Shut Down 50 Upper Dorset Street!!!

by C. Sun Apr 22, 2007 14:05

This issue has been ongoing for some period of time and there has been
little official response. They are causing harm and they are refusing to abide by the
ethics of professional counsellors.

This is a symptom of a society that allows superstition and right wing
theocratic attitudes to dominate because of a fear to actually face
the issue of abortion.

Well done on keeping it on the agenda.

You should not have to- but we are all aware of the refusal of the political parties
to actually take political positions on issues that seem controversial. The main
parties have isolated the Nurses, the Erris/Rossport communities and other
environmental campaigns.

Quite simply put - our Government and opposition are a bunch of cowards
who sign the cheques for the companies and refuse to confront societal isues.

Well done !
Solidarity.

by Elisa O'Donovan Sun Apr 22, 2007 18:12

"This issue has been ongoing for some period of time and there has been
little official response. "

Im just wondering what avenues Choice Ireland have undergone in order to get an official response? Have the goverment,goverment bodies and public bodies been made aware of the situation by choice Ireland? Aside from the protests how exactly have they made the goverment aware of this situation?

"This is a symptom of a society that allows superstition and right wing
theocratic attitudes to dominate because of a fear to actually face
the issue of abortion."
"You should not have to- but we are all aware of the refusal of the political parties
to actually take political positions on issues that seem controversial. "

I dont think this a hugely controversial issue. I think the majority of the people of Ireland would agree that this agency is falsely advertising themslevs and that women deserve compassionate counselling in this situation. I think that Choice Ireland should make these protests more about the actual agency then being pro choice. However From the event notice of this protest It would seem that it's very much a pro-choice battle. Pro life or those undecided on the abortion issue didnt seemed to be welcome? Is this protest more about leagl abortion then it is the right to campassionate honest information?

Are Choice Ireland going to continue with their Dorset Street protests?

by C. Sun Apr 22, 2007 21:01

The dissemination of false information under the guise of a counselling
service is amoral and politically motivated.

it suggests that the moral cowardice of a state that need not push a referendum our way
has refused in ten years to face up to the issue of abortion.

The judgement in the 'X' case allowed for legislation for abortion- it is a matter
of legislating for 'X'.

Since that time the state has introduced the co-equality clause which is a blatant
human rights abuse and attempted a referendum on protection which did
not guarantee the rights of the 12-17 year old pre-consent girl.

The State knows that the EHCR is hearing cases relating to these issues at the moment.
The vacuum that exists and has been created by the governments in the 15 years since 'X'
has allowed for a non-regulated agency to give false , damaging and directional
information to vulnerable women.

simply put:- This agency is a non-regulated illegal service which has resulted
from a refusal by the state to confront the matter of legislating for abortion rights
in this country and its continuance in this manner quite clearly shows the need
for mature discussion on the rights of the Child to;

sex education.
Non-directional counselling.
Proper Rape and trauma centres.
The Rights of the Child have to be transposed into Irish Law.

by Curious.. Sun Apr 22, 2007 21:25

Clearly Choice Irelnad are tackling the issue in the most effective way they deem applicable at the moment given the limits onb time and human resources in any voluntary campaign.
When awas the last time you organised anything Elisa apart from organising the keys on your keyboard into a hollow cycnical complaint?

by Carmel Sun Apr 22, 2007 22:10

That agency has as much right to exist as any other, should every agency that does not match up to the ideals of the right on crowd be closed down too? While many may not agree with their message and their facts do seem to be dodgy it is everyones right to make up their own mind about it. I dislike people who try to force their partisan agenda down peoples throats. If you are pro-choice then good for you, that is your right. The same applies to the other side of the arguement!

by Sharon D Mon Apr 23, 2007 00:32

You are either entirely ignorant of this case or you are purposely misrepresenting the protestors. The problem is not that they disagree with the views of those who run the so-called resource centre, it is that they disagree with the fact that they are lying to and terrifying very vulnerable people.

If you want to defend the actions of the centre, be honest and admit that you think it is okay to deceive people, lie to them and pressurise them into having babies because of some greater good. For, by misrepresenting the situation, you are just making yourself look simple-minded or dishonest.

by Mac Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:49

We live in a free society.
If these guys in Dorset street want to give misleading information to women in crisis pregnancies let them away.
If women with crisis pregnancies get their only information from the centre on Dorset street and ignore the huge volume of information available in magazines and over the internet then let them away.
If a women with crisis pregnancy is gullible enough to fall for tricks and supterfuges and you people want to blow the fraud out of the water go ahead and if you want to stand on the street outside the centre on Dorset St go ahead.

You have a right to express your opinion and so do others.

I believe that these people giving misleading information about abortion are imbeciles.

But they have a right to express their views and women have a right to agree with them if they so wish.

So give it a rest.

by c. Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:11

this is not about 'freedom'

this is a deliberate attempt by a rogue agency to use a 'counselling' service
as a means to propagandise on their fundamental interpretation of 'truths'

it is quite simple- the agency has illegally disseminated information that
puts the woman's life at risk. They most likely do not employ professional
counselling staff. They are giving the Life movement a terrible name.

[read the original reports on the methodologies of the Agency.]

Regulation of Crisis Pregnancy and Abortion information is necessary now.
Contact the social service or HSE on illegal directional counselling by
an agency that uses unqualified staff. (and your TD too)

by pro-choice Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:00

As I understand it the pro-life movements and organisations are opposed to abortion in all circumstances.

Let me develop their logic a bit further.

Abortion would have to be probited in all of these following circumstances I will describe below:

(I believe these example cover practically every possible circumstance but please correct me if I'm wrong)

(1)If the pregnancy is a result of rape or sexual abuse against a minor or an adult woman by a person who is not a relation.
(2)If the pregancy is the result of incestous rape against a minor or an adult woman against her will.
(3)If the pregnancy is the result of incest in which the adult woman is a willing participant.
(4) If the woman is in mortal danger from medical complications.
(5) If the woman is unable to care for the child for psychological reasons, monetary problems or cannot go ahead with pregnancy because of social stigma or other reasons(she is embarrassed at being called a slut, she has had an affair with an another man and doesn't want her current relationship to suffer, she wants to pursue her career, she feels she is too young and wants her freedom etc etc etc.)

If abortion is indeed murder then if a woman has an abortion for any of these reasons she, her doctor and any other person who was an accomplice (her boyfriend, partner, husband, a girl friend, her mother or father, a work mate etc etc) is guilty of murder and deserves a life sentence.

Abortion doctors are responsible therefore for mass murder - thousands of abortions are thousands of murders - of innocent children.

If abortion is murder in this jurisdiction it means that if you want to have an abortion you would need to go aboard - Irish mothers presumeably would go to England.

To prevent thousands of Irish babies from being slaughtered in England then harsh measures would need to be enacted - the state would have to prosecute mothers for abortions - "murders" - committed in other jurisdictions to be of any effect in reducing the levels of aborted pregnancies in Ireland overall and there accomplacies who helped them (provided money or information or other assistance) would also have to be prosecuted.

Ireland would also seek the extradition of abortion doctors - "mass murderers of Irish babies" - to Ireland to face prosecution for their crimes.

to implement such a policy huge prisons would have to be built to house thousands of mothers every year and thousands upon thousands of their accomplaces.

Why not have a retrospective abortion law?
What about all the mothers who had abortions for decades before?
Surely they are murderers too?

To enforce these laws properly would require a police and military state and perhaps civil war.

So do we really want that?

That is why I am pro-choice and not pro-life.

by Elisa O'Donovan Mon Apr 23, 2007 16:35

"When awas the last time you organised anything Elisa apart from organising the keys on your keyboard into a hollow cycnical complaint? "

Firstly,curious Im sure you are sick as me as I am of you. PLease stop being personal towards me and focus on the issues. I asked intrested questions they were not "complaints". I just want to know where Choice Ireland are heading with the protetsts and to find out what action they have taken to get an official response. I would be grateful If someone from Choice Ireland could reply to my previous questions.Thanks

"That agency has as much right to exist as any other, should every agency that does not match up to the ideals of the right on crowd be closed down too? While many may not agree with their message and their facts do seem to be dodgy it is everyones right to make up their own mind about it. I dislike people who try to force their partisan agenda down peoples throats. "

Carmel,your argument is feable. There are many people who drink drive/carry out sexual assaults and who think there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. With your ideology why should we punish these people just because they dont match up with the ideals of the crowd?Do you really think we shouldnt bring rapists and drinkdrivers to justice through the law?
Irish law is in place for the good of the poeple.The Agency on Dorset street and the WRC throughout the country is breaking the law. It is directly contrevening section 5 of the 1995 Regulation of Information act .
"(iii) the information, counselling and advice referred to in subparagraph (ii) are truthful and objective, fully inform the woman of all the courses of action that are open to her in relation to her particular circumstances aforesaid "

If someone is breaking the law then surely the people of Ireland deserve justice. As me and many others have experienced the WRC are breaking the law up and down the country. They are not giving non directive advice. There was nothing truthful or objective about the advice I recieved in the Limerick branch.

by W - Choice Ireland (pers cap) Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:24

The Government is already aware of the situation. Mary Harney has been asked to institute a licensing system for these agencies but says she has no plans to do so. (Dáil Question 81 of March 3 2005 from Liz McManus TD - if Labour get into the next Government it will be worth reminding Liz of this question)

Any alternative options under consideration will be discussed at our weekly meetings. Info from the email address at the top of the page.

by DC Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:24

Why do they have the right to lie to people whose heads are messed up by whats happening to them Does everybody have a right to target the vunerable? I went to the appointment because they said it was 400 euro to go to England with them and as I was desperate I never doubted that they were legit It was until a doctor informed me about what kind of people they really were that I started to make other plans They are wasting time for women that may not have the time or money to waste so of course they should be shut down or at least stopped from lying.

by pro-life Fri Jul 25, 2008 13:59

Hi all,
2 quick points-- lies 2 and 3 aren't lies, or at least cannot be described as lies simpliciter. The two most independent and credible studies on the issue (Finland 2004 and New Zealand 2007) both find that abortion substantially increases the risk of a woman becoming suicidal and drug dependent. The British Royal College of Surgeons have recently (2008) acknowledged these findings as sufficently important to change their own stance on the issue. The abortion-breast cancer link is unproven either way, but there is considerable agreement that it is at least a real possibility.

To pro-choice, your argument isn't convincing. Whether something is right or wrong (or morally neutral) has little to do with how difficult it is to implement legislation in the area. For instance, are prostitution, human body-part trafficking, the slave trade etc. all fine simply because legislating against them can have little impact on the obilition of these practices?

Disseminating false information is difficult to defend. Yet do the IFPA warn their clients of the risks of abortion? No. Do they tell their clients the basic scientific fact that the foetus is a living, indivdual human being? No. Do they show them a list of the studies detailing how abortion decreases a woman's fertility? No.

Abortion is a multi-million dollar industry dressed up as a human rights cause. It is responsible for the greatest sex discrimination case in human history--the deliberate slaughter of unborn girls in China and India. If you believe in human rights you would accept that all human beings have the right to life at least. Thus, unless your approach to science is of the flat-earther variety, you would oppose abortion and stand up for both human rights and women's health. The only way to be a consistent pro-choicer is to disavow human right....this is why Peter Singer (pro-choice theorist among other things) posseses the virtue of consistency.

Hope this strikes a chord,
pl x

by Mr Man Fri Jul 25, 2008 15:46

pro-life;

You are correct, they aren't simple lies, they are worse. They are lies covered in pseudo science. There is a difference between correlation and causality. The classic example is (taken from Wikipedia); In a widely-studied example, numerous epidemiological studies showed that women who were taking combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) also had a lower-than-average incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), leading doctors to propose that HRT was protective against CHD. But controlled trials showed that HRT caused a small and significant increase in risk of CHD. Re-analysis of the data showed that women undertaking HRT were more likely to be from socio-economic groups ABC1 (middle class), with better than average diet and exercise regimes. The two were coincident effects of a common cause, rather than cause and effect as had been supposed.

Just because there is a correlation between abortion and other effects by no means that it causes them. Perhaps they were depressed/drunks because of emotional bullying from pro-life campaigns? Or because they had the abortion in the first place as they couldn't financially support it, and later on they are depressed and drunks because of financial situations. The list could go on. The only way to determine causality (and even then, it is still termed 'suggesting') is to have two identical groups in all aspects of life, which is very hard.

"Yet do the IFPA warn their clients of the risks of abortion? No."
Actually, they do. A close friend of mine went down the abortion route and it was very clearly explained to her the possible health ramifications and things that can go wrong. The doctors and nurses in the destination country also thoroughly go through this.

"Do they tell their clients the basic scientific fact that the foetus is a living, indivdual human being? No."
Do they tell them that doors can be opened by handles? No. Because that would be stating the obvious. I dont think anyone thinks a foetus is an inanimate object. And its not an individual, it is symbiotic.

"Do they show them a list of the studies detailing how abortion decreases a woman's fertility? No."
They dont list the studies but do highlight the risk of infertility.

by GLOBAL NEWS - LATEST NEWS Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:31

Women’s Counseling Network Mr. Edmund Murphy has a new place which is up by the family planning clinic. His place is dark blue no name or sign at all, In Berkley road next to Saint Lukes church I believe Mr. Edmond Murphy and his organisation have forced the family clinic next door to close down by standing outside harassing people as they go in. how can he get away with it .

Founder of counselling service kept baby unlawfully

The High Court has ruled that the founder of a pregnancy counselling service had unlawful custody of a baby during the summer. The baby had been born to a student who had sought help from the agency. The infant is now being cared for by foster parents with the Eastern Health Board.

In a 32-page ruling delivered over the weekend, Ms Justice Laffoy said that the agency founder had "singularly failed" to show that the 21-year-old mother's decision to give her baby to the man and his wife for adoption was a free decision. She said that they had acted in a totally inappropriate manner in relation to the young mother.

The pregnancy advice agency at the centre of the case is believed to have associations with the Irish anti-abortion movement. The 21-year-old student contacted the agency when she was seven months pregnant after she saw an advertisement. After what was described as an upsetting stay in hospital, the baby girl – known as ‘Baby A’ – was given to the man when she was four days old.

Ms Justice Laffoy said that there was a strong suggestion that the mother was the victim of a deliberate design to entrap the mother and her baby. The court ruling also referred to a second baby – known as ‘Baby B’ – the baby of a 17-year-old secondary student who was also in the custody of the agency founder between April and June of this year. The child has since been reunited with her grandmother.

The Adoption Board - the statutory body responsible for adoptions - has said that the two babies at the centre of the ruling could not have been adopted by the couple who had detained them. The Board said this was because the law governing adoption had not been adhered to. A spokesman for the Board said that since the implementation of the 1998 Adoption Act private adoptions are illegal. Following the ruling, there have been calls for the regulation of pregnancy advice agencies. The Gardaí are considering whether a criminal offence took place.