Report & Photos from Protest outside Rogue Anti-Choice Agency

by Pro Choice Thu Mar 08, 2007 19:38

A few more photos

WRC - unveiled and exposed

Large turnout

by Participant Thu Mar 08, 2007 21:29

It was a good action, you did not allow yourselves to be intimidated or pushed around.
The lowering of the scaffolding unto the non-violent campaigners was out of order
and you stood firm on the issue. nice to see the support and good will.

It was an ecellent way to mark International women's day- Beir Bua!!!!!

[Print the info on the signs for us- cos you cannot see it in the photos]

by Jacqueline Fallon Thu Mar 08, 2007 21:49

There is not much detailed information (in fact there's none at all) in this report. What false information is this clinic giving; what lies are they telling; why are you declaring them to be a rogue family planning clinic; and why is the clinic hiding behind a brown sheet?

by Paula Geraghty Thu Mar 08, 2007 22:46

(c)
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/81342
further information at this link

by hydra - the imaginary republic Fri Mar 09, 2007 03:15

Great to see so many people and so spirited a picket, as said above, a worthy way to mark March 8th. But these agencies need to be shut down, and not just for a day. There is a detailed dossier on the history of this pseudo-counselling operation, which I assume someone is currently editing before being put on general release.

This place actually specialises in emotional blackmailing of women so as to force them into complying with their tunnel-visioned catholic fundamentalism rather than making the decision best suited to their circumstances. And they camouflage themselves in the language of feminism and non-directive counselling so as to achieve that end.That said, the biggest rogue agency of them all is the Irish state, who to this day refuse to facilitate the carrying out of abortions within the jurisdiction, notwithstanding the X case's determination that it is permitted under the constitution. Instead they prefer women to make the journey in fear and silence to London and Amsterdam.

Remember this when the political class call to your door trying to weasel your vote from you.

As was once the saying: if you can't trust us with a choice, how can you trust us with a child?

hydra

by Q Fri Mar 09, 2007 08:11

What's your international women's day position on sex selected abortion? They seem to be all the rage in India and China, and were evident in California when I visited. Is being aborted on the basis of being an unborn female all part of the choice you are promoting?

by Emma Fri Mar 09, 2007 08:40

Please explain the statement - "they were evident in California when I visited". How exactly were they evident?

by The Insider Fri Mar 09, 2007 09:23

Well done to all concerned.

Are there any plans for further actions?

by ... Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:05

Today Thursday the 8th of March is International Women’s Day
and 2007 makes this The 15th anniversary of the X case ruling.
It is therefore an appropriate occasion to ask “What the fuck is going
on?” with thisRogue Agency currently calling itself the “WRC” located
at number 50 on Upper Dorset Street.

So What is the “WRC” located at number 50 on Upper Dorset Street?

The “WRC” at number 50 on Upper Dorset Street is a rogue pregnancy counselling
agency. It is a rogue agency because it masquerades as a pro-choice agency in
order to deceive, misinform, and manipulate women who come here seeking an
abortion in the pursuit of its pro-life agenda. “WRC” is what is currently written
on the sign above the door but this rogue agency has operated, and continues to
operate under numerous aliases. Founded in 1995 it operated until 1999 as the
“Aadams Women Centre” when it was forced to close after a scandal concerning
illegal adoptions. It then began operating as the “Women’s Counselling Network”.
There was then a further media scandal concerning a woman who attended this
rogue agency and subsequently had her appointment at an abortion clinic in Holland
cancelled by someone who falsely claimed to be her boyfriend. This rogue
agency currently advertises in the Golden Pages through two separately branded
‘fronts’. These fronts are called “Choice for Women” and “British Alternative
Pregnancy Services”. When ever a woman responds to either of these two different
advertisements, which are deliberately designed to give the misleading impression
of representing a pro-choice agency, they end up with an appointment here at
number 50 on Upper Dorset Street. Every time a particular brand alias is exposed
this rogue agency changes it, so remember the address that remains the same!

The “WRC” is not the only rogue agency operating in Ireland. “Ask Majella” is
another known rogue agency that also advertises in Dublin’s Golden Pages but
operates at a location in Limerick.

The Misinformation and Deception of the Rogue Agency at 50 Upper Dorset St

This rogue agency misinforms women that it is impossible to have an abortion
before eight weeks, even though an abortion during this period is cheaper and
safer.

They also falsely claim that there is no such thing as a medical abortion and that
all abortions are therefore surgical, even though a medical abortion is when a drug
is administered to end pregnancy. In England medical abortions are performed up
until 9 weeks.

Having falsely asserted that all abortions are surgical abortions they then claim
that this surgery puts the woman’s life at risk. This is a gross overstatement of the
small risk of complications associated with any surgical procedure. There are similar
risks of complications with carry a pregnancy to full term.

The agency demands that a woman seeks an unnecessary ultrasound at a private
hospital before information about abortion services will be disclosed. The agency
has no intention of providing such information, it simply seeks to delay the
woman’s plans by weeks and cause additional expense to be incurred. Three
weeks later the agency will try to use the ultrasound image in a further attempt to
try to get the woman to reconsider her course of action.

They misinform pregnant women that this is their only opportunity to have a
child because abortion causes sterility. Abortion terminates a pregnancy not fertility!

They falsely claim that abortion causes depression, even though abortion can be
an empowering choice that improves self-esteem for women faced with the truly
depressing prospect of living with an unwanted pregnancy and unwanted children.
If this agency really cared about women’s mental health then they’d probably offer
support instead of manipulating them through lies into fear and guilt.

They misinform that abortion puts the woman’s life at risk because it causes a
90% increase to the risk of breast cancer, yet no major cancer organisation in the
world believes that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.
If a woman won’t describe abortion as “killing my own baby” then they are pronounced
“psychologically unfit” to have an abortion because you are supposedly
in denial if you describe abortion in any other [ie. less pro-life] way.

They confuse abortion with rape by describing abortion as a ‘hostile penetration’,
manipulating the real recent trauma of rape victims seeking an abortion.

They have even insisted that rape cannot cause pregnancy, it must be your boyfriends
child!

They also have claimed that abortion leads to both ‘promiscuity’ and ‘frigidity’!

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:48

Well done and more power to all those who took part on the picket on the rogue agency. And to my good sisters/comrades in the 'Unmanageables' who took to the streets yesterday.
I went to see a film on the Bolivarian revolution in Guatemala and its effect on women last night ....in UCD organised by the Global Womens Strike.There were about 15 of us there.
And I started to reflect on a few basic realities concerning women in this world. Realities that if they weren’t so tragic and horrible would make us all laugh….consider, for example, the recent news that in Libya, women under 40 years old are not allowed anymore to go abroad, unless they’re accompanied by a male member of their family!!
Young women barbarically assaulted by variants of the ‘medical profession’ on ‘religious grounds’ or many of them, as young as 9 years old, forced to marry older men. Women, victims of rape, stoned to death or others kidnapped and brought to the West, or imprisoned in virtual seclusion in the East, to be used as objects of sexual. ‘pleasure’ Things that for some, and most of us men, who have food to eat, a clean house, possibly work and a family……things that are difficult to put into words resulting in feelings that are so distant. Until tragedy comes knocking at our door and relity barges in.

International Womens Day, established with the same logic of introducing International Water Resources Day, or St. Valentine’s Day, would have been meaningless if women had achieved their rightful place in controlling half the sky. But, it has a value….a major importance still …when we consider that one in 5 of young girls under the age of 15 worldwide have fallen victim to sexual violence. That in ‘civilised’ Europe 20-25% of women have suffered physical violence, mostly at home but also at work……This in a world where in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, women constitute 75% of the population and the majority of the 100 million young kids who don’t or cannot go to school are young girls. In a world where the majority of the 800 million who cannot read or write are older as well as younger women.

International Womens Day (or night as yet methinks) has a great value for most to help us stop and think. And act. And object loudly, for example, when the BCI censors an innocent Trocaire ad on 'gender based violence' for being 'too politixal'!!. And support the right of women to choose how they want to live their lives.

by Buddhasister Fri Mar 09, 2007 14:14

A sincere and heart felt well done to all who worked on this, I was truly frightened when I read the kind of bullshit they were telling people. More and more actions along these lines need to be organised asap-this is an incredibly dangerous situation, I can only imagine that the confusion heaped on vulnerable girls and guys trying to use the service would push a person to breaking point. It just galls me that people who think they're honouring life could work in this way, personally speaking, it doesnt matter whether you're pro or anti abortion, if you legislate for morality you remove free choice, and surely the excersize of free will is essential to our conception of the individual? I was particularly happy to see some men standing outside the office too, the issue of abortion is often claimed by both politicians and feminists as a "womans issue" which ensures its marginalisation. The reality of the situation is of course different, whilst pregnancy is clearly an experience embodied in the "female" , it is not a universal phenomenon to that sex- not all women have the choice, some don't have wombs or ovaries and can't or choose not to have children. So, is it an issue that pertains to only those who experience pregnancy or "crisis" pregnancy? Does this inevitably lead to a further reduction of the people deemed to have authority to speak on the subject? Does this then help or hinder the situation as it affects people in need of help now or in the future?In reality, abortion is an issue that pertains to both women and men and whilst everyone can (and generally does)have an opinion on the subject, what can truly be said of those whose lives it really touches is that they are of both genders. The extent to which it effects men and women differently is entirely down to the particular individuals concerned and their own contexts, *generalised* attempts to say that women inevitably suffer more always strikes me as a perverse form of martyrdom, a form of power that is predicated on the degradation of a totally objectified body. Some women do suffer more physically/mentally/emotionally than men, and sometimes the dynamic is reversed. I marked out the word"generalised"there because this kind of statement typically arises in the context of polemics which have a tendency to skew the complexity of very real issues in favour of recourse to passionate but outdated versions of feminist rhetoric-that age old rouse 'em and lead 'em kind of approach. I appreciate that this statement will not sit well with a lot of people. I hope it doesn't. For too long now these thorny issues have been avoided-theres nothing "radical" about following the official line on anything, the fact is that absolute democracy requires absolute vigilance, contexts shift, issues change, we need to always tackle the ugly stuff to be effective. Won't the closing down of incredibly cynical and dangerous offices like this and the establishment of clinics to carry out safe abortions happens sooner if more men are encouraged to tread on what is widely percieved to be "womens territory"?. Fact is, the longer it's jealously guarded as a potential political power base, the more hesitant men will be to speak out on an issue that very much concerns them and that surely has some serious personal and political implications. It 's very interesting to me that the pro-life campaign seem to have a phenomenal number of men onside, in fact if anything I'm sometimes amazed at the apparent gender base asymmetry-why is this the case? Debates please..

by hydra - an imaginary republic Fri Mar 09, 2007 16:51

Let's clarify something: as far as you're concerned, anyone who offers non-directive information on all options regarding a pregnancy is pro-abortion? I won't quibble with your use of language (everyone tries to employ language to their advantage), but want to be clear about your definition.

Even if you are vehemently against abortion you should be able to appreciate why it's a good thing to expose and ultimately close an agency like the WRC. They function on the same basis as a confidence trick, a scam. Their presentation is designed to attract the uninformed and then condition their thinking to achieve a result in line with the ideology of the agency's owners. They do not respect women's individual right to self-determination, albeit because they believe that they are defending the 'lives' of the 'unborn'. They are charlatans masquerading as something they're not, duping isolated and vulnerable women, many of them extremely young and distraught.

Have your counselling services, but call them the "Society for the Protection Unborn Child Counselling", "Youth Defence Women's Centre", or the "Christian Solidary Party Emporium of Family Values", rather than trying to trick people with the ploys of door-to-door salesmen. Indeed the situation at WRC is much worse than distributing misleading information, but the evidence demonstrating that will be published in good time.

You say that pro-abortion agencies are conducting questionable activities? If you can demonstrate that there are 'pro-abortion' agencies in Dublin, which disregard the views and sensibilities of the women they are counselling, so as to corner them into going to Britain and have an abortion, then I'd like to hear about it. That too would be a negation of the same self-determination which lies at the heart of the pro-choice perspective. I'll go further: I'd have no problem picketing such a place. Got any facts for us?

hydra

by Jacqueline Fallon Fri Mar 09, 2007 19:10

Well done to everyone for highlighting and exposing this rogue family planning clinic 'WRC' who are misinforming very anxious and vulnerable women.

Abortion should be available as an option here in Ireland. It is unbelievable that in 2007, Irish women are forced to leave the country and take the lonely and unpleasant trip to England to avail of an abortion, and it is all because of political cowardice. You can be sure it won't be an election issue anyway, too contentious, and, anyhow, there's so few women politicians and the few we have can't be relied upon.

Well done to everyone who participated in the protest. Please keep us all informed of future protests.

by Mary Muldowney - AFC Fri Mar 09, 2007 19:17

Congratulations to all concerned with the protest on the so-called Women's Resource Centre. It's really important to draw attention to the activities of these people but can we stop dignifying them by describing them as 'pro lifers'.

Do they object to the unequal distribution of wealth in this country and demand that the considerable resources available to the government are used to end poverty and hardship, particularly for children?

Have they been clamouring for a decent health service that is equally available to everybody, regardless of income?

Are they campaigning for sex education in schools and provision of a comprehensive contraceptive service as part of that health service?

Have they used their influence on the major institutions of this country (mainstream political parties, the catholic church, the legal system) to legislate to protect children's rights and protect them from the predatory elements within those major institutions?

It's strange, but all those shrill voices that have been raised over the years on behalf of the 'unborn' somehow went very silent when it came to the harsh reality of life for many of the 'born', including the many women in Ireland who have been forced to deal with crisis pregnancies in silence and secrecy. The only genuinely pro life position is to be pro choice and make sure that women have the right to choose for themselves how they control their fertility.

Call them liars, which they are, call them callous hypocrites, which they are, but don't call them pro life, because that's the last thing they deserve to be called.

by bot Fri Mar 09, 2007 20:08

every day next week, women will be going in there to be subjected to this sort of routine...
link to newstalk documentary on the same agency last year: http://www.newstalk.ie/podcasts/library/Abortion/part1.mp3

it would be great if there could be pickets every day - one or two people to give information to the women going in - serious sustained action until they shut themselves down...

it really is such a sinister operation

i wanted to do a "god doesn't like liars" placcard before i went over - but i couldn't find my marker :-(

by timidity rules OK Fri Mar 09, 2007 22:31

The unanimity of postings on this story is very disturbing.

Its about life. Life can only be fully understood looking backwards.

Any person, group, agency that makes people consider how they may feel in the future looking back, is doing a good job.

Preganancy is for nine months, regret is for life. I say Live and let Live!

by bot Sat Mar 10, 2007 00:53

pregnancy and birth - oh and motherhood - is a body changing, mind changing, economic situation changing, life changing life-long process. it is not something that a woman should be pushed into if she knows (for whatever diverse reasons) that she doesn't want to go through it.
that is what this agency does. it advertises as a pro-choice agency and lies, traumatises and emotionally blackmails women into doing something - something massve - that they don't want to do.

i don't like the thought of abortion, neither is it a choice that can be easily made, but if i had chosen to abort my pregnancy, instead of having my baby, then (no matter how much i love and adore my son, and am glad he is here) i would regret that decision no more than when i took the morning-after pill. i will go further to say i would regret it no more than i regret the many times i have had sex while i was fertile but using a condom. no more, in fact, than i regret the possibilty held in the many unfertilised eggs that have passed unfertilised out of my body when i wasn't sexually actice. that's because i would look back with a clear view - undistorted by the google lenses of fanatics.

the basis for regret would be having to go through an excessively traumatic experience to exert my control over my own body - that is, not having access to the morning-after pill, not being able to access a safe legal local abortion, having to travel, having to spend lots of money, being pushed into a late-term abortion by lies and deceit and delay-tactics, being made to "bond" with someone who does not exist, being told by fanatics, who believe they have the right to judge others, that i was a murderer.

lets be clear here. your concern is not for the health or well-being of the woman. you don't care about her future sadness or regret. you strongly believe that the foetus is a fully fledged human being with a soul that must be saved at all costs. that is the only reason you talk of regret - so you can get that foetus to be birthed. after that - do you care about it? do you care about the well being of the young woman it might become?

start with education, promote birth control (or abstinance - as that seems to be these people's ideal), work on changing society so economic factors are not limiting factors in choosing life - free child care, equal parental responsiblity in child care, take down capitalism! but working from the opposite end - preying on and traumatising the most vulnerable people who have reached out to you for help (for true and accurate information to make their own informed decision) that is beyond low. it's really sick.

by C Murray Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:25

The State has abdicated it's responsibility of care in the issue of a national
sex education programme and women's reproductive rights for too long.

*24 years since Ann Lovett died given birth in Granard.
*15 years since 'X"
*10 years since the De Barra case.
*The judgement in "X' allowed for medical abortion in limited circumstances,
not one government in those 15 years has approached the issue in an
unemotive and intelligent manner.

I don't believe that a Government bent on privatisation and corruption can
deliver these rights, for the simple reason that each TD I have questioned
says the same thing- "The issue is too hot coming up to an election".

Last week saw the amendment to the 2006 Bill on protection* against
'predation'- not good enough- children need the tools to deal with the
issues and sex education without a religious or ethical bias.

The 2006 bill also does not differentiate between genders which amounts
to :-
No human rights for the 12-17 year old pre-consent girl in relation to
her privacy, right to information ;and right to bodily integrity.
She is 'co-equal' with the foetus she is carrying in terms of right to life.
Abortion Rights are human rights- Thanks for the protest , it was
thought-provoking and nice to meet all of you again.

*2006:- Criminal Law (sexual Offences)Bill
*2007:-Criminal law (sexual Offences) amendment.

by Miriam Cotton Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:11

While some pro-lifers are genuinely conflicted and appalled by abortion, there is a hard core whose hypocrisy on this issue can easily be discovered: they pretend to be concerned with the right to life of the unborn child but where are their voices when it comes to the right to life of Iraqi or Iranian people, the Rwandans, the EAst Timorese etc etc? Those lives are cheap or worthless for them - why are they not out there howling with outrage about that? There is a huge overlap between those who support the warped morality of people like Bush, fundamentalist Catholics etc etc who think nothing of slaughtering innocent children in one context while demonising and misleading pregnant women in another. Whatever your view, nobody is forcing women to have an abortion who don't want to (except in certain third world countries where that is actually happening and it shouldnt be - but that's another issue). A big signal needs to be sent to these people: mind your own business - we will each decide for ourselves what we believe is right.

by Renton Sun Mar 11, 2007 15:00

I believe you are trying to have go at the probable middle class composition of the people involved. So what if they are? That just means that the campaign has to strive to include more people from all backgrounds. I believe it is early days yet. As long as they have poltiics geared towards social equality along class basis and this being for the good of society, especially the poorer elements, whats your prejudiced problem? In this case, free access to abortion rights for some lowly educated single women living in disadvantaged areas. Instead of falling into an even worse state of poverty, mentally and materially, by having a child, these working and underclass woman have an opportunity to learn about their own sexual health and become more conscious of their unequal position in society. You appear to be a very ignorant person.

by timidity rules OK Sun Mar 11, 2007 22:18

Since I am the only poster on this thread who is not fanatically against what WRC are doing (my philosophy is to live and let live), I suppose I must be the troll referred to. Funny, I thought I was a middle of the road, normal, conflicted Irish person trying to decide right from wrong.

One point to miriam. you say "nobody is forcing women to have an abortion who don't want to" OK, but is the converse not equally true ie "nobody is forcing women who want an abortion not to have one" If a women went into WRC certain that she wanted an abortion, she would not be long leaving by the sounds of it.

I make this point on the assumption that you would accept that persuading or counselling don't constitute "forcing"

On the other hand the pressure not to change your mind once you have booked with an abortion agency and have your ticket can be fairly close to "force"

Unfortunately the pressures surrounding these issues are often very great. At the moment I know a fifteen year old girl who is pregnant by her fifteen year old boy friend who she loves. Her mother is pressuring her to have an abortion so she has left home and is living with her boyfriend's family who support her in not having an abortion. It is a terrible thing that fifteen year old children find themselves as pawns in the middle of societal and interfamily conflict s instead of enjoying their childhood. I don't think you can fairly blame these things on the people you sneer at but seeing the fanaticism from many of the contributions, I reckon ye probably will. If uncertain people like me are responsible for poverty, inequality, famine, Iraq and Darfur then we are probable responsible for teen pregnancy. By the way, What are ye responsible for?.

by Mark Phillips Sun Mar 11, 2007 22:20

...they are just trying to save lives?

by hydra - an imaginary republic Mon Mar 12, 2007 02:40

yes, dear timidity,

why do you think some notionally 'we' blames you and other ani-abortionists for the ills of the world? There is only one issue in which we are currently in conflict: we believe that your 15 year old friend should have the right to abort her pregnancy, IF she so chooses. You say that she wants to have the child, and please believe me, that 'we' want her to be able to make that choice, if she elects it. With all that such a decision entails. I would like her to be able to give birth knowing that she was going to be supported unamibiguously, That she would have her own place to live, support allowing her to continue going to school and become the person that she wants to be, medical care suffiicient to be confident that any problems she or her child might encounter would be resolved, financial support that rendered her economic situation irrelevant . Unfortunately, as a description, that does not correspond to the society we inhabit. Even if it were, there would be people who decide to abort for their own reasons, because they don't feel ready, capable, or willing to have a child with the person that impregnated them. And as far as i am concerned that would be sufficient reason to legitime the choice to abort a pregnancy, If this is what a 'pro-abortionist' is, I plead guilty as charged.

But I have to bring you back to the case in point: 50 Upper Dorst St. I won't labour the fact that they are presenting themselves dishonestly, seeing as you make no mention of their activity, I guess you accept them in good faith and regard their lies as serving a higher purpose. But it's a topsy-turvy world where those who object to the absence of legal abortion in Ireland, notwithstanding consititutional interpretations supporting the right claimed, can be considered 'fanatics' for asking that it be fulfilled, and that counselling organizations do what their job suggests. That each person has an un unalienable right to follow their own conscience is not in dispute here. If we lived in a society free from law, abortion would be available in this country. If there were no regulation then it would be difficult to ensure it was safe, but eventually we would manage to shut down the scamsters and ensure that only those who provide a decent service under humane conditions would survive.

Instead what do we have:

- a state which denies the right to abortion, in contravention of constituonal interpretation, based on their small-minded pursuit of power and fear of electoral unpopularity
- anti-abortion groups masquerading as pro-choice outlets trying to change women's minds
- 7-10'000 Irish women aborting abroad each year
- a society which perpetuates the social and economic conditions that disfavour childrearing now more than ever as it becomes more narrowly defined by materialist success above all

You write:
"On the other hand the pressure not to change your mind once you have booked with an abortion agency and have your ticket can be fairly close to "force""

If you mean by that the last of the points I list above, we would agree. But my position, which you regard as 'fanaticism', is rejected by the state, which is on your side, and maintains the socio-economic order, And on the other hand you don't trust people enough even to allow them the choice when they decide so, knowing that they can realise it with a ticket to London.

In closing let's return to the 'counselling' operation under the microscope: 50 Upper Dorset St, because they've changed their name so many times as to render names as useless as the description of a chameleon. These people, activists in Christian Solidarity Party, have emotionally pressurised women and adolescents (I'm refering to the 17 year old mother they 'advised') to bring their pregancies to term and then taken their children from them in 'informal adoptions'. This is against the law, and more to the point, to anyone familiar with the way in which power relations function, it is an abuse of the people in involved. Why do you defend this? Why?

I have been a pro-choice, pro availability of abortion activist for many years, and perversely I recognise the dedication of those in the anti-abortion, 'pro-life' camp', I wish you were on our side in fighting for a better society where this decision could be made in manner less determined by the restraints of class, respectability and the imperative of work. But at the end of the day your tunnel-minded obsession in identifying the moment when life begins blinkers you to the world around you. And at the end of those blinkers you see only us, 'pro-abortion' devils. It's your curse. And it's rather biblical, because we are the spirit that haunts your time: a future freedom which is coming, and the old mole burrowing into the sand-hill of the multi-party theocracy that was once 'Catholic ireland", which was/is complicit in the socio-economic coercion that makes child-bearing a burden. And we will not cease digging until it collapses.

hydra (who believes in life before death rather than life before birth)

by Anthony Mon Mar 12, 2007 02:46

The comment above by Renton referring to a troll is actually in response to an information-less one-liner rather than any comment made by 'timidity rules OK'.

by Marty Mon Mar 12, 2007 18:24

I appreciate the views of those in favour of abortion. I also appreciate the views of those in favour of letting children live. When I see the pro-life side using underhand tactics to get their points across, it does little to won them favour in my eyes. They appear as cranks and underhand people. When I see this type of right wing protest to silence dissent I also feel the people involved have little credability when they want to use a gang to silence their opponents. Both sides lost the PR battle this time.

by cable Mon Mar 12, 2007 20:08

These 'pro-lifers' are giving the pro-life movement a bad name. It's decent information & not propaganda which is badly needed. There is a huge need for access to the 'morning-after' pill & abortion on request, but also for counselling to deal with the aftermath of termination: I had a termination about 15 year ago, & couldn't understand why I felt so awful & depressed a few weeks later!

by Mark C Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:53

Hi Budhasister,

You said:
"if you legislate for morality you remove free choice, and surely the excersize of free will is essential to our conception of the individual?"

Whilst this might seem true - I'm thinking here of A Clockwork Orange, and how the film/novel sets up the idea that Alex is better in choosing to be evil than in being conditioned to be good, or at least more human (a thesis that Burgess didn't actually agree with, and was sorry, to some degree, about the book, believing it to be too didactic) - I am not sure that your summation holds sway. Also, people have the "free choice" to act contrary to legislation.

For example, do you think that we should not legislate for something that is, to most people, immoral - something such as, for example, murder - and I am not speaking of abortion here (which, incidentally, I do not agree with, under any circumstances - my belief is that if you are against war and the death penalty (pro-life, in effect), you should also have a consistency to your ethics)?

If we do not legislate for murder or aggression (or the supreme crime of aggression - war) would that not mean then that any action could, potentially, be carried out without repercussion?

And might it also hold that in not legislating for any morality, we are, in effect, making a moral choice?

I think John Stuart Mill's idea here sounds plausible: We must not impinge on another man, except to prevent harm to others (incidentally, I think this holds true in taking an anti-abortion position).

by Pro Life Tue Mar 13, 2007 13:01

"I think John Stuart Mill's idea here sounds plausible: We must not impinge on another man, except to prevent harm to others (incidentally, I think this holds true in taking an anti-abortion position)."

Who do you think you would be arming in a situation where a woman wants to end a pregnancy? If she is able to, making a clear rational choice about what is in her best interests, then who is harmed? I would think it is obvious that no one is.

If she is prevented from acting on this rational behaviour, and prevented from having a termination, and thereby forced into accepting a situation which is not in her interests, then surely she is harmed?

Therefore, Mill's dictum, if followed, would imply that people who want to live without impinging on the rights and freedoms of others, should be in favour of abortion.

by Mark C Tue Mar 13, 2007 16:10

"Who do you think you would be [h]arming in a situation where a woman wants to end a pregnancy? If she is able to, making a clear rational choice about what is in her best interests, then who is harmed? I would think it is obvious that no one is."

I think I would be harming the child in the woman's womb if I was to abort one. I would think that THAT is pretty obvious. Even if it was in her best interests, I think it would be quite hard to prove that the foetus is not being harmed, even if the harm/death is a by-product of the abortion - and perhaps, in some - if not all - circumstances, the organism in the woman's body has more of a right to live.

You could make a clear, rational choice to kill your rich next door neighbour (which might get you out of a sticky financial situation) but that might not necessarily be the right thing to do.

Your use of the word "obvious" is quite interesting here; isn't that part of the abortion debate, that it is not obvious, and so here we are debating. If it was obvious that no-one or nothing was being hurt during an abortion the matter might, just might, be easier to resolve.

Could I ask you a question? When does an embryo become a foetus become a child become an adult become old-aged?

In the absense of an answer that satisfies, I'm glad I have reverted over the years to being pro-life.

by Pro Life Tue Mar 13, 2007 19:00

"I think I would be harming the child in the woman's womb if I was to abort one. "

Can I ask at what point you believe there is a "child" in a woman's womb? Immediately after conception? The next day? the day after that?

by timidity rules OK Tue Mar 13, 2007 20:24

In regard to the request for a decision on when "there is a child" present I think we should be very careful of using medical/biological terminology as suggested above by Pro-Life. Embryo, blastula, foetus, baby, child, adult are all man made terms for different stages of a fertilised ovum and as such they have no bearing on the debate about abortion.

I think a more important and useful debate is "what is life?" when is it present? and when is it not?.

In science we define lving things as having seven key characteristics. growth, sensitivity, feeding, respiration, movement, excretion and reproduction. If we tease it out further, we define life as "potential" to do all the above. eg a dormant seed or a worm cyst or an insect egg or pupa are passive but they are alive. They have potential but they require external conditions to be in place before their potential is realised. Nevertheless, everyone would agree that these things are alive and have life in them.

I think it is logical to conclude that a fertilised human ovum from the point where it has its full complement of DNA, is exactly the same as the above ie it is alive because it has life potential subject to external conditions. If we take a birds egg out from under its mother in the nest we are killing the bird in the egg. When we take a fertilised embryo out of its mother we are doing the exactly the same.

Therefore abortion is the taking of life and that should be accepted on the basis of above reasoning."All" that remains then, is to debate the real issue which is "when is killing life jutifiable?". This would be a far better and more honest debate to have since we already have cultural precedents for justifiable taking of life eg fear, self-defense, protection from disease, war, death penalty, euthenasia etc.

I honestly think that if the badly named "Pro-choice" lobby were to accept that embryos are alive and then shift the debate onto establishing conditions under which extinguishing life can be accetable, it would make for a more rational debate and take much of the heat out of the whole debates about abortion and embyo research. As long as this lobby try to argue that a foetus is not a life and abortion is not killing, it impossible for many people to find common cause with them.

by anarcho Wed Mar 14, 2007 00:53

this 'lobby' merely asserts that a woman's body, sexuality and fertility are her own, that the crucial decisions surrrounding them belong to her and her alone. It is a very simple position.

by Mark C Wed Mar 14, 2007 09:46

I can't define when life begins (nor, I would suggest can other contributers to this debate), that is why I used the term child, foetus, embryo, organism all within the same breath and point.

For me, not being able to define when life begins (I think my phrase was 'in the absense of an answer that satisfies') is a good enough reason to hold off on legalising abortion.

Plus, you might notice that the original point of my comment was about legislating for morality.

Regards,
Mark.

by Pro Life Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:16

Dear Mark,

First you say that "I think I would be harming the child in the woman's womb if I was to abort one."

Now you say you are not sure whether there is a "child" there at all.

Does it occur to you that you should leave decisions on these matters to people who will have to live with the consequences of them?

It's perfectly okay to be uncertain, but if your lack of certainty results in you taking a position which prevents a person having control over their own body then there is something wrong.

At present Irish women and girls are being denied control over their own lives and destinies to protect something which may or may not exist.

by C Murray Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:32

This action and report was , I understand to delineate what a rogue agency does, to highlight
the issue and generate discussion on that issue.

The comments section has been hi-jacked by trolls who are attempting to bring
moral and religious issues onto a singular and well-written report.

Surely the issues of right to choice/right to life can be written and commented on within
a separate thread.

Looking at the last few comments- especially if one has come late into the discussion
one would imagine that the old debates and issues are being bandied about to no
avail.......

Maybe someone from the YD/Right to life/Pro-life people could start and generate their own discussions?

Again- Thanks for the action, for highlighting the issue of rogue agencies and pointing
to the massive need for intelligent discussion on abortion rights and regulation
of any agency which may falsely claim non-directional counselling or support services.

Good action!

by Angela Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:05

Hi, I'm looking to get involved in the Pro-Choice movement in Dublin, from what I can tell there are several different groups operating (BODY, Alliance for Choice, etc). Can someone let me know how I can get involved or who to contact? Thanks

by Mark C Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:56

Dear Pro Life,

I never said I am not sure whether there is a child 'there' or not. I simply said that we cannot define when life begins and that in the absense of such a definition I think I am holding a consistent position.

Please do not mis-quote or mis-represent people. It's unfair and unhelpful.

Also, on the point of leaving the decisions to 'people who will have to live with the consequences', being human, I am, like John Donne affected by the affairs of humanity. As Donne said, 'each man's death diminishes me, because I am interested in man'. Howard Zinn, also, says that 'there are no experts in morality', so I think I am fit to argue here (although, again, I don't think I'd agree with his stance on abortion). Not that I put too much credence on qualifications but I have studied ethics, special ethics, applied ethics, morality, and moral theology during different stages of my under-graduate study, so again, I don't think I am going beyond the pale in putting my point across.

Thanks for your time,
Mark.

Dear Chris,

I hope you are not calling me a troll; I think my argument here has been quite level-headed and rational and courteous (even if you don't agree with it). I hope you are not calling the other people (the small few that there is) who are agreeing with me trolls either. They, too, it seems to me are simply giving their point of view (which you are free to disagree with). 'We' are certainly not hi-jacking this debate.

Having an abortion is a moral issue, so of course moral issues are being brought in here. It is not simply a cist being removed - even pro-choice people feel depressed sometimes after an abortion, as evidenced above. I am not sure that religious sentiment is being brought in to the debate; I'd certainly be the last to do that.

Thanks for your time,
Mark.

by Ruth Wed Mar 14, 2007 13:10

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception and that this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of his/her life"- Dr. Micheline Matthews Roth of Havard University Medical School. What makes a five and a half year old more entitled to live than a five year old? Or a seventeen year old less important than a thirty year old? Nothing? What makes a minute-old newborn baby more important than a baby who is an hour away from birth (and yes i will use the term 'baby', not foetus, forgive me for being so very illogical). If (as science now tells us) the new genetic code of a new human being are all created at the moment of conception, and merely develop and mature (grow, if you will) during gestation, then surely to decide that the blastocyst / zygote / embryo / foetus is less important at any stage of its development than another, older foetus / baby / child / adult is highly illogical and, i will argue, immoral. I understand that to wish to protect the life of an unborn human is much acceptable than wishing to protect the seals or terminating the life of the mink, but funnily enough, i find it equally important. So sue me and call me a troll.

by Ruth Wed Mar 14, 2007 14:00

Just a correction to the above comment: The second last sentence should read '...is much less acceptable than wishing to protact the seals or fighting against the termination of the mink'.

But the last sentence is just fine.

by Jane Wed Mar 14, 2007 14:51

One of your captions reads: 'Pro Lifer pushes scaffolding onto activists'. Why is this? The picture shows something different.

by hydra Wed Mar 14, 2007 14:56

Great to see that the 'pro-life' participants in this discussion desperately trying to drag the debate back to the 'how many angels on the top of a pin' argument about the moment when life begins. A deafening silence, however, regarding their fellow-travelers strategy of deception towards confused women seeking counseling. Ditto regarding the High Court's 1999 decision against the operators of the agency at 50 Upper Dorset St. and the restitution of two babies who had been conned from their mothers arms. Tell me, are you all down with Operation Rescue as well? A bit of screaming at women entering abortion clinics per chance?

Because it's quite clear that almost all of you have contributed apologia for the operation picketed last week by trying to distract attention from the story reported above. Whatever. In the struggle for public opinion this is going to do you a lot of damage as it percolates into public knowledge. And warn women away from using similarly fraudulent 'services'.

hydra

by info Wed Mar 14, 2007 21:22

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81471

by Pushkin Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:32

"One of your captions reads: 'Pro Lifer pushes scaffolding onto activists'. Why is this? The picture shows something different."

No it doesn't. It shows a Pro-Choice activist holding the screens up, I am out of picture also holding it up. The troll like creature in the picture had pushed it on top of us.

by Q Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:51

"Rogue Anti-Choice Agency" sounds straight out of Bush speak.

If it's advertised as a "pregnancy counselling angency", what's abortion got to do with pregnancy besides launching serach and destory missions on the unborn on the basis of their sex, disability, bad timing? This action and report is generally confused which might have someting to do with the age group and class background of those pictured, undertaking it.

Operation Rescue (late '80's) was an interesting development in the prolife movement...... it took the emphasis off lobbying politicians and legislation and put it on nonviolent direct action and solidarity with pregnant women in a society, culture & economy that has little room for them. There was an interesting dialogue in San Fran between women (some veterans of abortion) blockading clinics and women escorting clients into clinics. The dialogue discovered it shared a lot of common ground, not sure if it is still going. But it was a dialogue that went past the low level of this one.

The single issue prolife movement is stunted by reserving its uncompromising humanity for humans in the foeteal form. The liberal pro-choice position in most places has largely moved on from the denial that abotion is taking human life.....developments in technology ultrasound etc has helped here. We live in an economy that kills 30,000 born children a day, in countries that redifines children as collateral damage, so I imagine the pro-choice position fits right in there with the mainstream "children as commodity" culture.

by pensioner Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:41

Pushkin refers to a "troll like" individual.

What has a person's appearance got to do with their right to express themselves? Is Indymedia an appropriate place to de-legitimize comment on the basis of alleged physical characteristics?

Is Pushkin a perfect Aryan specimin? If he or she is old fat or ugly, should we allow him or her to express him/herself on Indymedia?

Is 'Pushkin' advocating abortion as a solution to the inconvenience of 'Troll-like' persons offending his/her aesthetic sensibilities?

The sad thing about the abortion debate in this country is that it is incapable of being conducted without name-calling. Perhaps it is because the centre has conceeded the debate to tiny minorities with extreme views (in both pro and anti camps) for whome invective is a substitute for reasoned argument.

For most Irish people this entire debate has become a non-issue. Sensible liberal people recognize that part of the price of living in a free society is allowing the sloganeering absolutists express their views. We also know that if abortion is your choice that the necessary information is easily accessible in this country and that getting to the clinic is cheaper (if not as environmentally sound) by Ryanair than via the now-privatized mess that passes for the British rail-transport network.

We have had two dreadful divisive referendums which changed no-one's opinion. No more please. If you want an abortion you can go to Britain. If you want two wives you can go to Saudi Arabia. If you think your wife(wives?) and daughters should be locked up and kept barefoot and uneducated , Afghanistan is the place. If FGM is your thing, I believe Somalia should be at the top of your agenda.

One closing thought.: abortion is NOT 'murder'. Look up your legal definitions. On the other hand, 'termination' and 'right to choose' are evasive euphemisms. Can we have straight, honest, and accurate terminology please? And no name-calling of people with whom we disagree.

cheers everyone

by pensioner Fri Mar 16, 2007 20:34

Talking about choice.

The electorate has twice made its choice known in referendums.

That choice is pretty clear.

1. Where the life of a woman is physically endangered by continuing her pregnancy, her life takes precedence over her baby.
2. That everyone has a right to seek out information on abortion services provided outside Ireland.
3. That no woman can be prevented from travelling abroad for an abortion.
4. That Irish law should not make provision for abortion in Ireland.

Other provisions in our Constitution safeguard the right of the pro and anti-abortion extremists to promote their views and to provide biased and distorted politically and ideologically motivated disinformation if that is their 'choice'..

No problemo. if you want an abortion, get the info from FPL, hop on a .€0.01 Ryanair flight to London, have your abortion.

by graduate Fri Mar 16, 2007 20:43

I have a friend who started bleeding on her way home from London. She should have been resting and recuperating, instead she was crammed on a cheap flight she couldn't afford, with blood running down her legs. No problemo.

by Pushkin Fri Mar 16, 2007 20:54

"4. That Irish law should not make provision for abortion in Ireland."

Thats no choice.

Irish law already provides for abortion where a mothers life is at risk. Ever hear of the X Case Judgement?

As for the Troll at the Fake clinic, I called him that because he acted like a monster, the fact that he also looked like one is incidental. The guy was over 6 foot tall, weigh about 18 stone. He pushed the metal grille and shutters on top of frail young women.

Anyone who does that deserves the name Troll/Monster.

I am no Aryan specimen; never claimed to be.

by timidity rules OK Fri Mar 16, 2007 21:10

As a middle of the road "live & let live" sort of person, I think in this country, we have provided adequately for all persuasions on this issue.

Those genuinely repelled by the idea of Irish doctors and nurses carrying out abortions in the same clinics and hospitals where they wish to have life upheld & protected can be assured that those treating them have not had their zest for "life saving" diminished by involvement in "life removal".

At the same time, those who find abortion OK are free to give out information and assist in transport to UK.

There is no need for fanatics at either end of the issue.

When I first saw the images on this thread, I found them disturbing. A crowd of very young and very angry looking people with plackards attacking a shop front with apparently frightened middle-aged people protecting the plate glass and peeping out at the mob. It reminded me of images of Hitler youth on Kristal Nacht and sent a bit of a shiver down my spine.

There is no need for this campaign. There are many urgent things for young people to campaign about: the environment, US imperialism, Iraq, Irish Corruption, Garda cover-ups, Drug barons, Rapists walking free from our Courts, the plight of Africa etc etc etc.

I suggest "Let & let live" is a better slogan for our times than either "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice" so how about forming a "live & let Live" campaign group instead?

by Pushkin Fri Mar 16, 2007 21:28

"When I first saw the images on this thread, I found them disturbing. A crowd of very young and very angry looking people with plackards attacking a shop front with apparently frightened middle-aged people protecting the plate glass and peeping out at the mob."

Totally untrue. The Troll like character attacked the young women, Pushing the shutter on top of them. I managed to help them push it aside.

" It reminded me of images of Hitler youth on Kristal Nacht and sent a bit of a shiver down my spine."

If you are looking for Hitlerites then you will find them inside the clinic. Members of Youth Defence & The Mother and Child Campaign such as Maurice Colgan and Justin Barrett have links with fascists.

Brendan who arrived on the scene later is a political sidekick of Gerry McGeough. Brendan spouted racist bile at the What Way Forward For Republicans meeting and was thrown out. The next day he disrupted a Gay Rights Press conference.

Brendan is also a brave man, He threatened a five foot woman at the pro choice protest. What a guy. He had a chance to strut his stuff with me at the Republican meeting but somehow he was a bit shy. Didnt threaten me at this protest either.

"There are many urgent things for young people to campaign about: the environment, US imperialism, Iraq, Irish Corruption, Garda cover-ups, Drug barons, Rapists walking free from our Courts, the plight of Africa etc etc etc."

Those involved in this protest are also involved in other campaigns, dont worry.

As for rapists, well the people who run the fake clinic are opposed to the Rape Cris Centres, they want to close them down.

Theres a need for this campaign and we are going to win.

"

by question Tue Mar 20, 2007 16:54

so tell me, do you have any instances of women who have gone to this clinic have been persuaded to keep their baby and who now regret it???? because if there arent i really cant see what youre so upset about.
as for these "lies" you talk about, where exactly is your proof of them (and i know about the newstalk item and media reports but that was poor journalism by any standards as it was just hearsay and just their word against anybody elses)

by Answerer Wed Mar 21, 2007 15:56

The Newstalk documentary is crystal clear - this clinic tells conscious lies in order to terrorise women. Claiming that it's "hearsay" just shows you up as someone who refuses to look at the overwhelming evidence

by Answerer Answered Wed Mar 21, 2007 16:04

If we are going to take as fact everything that the media spews out then most of the campaigns that get exposure on indymedia are covers for anarchist, subversive, layabouts who are out to undermine democracy and plunge technology back to the dark ages.

Fortunately most people on indymedia have enough intelligence not to quote the Irish media as if it were absolute truth.

Shame on you answerer!

by Answerer Wed Mar 21, 2007 16:09

No, I choose to believe what I hear with my own ears. I'm not taking a journalist at her word - I'm trusting the recording that she made of what she was told by the Dorset St clinic. If the mainstream media could produce recorded evidence to back up claims they make about Indymedia or the Left, I might believe them, but they can't. Stop ranting and go off and listen to the documentary, follow the link given above, then see if you can deny the evidence. This clinic tells shameless lies to women in order to terrify them. That's an established fact.

by For life Thu Mar 22, 2007 09:09

I have just come across "hydras" post of the 12th mar and am profoundly struck be the utter indifference to the fact that when a woman is pregnant another human life is involved. Have we become such a cold hearted lot that unless the long list of requirements are met, then it's ok to abort. I think not. I think "hydra" is angry at the world for some reason and is using this issue to kick back. Abortion is a horrendous business and ought only be comtemplated in the most extreme circumstances. Anything else dehumanises us all.

by reader Tue Apr 03, 2007 21:16

A NORTHSIDE centre offering crisis pregnancy advice has hit back at claims that it is intentionally misleading women in an effort to prevent them from considering having abortions in the UK.

Patrick Jameson, public relations officer for the WRC, said women have a right to know and be protected from what he called “British abortion profiteers”.
http://www.dublinpeople.com/cms/index.php?option=com_co...id=49

by pat c Wed Apr 04, 2007 09:57

Well some would disagree. Mary went to check out their "counselling". This is her story:

Mary O’Flynn, a local woman who helped organise the protest, said she attended A Choice For Women at the WRC and was distressed and shocked by the service and information she received.
Ms O’Flynn was not pregnant when she attended the centre.

“They aim to prevent women from travelling for abortion services by giving deliberate misinformation,” Ms O’Flynn claimed. Ms O’Flynn said she was told at the WRC that the service it provides is impartial, but she became suspicious of its intentions after the information she was given.

Ms O’Flynn said the protest outside the WRC was necessary, given the fact that the discussion of abortion still remains taboo in Ireland.
“Where many women are isolated and afraid to seek the advice of family, friends and partners, pregnancy agencies offer a vital service,” Ms O’Flynn added.

by Dave Tue Sep 18, 2007 17:41

Hi does anyone know how I can get in contact with this campaign? Is it still ongoing? Is there someone I can contact about it?

Thanks.

by pat c Tue Sep 18, 2007 17:45

You can contact us at [email protected]

http://www.choiceireland.blogspot.com