine unless you don’t believe in logic.

                  Not respecting human life is a pretty strong sign if disregard for both genders.

                  So women all of a sudden gain the right to murder because of a mistake they made? Seems reasonable.

                  I should go to jail for murder but a woman shouldn’t? That makes sense.

                  Explain to me what exactly pro-choice is. The choice to murder? Where is the child’s choice in that scenario? Again doesn’t make sense.

                  What you support is relevant. You can’t call me out on something you’re not even doing. Hypocrite.

                  I did not say a woman had no right over body. I said she has no right over someone else’s body. Which is true.

                  The infant is in the process of being born. You are destroying potential life. If it is not alive then you wouldn’t have to kill it.

                  Last night I checked. Human beings do not have the right to murder, but the way the world is going with people like you it might fall apart pretty quickly.

                  1. You say no being can use your body without your consent. Yet you think doctors should use a baby’s body against its consent? contradictory.

                    The fetus gestating inside woman’s body does not have any of the rights that we would assign to born human beings, nor for a good deal of the time even the capacity to be classified as having human functionality – brainwaves, thought patterns etc. The commonly accepted figure is around 20 weeks. Thus, no contradiction exists as the fetus, while being a person does not have the rights we assign to born human beings.

                    Going to my blog would fix your lack if argumentation. Mine is fine unless you don’t believe in logic.

                    The lack of cogent argumentation has had one source during this exchange, and that has been documented by the refutation of what you have been saying by me. If you find my arguments lacking, refute them. I assure you, they’ve survived much more rigorous examination then what they’ve been subject to in this thread.

                    So women all of a sudden gain the right to murder because of a mistake they made? Seems reasonable.

                    They (women) have the right to decide what goes on in their bodies. It is really a simple concept that you seem to be struggling with. Your defence of your position seems to mainly consist of a common fetus-fetishist whinge sounding something like this: “but what about the baaaaabeeee”. Which if you note, is not an argument but rather, a vacuous appeal to emotion.

                    I should go to jail for murder but a woman shouldn’t? That makes sense.

                    I’m glad you’ve come to your senses.

                    Explain to me what exactly pro-choice is. The choice to murder? Where is the child’s choice in that scenario? Again doesn’t make sense.

                    Wow, let me just cut and paste what I’ve already said: Women have the right to decide what goes on in their bodies. The ‘child’s’ choice is not a consideration given the relationship it has with the mother i.e her body and resources.

                    What you support is relevant. You can’t call me out on something you’re not even doing. Hypocrite.

                    Learn to argue. Me being a hypocrite or not has no bearing on what my assertion was. Refute the assertion, not my character.

                    The infant is in the process of being born. You are destroying potential life.

                    Arguing about potentials is futile, as to remain consistent with your position you would have to agree to this.

                    You are destroying potential life.

                    And you are consistently denying the existence and “life” of the mother. It is her body, her resources, her peril when pregnant. It is her risk to take, and if she does not feel fit, or whatever reason, then she has the right to terminate the pregnancy – which by chance is also the proper terminology.

                    Last night I checked.

                    Fascinating, one would assume that one of the basic ethical codes present in every human society would not require you to verify that they are still in place. Full marks for checking this fact out.

                    but the way the world is going with people like you it might fall apart pretty quickly.

                    Oh you mean the one where women are treated as human beings as opposed to brood mares and chattel. Then bring on the apocalypse baby, as I eagerly look forward to a post patriarchal society!

                    1. Just because it hasn’t been born yet doesn’t justify the right to kill it. The fetus has more of a right to live than you have to take its life.

                      Telling me I’m wrong, being sarcastic, and insulting me does not exactly make a good argument. Answering one simple question: Why is killing an unborn child ok, would actually give you something to base your argument on. Yet you just bash my points and dance around the issue.

                      I disagree that women have the right to what goes on in their bodies when there is another life inside that body. They were given a powerful responsibility in the ability to give birth, and destroying something that will never ever be possible again without giving it a chance is unfair.

                      Your next statement provides no valid argument whatsoever so it will be ignored.

                      The child’s life should be a consideration seeing as all humans are created equal and one does not have the right to take the life of another.

                      Your assertion was irrelevant to the argument. Saying I should go out and help other causes does nothing to explain why abortion isn’t wrong.

                      The only reason I say potential is in the rare case that something goes wrong. We know for a fact the majority of the time that the fetus will become a baby. It’s science.

                      Don’t get pregnant if you don’t want to have a baby. Not a hard concept at all. Rape is a different story but we are not discussing that at the moment. I am not denying the life of the mother. You do realize it is possible to give birth and still be healthy? Stop acting like you have to choose one to live and one to die. Both can live happy lives if the proper actions are taken.

                      “Last time I checked” was sarcasm. You should know since you seem very fond of using it.

                      Last paragraph is a case in point for your sarcasm. Last time I checked women’s rights have been in effect for about 4 or 5 decades. I think theyre doing just fine. Not murdering their children and instead seeking assistance to raise the child or send it to an orphanage doesn’t exactly seem like the apocalypse to me.

                      Also not sure what point you were trying to prove with that video. Seemed like it supported my position pretty well.

              2. Oh come on Pierro, give it a rest. Rowe v. Wade decided the issue long ago and abortion is legal. You do whatever you want with your life, it’s absolutely none of your business what others do with theirs. If people like you put as much effort into their lives as they put into these arguments the world would be a better place. Suck it up and bark up another tree.

                1. So 5 guys in the Supreme Court say its legal they must be right. Legal doesn’t mean right and legal definitely doesn’t mean moral.

                  It is my business because I am fighting for a worthy cause. Also, it takes virtually no effort to think logically and type out a statement. The world would be a better place without cold-blooded murderers though.

                  1. Yep – if the supreme court says it’s legal then it is the law.As for it being your business just because it contradicts your morals – get over it – it isn’t your business. In a perfect world religious morals would be grounds for charges of “hate crimes” when they infringed on other peoples right to live their life in peace. I can’t imagine what crosses your mind when deciding it has to be your way or the highway.Feel free to take any “moral” position you like, but please keep it to yourself. I respect your position but have no patience for bullying or judgement. Just who do you think you are – holy crap!

                    1. Unless you live under a rock you know that government corruption is rampant. Just because the government makes you do something doesn’t mean it’s right – in anyone’s eyes.

                      This has nothing to do with religion. It doesn’t take religion to realize murder is wrong. If your morals involve allowing murder then I hope someone murders someone close to you and see how you like it then.

                      No bullying. No judgment. Common sense.

                    2. You hope someone murders someone close to me -common sense huh? Holy crap, I’m speechless, and you most certainly do little to convince me you aren’t a judgemental bully.

                      I’ll say it one last time – it isn’t your business.If you had a 12 year old daughter who was brutally raped and became pregnant – knock yourself out and raise that baby. Me, she would have an abortion and put her life back together – and it would be none of your business.

                    3. If the way to put someone’s life back together is to destroy another life, than you have no regard for human life. There are plenty of other alternatives. Your personal choices are none of my business, but fighting for a cause I believe in is my business.

                    4. We are fortunate enough to live in places that allow freedom of speech, nothing in life is black or white, there are lots of grey areas.Intelligent discussion, debate, and above all respect – are platforms on which we can learn and share ideas.

                      African Americans no longer sit at the back of the bus, women have the right to vote, and abortion is legal. If you think that in a million million years any of those things will change – think again. You are of course entitled, to your opinion – but the law is the law.

                      Perhaps moving to an Islamic country would suit you better. Under Sharia law women become the property of their husbands,are forbidden to leave the house without a male escort from the family, can’t vote, drive a car, and best of all – husbands are instructed on the proper way to beat their wife. Oh yeah, and get this – 72 virgins wait for them in heaven.

                      A piece of advise – telling me you hope someone in my family is murdered, or to go kill some babies, paints you as an ignorant, uneducated bully. There is an expression about catching more flies with honey that seems to have eluded you.
                      Spending 2 minutes with you forces judgement; not of your position, but of your character and venomous statements

                      I would rather stick a needle in my eye than continue this conversation – I have productive things to do with my life.

                2. @ Notes to Ponder

                  Oh come on Pierro, give it a rest.

                  Oh I highly doubt that will happen. 🙂

                  If people like you put as much effort into their lives as they put into these arguments the world would be a better place.

                  But then who would be responsible for punishing women? Maintaining the Patriarchy is a full time job you know. 🙂

  5. @Pierro Perspective

    You really need to bust out some of this “logic” and argumentative skill you keep claiming to have. Let’s examine some statements of PP’s to discover what is really going on.

    Unless you live under a rock you know that government corruption is rampant.

    Translation: Because the laws don’t reflect my own set of ethical standards the government must be corrupt.

    The ethical world does not turn on your axis. Get used to it. Your assertions, as evinced here, are at best half-baked and not supported in a reasonable way.

    Just because the government makes you do something doesn’t mean it’s right – in anyone’s eyes.

    Teasing out the difference between what is legal and what is moral is a fine place to start the debate. That isn’t your point though, as that would require non binary ethical judgments which, to date, you have not exhibited.

    If your morals involve allowing murder then I hope someone murders someone close to you and see how you like it then.

    Seriously? And you are calling me on my supposed lack of argumentative skill?

    Please.

    We allow for murder all the time. Soldiers, police officers, the state in some jurisdictions all take human life – is their morality suspect in the hard line ethical world you seem to inhabit?

    Also, wishing someone to be murdered to make your point is a disgustingly crass and heartless ploy. Your noble campaign for “life” seems a bit tarnished if you can so easy wish death on others.

    No bullying. No judgment. Common sense.

    Because wishing murder on someone to “prove” your point isn’t bullying at all. Nothing in what you’ve said even remotely resembles common sense and logic is but a distant memory.

  6. Are you seriously going to tell me there is no corruption in government? Good luck with that because people with a much higher reputation than you would beg to disagree. Again, nothing to do with my morals. Corruption is corruption and we could spend days listing all of the evil that exists, but that is not relevant to this topic.

    My second point was just because it is legal does not make it right. I follow the law but I don’t have to agree to it. My mistake for not assuming everyone thought murder was a bad thing. Pretty sure that’s not my ethical world, it’s everyone’s.

    The point I was making about hoping someone got murdered was trying to get you to see things from a different perspective. Obviously I don’t want anyone murdered. I want you to stop being so biased and stubborn and look at things from another perspective. If something like this affected you personally I’m sure you would have a different opinion.

    Nice try with the analogies, but there is one problem. Those people actually have a legitimate reason to kill because they are doing what’s right by destroying the enemy. There is no reason to kill an unborn baby unless the pregnancy is life-threatening.

    Again my point was that it is easy to say something when you don’t have to suffer the consequences, but what if you do have to suffer the consequences?

    Insulting me and telling me I’m wrong just makes you lose credibility.

    1. Are you seriously going to tell me there is no corruption in government?

      No, I’m saying that inferring that government is corrupt because it doesn’t agree with your opinions doesn’t follow.

      I want you to stop being so biased and stubborn and look at things from another perspective.

      The word you’re looking for is empathy. A quality that, from your assertions, you have little of, at least with regards to women.

      Those people actually have a legitimate reason to kill because they are doing what’s right by destroying the enemy.

      Oh, legitimate reasons. Legitimate by whose standards? In which situations? What I quoted from you is not an argument, you have not defined “legitimate”, nor the term “right” you just assume that they are.

      If something like this affected you personally I’m sure you would have a different opinion.

      You support forcing women to give birth… against their will, under penalty of law. How would this not affect me personally? Subjugating women to your ethos would deprive them of the basic rights we assign to human beings. I’m not much for being a second class citizen deprived of my human rights because of your fetus-fetish.

      There is no reason to kill an unborn baby unless the pregnancy is life-threatening.

      The women can, and should be able to terminate her pregnancy for any reason because it is her body.

      Again my point was that it is easy to say something when you don’t have to suffer the consequences,

      Apply what you said to women who do not want to be pregnant.

      Imagine being poor enough that the next child will break your family, or the next child will ruin your body. And then you meet up with some sanctimonious dude prattling on about “defending life” when yours is going into the shitter because you cannot access a legal medical procedure. Your stance as stated, to date, is inherently misogynistic because it denies women their bodily autonomy, a fundamental human right.

      Insulting me and telling me I’m wrong just makes you lose credibility.

      I’m not interested in maintaining any sort of credibility with you. Until you give me something more than the standard anti-choice whinge “whaaat about the baaaaaby”, it is not my credibility that is in question.

      I am here engaging, painstakingly, with yet another privileged dude who thinks they know what is best for women. I am showing where you are wrong, how you are wrong and most importantly, why you are wrong.

  7. @PP

    Just because it hasn’t been born yet doesn’t justify the right to kill it. The fetus has more of a right to live than you have to take its life.

    It most certainly does not. Here is why. No fully formed human adult, under any circumstance can force me to use my body for their benefit. If I have an organ that would save your life I am under no obligation to give it to you, even if you would die without it.

    Mandatory organ donation is a gross violation of bodily autonomy. Now a fetus is not a fully formed human being and you would propose that it should have more rights than what we would give to fully grown, human beings with all the rights we accord them. Giving something that isn’t sentient more rights than fully formed human beings is absurd.

    We do not condone forced organ donation, and thus forced birth is also off the table.

    Why is killing an unborn child ok[…]

    Because that fetus is there only on the goodwill of the mother, using her body and her resources. If her mind changes about being pregnant then her will supersedes any rights the fetus may or may not have, because it is using her body and her resources.

    I disagree that women have the right to what goes on in their bodies when there is another life inside that body.

    And that is precisely why forced birth advocates such as yourself are anti-woman. It is because you fundamentally believe that a woman’s role is that of being an incubator first and person second. And that is not in any way a reasonable stance to take in 21st century.

    Saying I should go out and help other causes does nothing to explain why abortion isn’t wrong.

    No, it is merely establishing the fact that preserving life is not your goal but rather too control and enslave women as incubators and broodmares. The noble dedication to “life”, stops once women are put in their place. Consider it as clarifying your anti-choice, forced birth position.

    The only reason I say potential is in the rare case that something goes wrong. We know for a fact the majority of the time that the fetus will become a baby. It’s science.

    No, dude. Citations or GTFO.

    Implantation rate for pregnancies is roughly 50% of the time. (Boklage, C. E. 1990. Survival probability of human conceptions from fertilization to term. International Journal of Fertility 35(2): 75–94. [citation is on page 13 of the PDF hyperlinked, top of the page]) That is hardly a majority of the time. When you go to science land you come back citations or you’re just talking out of your ass.

    Don’t get pregnant if you don’t want to have a baby.

    A woman’s rights do not change once she’s pregnant. Coitus is not a magical female rights remover.

    Last time I checked women’s rights have been in effect for about 4 or 5 decades. I think theyre doing just fine.

    Considering that you have demonstrated that you know next to nothing about the status of women, or their rights this statement is not only condescending, but factually wrong. I would recommend going here as a nice starting point.

    You do realize it is possible to give birth and still be healthy?

    Do you realize how dangerous and possibly fatal being pregnant/giving birth is? Pregnancy can permanently disfigure/handicap a woman for life. It is essential that if a woman does not wish to remain pregnant that she have the option to terminate her pregnancy.

    Also not sure what point you were trying to prove with that video.

    If you follow the argument of potentiality to its logical end, then contraception, even masturbation is a sin, since you are denying a potential life from being created. That, was the point of the video, showing how absurd the argument about potentialities is.

    1. I think it is pretty clear that we are not going to agree on this subject. We disagree about fundamental concepts and there is no point constantly going around in a circle. Neither of us has convinced the other of anything. Therefore, I will go on my way and continue to fight against abortion while you go on your way and support it. Maybe some day we will end up on a blog post agreeing with each other, but for now we have to agree to disagree. It’s not worth spending any more time arguing about it.

      1. I think it is pretty clear that we are not going to agree on this subject.

        Agreed. I shall continue to campaign and argue that women should be treated as human beings, while you argue the converse.

        Good luck with that.

  8. I did not come close to saying that the government is corrupt because it doesn’t agree with my morals. I said just because something is law, does not mean that it’s right. People can do all kinds of bad things that are technically “legal”, but it’s not always the right thing to do.

    Secondly, you don’t deny refusing to look at things from another perspective, so I will assume that is true. Saying I have no empathy for women is a generalized statement that is false and taken out of context. Bad point.

    Oh I’m sorry, didn’t realize that not everyone considers fighting for our country and fighting crime legitimate. But then again with your perspective I’m not surprised.

    What if your wife/gf or future wife/gf decided to get an abortion? You would just let her kill your child right in front of you with no remorse? Sickening. Fetus-fetish translation respect for human life.

    This next statement I just don’t agree with at all. We are at opposite ends in terms of what a women should be able to do with a baby.

    You keep ignoring the fact that pregnancy can be avoided (again besides rape). If you don’t want a baby then don’t get pregnant. Explain to me how this is not logical? If you were poor you wouldn’t be having children. If you were not healthy you wouldn’t be having children. Own up and take responsibility for your mistakes that are costing other humans their lives.

    You are the one whining “Women should be able to do whatever they want including murder their own children because it’s their body and they made a mistake so we should just let them get away with it and not make them take responsibility.”

    I’ve countered every point you’ve made and you continue to ignore key points. You pick and choose certain parts of my argument, often out of context, to try to make your points.

    It’s not about what’s best for women, it’s about what’s best for human life. I am only privileged because I’ve worked hard and earned every single thing I’ve been given. I’ve been punished for my mistakes and rewarded for my hard work. It’s about time other people do the same and not take the easy way out.

    1. Secondly, you don’t deny refusing to look at things from another perspective, so I will assume that is true.

      Being charitable to the opposing point of view lies at the heart of good argumentation. I have been over your point of view and the consequences for women would be reprehensible. Women are people, not incubators.

      Saying I have no empathy for women is a generalized statement that is false and taken out of context. Bad point.

      After being shown how dangerous pregnancy is for women and then continuing to argue that women should be forced to give birth is evidence of a distinct lack of empathy toward women. Prove me wrong.

      What if your wife/gf or future wife/gf decided to get an abortion?

      I would then respect her decision as it is her body and I value her as a human being and a person as opposed to your view that women are mere incubators.

      You keep ignoring the fact that pregnancy can be avoided (again besides rape). If you don’t want a baby then don’t get pregnant.

      Because women are never coerced into having sex.
      Because birth control never fails.
      Because shit never happens.

      As mentioned earlier, coitus does is not a female rights remover. A woman has autonomy over her body both pre and post coital activity.

      If you were poor you wouldn’t be having children. If you were not healthy you wouldn’t be having children.

      Wow, what at amazing idea. Maybe you should go to the underdeveloped nations of the world and share your important wisdom. Women, precisely because they are disadvantaged, suffer pregnancy at higher rates.

      Own up and take responsibility for your mistakes that are costing other humans their lives.

      Choosing to terminate a pregnancy is the very definition of taking responsibility for one’s actions. Not bringing a child into a poor set of socioeconomic conditions is not only the responsible choice, but an ethical one as well. Dooming children to a disadvantaged life with little or no opportunity is not ethical behaviour.

      You are the one whining “Women should be able to do whatever they want […]

      So, when I need your kidney to live you better ante up with a smile because your obtuse defense of life would trump bodily autonomy, and if women don’t have a right to it, why should you?

      I’ve countered every point you’ve made and you continue to ignore key points.

      Err… Just saying that I’m wrong is not “countering” anything. Conversely, I quote what you have said and precisely enumerate why and how you are wrong.

      As I have stated before, learn to argue. Take the strongest argument of mine and show how it is wrong. I have consistently shown your arguments to be anti-woman and lacking any sort of cogency other than misguided notion that by subjugating women we will somehow save “Life”.

      It’s not about what’s best for women, it’s about what’s best for human life.

      Ah, throwing women under the bus in the noble quest for saving life. Let’s chalk up another example of a keen lack of empathy toward women.

      Here is another argument about what is best for human life –
      Given the carrying capacity of the earth, a mass extinction of a good percentage of the human population would be what is best for the continuation of human life. Thus we should exterminate the excess at the first available opportunity.

      Stripping women of their rights, like exterminating “excess” population for the greater good is a nonsensical argument.

      I am only privileged because I’ve worked hard and earned every single thing I’ve been given.

      Did you work hard for all the benefits that come from being a man? Did your hard labour change the social status and standing of your parents? The argument you just made is the clarion-call of privileged (usually) white dudes everywhere. It is a joke, most likely, you’ve had your life on ‘easy mode’ and just haven’t recognized it.

      It’s about time other people do the same and not take the easy way out.

      Like terminating a pregnancy is *ever* an easy decision. Getting an abortion is surgery, and while safer than giving birth, carries with it all the risks associated with invasive procedures. And thanks to the detrimental position you advocate, women attempting to get a legal, safe, medical procedure is more difficult that ever in the United States.

      But then again, you seem to have no problem advocating for the trampling women and their rights. Fetus Fetish for the winz!

  9. Robert, though I am not for abortion on the ground of rape, I believe you are correct. Fanaticism, in both sides of abortion issue, are doing harm than good.

    I would and hope for civility and carefully argued cases offered in a context of love, gentleness, and sensitivity. My motto has always being when love comes first, our disagreement will fall on their proper place. Before addressing the issue in face to face with those who seek my position, I tended to begin with love, and understanding before I share why I am prima facie not for abortion.

    Thank you for a thoughtful piece.

  10. Faux concern for women and sheer hypocrisy. You’d like nothing better to smear YD with any thing to further your cause. you cared about women you would condemn the gendercide that abortion is allowing inn Europe.

    1. Smear Youth Defence? Their actions make that completely unnecessary. I am not aware of any targeting of women in the womb in Europe and as far as I know it doesn’t exist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s