# Pro-Choice/Anti-Widdy Demonstration: Cardiff, March 4th



## llantwit (Feb 21, 2008)

Don't let her wag her finger at you like that!
Anne Widdecombe is coming to Cardiff on March 4th as part of the "Passion For Life Roadshow" and there's gonna be a demonstration against the group's anti-abortion views. 
If you feel like joining in then come to the demonstration outside the City Temple at 6.30pm on Tuesday March 4th.
More info on the protest's facebook page. 

Find more info about Passion For Life on their website.


----------



## Brockway (Feb 21, 2008)

That's a great photo


----------



## untethered (Feb 21, 2008)

I'm sure your demonstration will be very successful. There are plenty of people around who believe that unborn children don't have a right to live.


----------



## llantwit (Feb 21, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm sure your demonstration will be very successful. There are plenty of people around who believe that unborn children don't have a right to live.


There are also many who believe Ann Widdecombe doesn't have a right to live.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 21, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm sure your demonstration will be very successful. There are plenty of people around who believe that unborn children don't have a right to live.



All those unborn children dying. And yet you're still alive.
Where's the justice, eh?


----------



## untethered (Feb 21, 2008)

llantwit said:


> There are also many who believe Ann Widdecombe doesn't have a right to live.



That doesn't surprise me.


----------



## penderyn2000 (Feb 24, 2008)

More on this, links to informed discussion of the issues, and downloadable leaflets, at http://cardiffpr.wordpress.com.


----------



## llantwit (Mar 3, 2008)

bump - as it's tomorrow


----------



## Cakes (Mar 3, 2008)

Us Bristolians are looking forward to joining you for this!!

As untethered notes, there is plenty of support for a woman's rights over the rights of her unwanted pregnancy. This position is defended by the Human Rights Act, Common Law, the medical profession and about 80% of the British public.


----------



## 1927 (Mar 3, 2008)

Cakes said:


> Us Bristolians are looking forward to joining you for this!!
> 
> As untethered notes, there is plenty of support for a woman's rights over the rights of her unwanted pregnancy. This position is defended by the Human Rights Act, Common Law, the medical profession and about 80% of the British public.



2006 MORI poll
A more recent survey shows support for restricting abortion laws in the UK, and is cited by the Catholic Church in England and Wales as evidence of a growing unease with abortion. [5]

According to the survey:

42% of British men and women believe the legal limit for an abortion should be cut (i.e abortion more restricted). 
47% of British women believe the legal limit for an abortion should be cut 
36% of British men believe the legal limit for an abortion should be cut 
10% of British women believe that abortion should be "outlawed altogether"


----------



## Col_Buendia (Mar 3, 2008)

So none of those statistics amounts to a majority, 1927. What's your point?


----------



## penderyn2000 (Mar 5, 2008)

A big success for the pro-choicers last night - report at http://cardiffpr.wordpress.com.  Any news on the arrest?


----------



## Cakes (Mar 5, 2008)

1927 said:


> 2006 MORI poll
> A more recent survey shows support for restricting abortion laws in the UK, and is cited by the Catholic Church in England and Wales as evidence of a growing unease with abortion. [5]
> 
> According to the survey:
> ...



Our Mori poll was 2007, and it confirms that the vast majority of Brits defend more liberalised abortion laws.

The idea of late abortions is notoriously unpopular, and misunderstood. For example, did you know that the higest proportion of late abortions occur to under 16s? I wonder whether 42% of Brits polled would still support a reduction if they understood it would force school children to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against their will?

I have read a great deal of research submitted by Christain groups, such as the Christian Medical Fellowship and Guild of Catholic Drs, but as it conflicts with wider, more credible medical professional bodies I don't let it guide my position on such important issues as the upper limit.


----------



## lewislewis (Mar 5, 2008)

Looks like the demo went well
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/

Some stuff on Cardiff PR too.


----------



## Garnet (Mar 7, 2008)

Cakes said:


> Our Mori poll was 2007, and it confirms that the vast majority of Brits defend more liberalised abortion laws.



Your Mori poll tells you whatever you want it to because it asks leading questions, so bollox to that.


----------



## Garnet (Mar 7, 2008)

Cakes said:


> The idea of late abortions is notoriously unpopular
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## llantwit (Mar 7, 2008)

> Yes, indeed it is. So much for "your" poll. Maybe because people find the idea of tearing a harmless, helpless foetus limb from limb pretty fucking disgusting, particularly when strenuous efforts may be being made in the same premises to save the life of a neonate of similar age.
> 
> I've also read a great deal of "research" by International Planned Parenthood Federation (founded by racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger) on abortion, heavily relied upon by pro-abortion groups, such as the ludicrous four man band which is Caerdydd Permanent Revolution, which conflicts with academic evidence from more credible bodies. So I don't let it guide my view on the best way to reduce the overall number of abortions.
> 
> ...


M'kay.
Intimmidatory tactics? Hmm. How about those who stand outside clinics abusing women when they're at their most vulnerable and troubled?


----------



## untethered (Mar 7, 2008)

llantwit said:


> M'kay.
> Intimmidatory tactics? Hmm. How about those who stand outside clinics abusing women when they're at their most vulnerable and troubled?



Most people including those that oppose abortion think that's unacceptable too.

Public policy needs to be decided by rational and civilised debate, not by aggressive picketing.


----------



## Garnet (Mar 7, 2008)

llantwit said:


> M'kay.
> Intimmidatory tactics? Hmm. How about those who stand outside clinics abusing women when they're at their most vulnerable and troubled?



How about them? For a start Pro-Life Pavement Counsellors who stand outside abortion clinics try to talk women out of having abortions and tell them that Jesus loves them, harmless stuff like that. They DO NOT abuse women. Typical Pro-abortion smear tactic, belonging with the other bully boy weapons in their armoury: intimidation and harassment.

And in any case, llantwit is too dumb to realise that like the rest of his crew, _he_ isn't in _any_ position to make disparaging comments about _anyone_ "abusing women" because _he_ he openly revels in using intimidatory tactics against, you know, OAPs and the like, real hard man stuff like that. He doesn't have a leg to stand on. Simple as that.

The only way XXX and the other Permanent Revolution dweebs who wouldn't know what informed comment was if it came marching up to them in scarlet red bra and knickers would have any moral credibility in sneering at Pro-Life sidewalk counsellors would be if they issued an immediate public apology to all those citizens who exercised their democratic rights to go to the Cardiff Passion for Life event, begging their forgiveness for their blatant use of intimidatory tactics on Tuesday night and promising never to do it again.

Would he ever do such a thing? Of course he wouldn't. Why? Because he's the kind of oddball who gets his rocks off ranting at old aged pensioners and enjoying the nearest he'll ever get to some street action since the revolution he dreams about won't ever be made by dumbos like him. 

Apparently the big booby is planning on holding a Pro-choice Cardiff event at the university next week. I wish I could be there. I'd laugh like a drain hearing him struggle his way through the HFE Bill.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 7, 2008)

Garnet said:


> How about them? For a start Pro-Life Pavement Counsellors who stand outside abortion clinics try to talk women out of having abortions and tell them that Jesus loves them, harmless stuff like that. They DO NOT abuse women. Typical Pro-abortion smear tactic, belonging with the other bully boy weapons in their armoury: intimidation and harassment.
> 
> And in any case, llantwit is too dumb to realise that like the rest of his crew, _he_ isn't in _any_ position to make disparaging comments about _anyone_ "abusing women" because _he_ he openly revels in using intimidatory tactics against, you know, OAPs and the like, real hard man stuff like that. He doesn't have a leg to stand on. Simple as that.
> 
> ...



fuck off alf there's a good lad!


----------



## untethered (Mar 7, 2008)

ddraig said:


> f- off alf there's a good lad!



Ah, an example of the "rational and civilised debate" I'd just called for.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Ah, an example of the "rational and civilised debate" I'd just called for.



u what! 'sidewalk counsellors' ffs
he's a fuckin septic for a kick off  (or at least taking his terminology from 'em)


----------



## ddraig (Mar 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Ah, an example of the "rational and civilised debate" I'd just called for.



like garnet's posts on this thread?
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=111132

looks like it's a 1 maybe 2 trick pony


----------



## Garnet (Mar 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Ah, an example of the "rational and civilised debate" I'd just called for.



You shouldn't expect anything else, Untethered. When they have nothing intelligent to say about a subject its "fuck off". When they don't like what they're hearing its "fuck off or else", and said with plenty of menace, especially if you're old aged pensioner. Oh yes, they find it really exciting to terrify old aged pensioners, badass urban guerrilla fighters that they are.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 7, 2008)

Garnet said:


> You shouldn't expect anything else, Untethered. When they have nothing intelligent to say about a subject its "fuck off". When they don't like what they're hearing its "fuck off or else", and said with plenty of menace, especially if you're old aged pensioner. Oh yes, they find it really exciting to terrify old aged pensioners, badass urban guerrilla fighters that they are.



so you can absolutely guarantee that your 'sidewalk counsellors' have never harrassed or abused anyone, ever, anywhere can you?

and, by the same token, you'll have proof of OAP's being harrassed by pro-choice supporters will you?


----------



## llantwit (Mar 8, 2008)

Course he hasn't. I've got plenty of experience of being abused by said oldies on that demo. I was just standing there with my banner for 95% of the time, and I was wished dead on three separate occasions. Nice folk.


----------



## Garnet (Mar 9, 2008)

ddraig said:


> so you can absolutely guarantee that your 'sidewalk counsellors' have never harrassed or abused anyone, ever, anywhere can you?
> 
> and, by the same token, you'll have proof of OAP's being harrassed by pro-choice supporters will you?



Of course I can't prove that sidewalk counsellors have _never_ harassed or abused _anyone, ever, anywhere_. Who knows, maybe one somewhere out there has. A needle in a haystack. But if there are, let the full force of the law be used to deal with them. And I have no compunction in saying that I would unequivocally condemn them. That's the difference between me and you.

Where's the proof of OAPs being harassed by Pro-abortionists? Read your own blogs, where you openly boast about the effect of your intimidatory tactics.


----------



## Garnet (Mar 9, 2008)

llantwit said:


> Course he hasn't. I've got plenty of experience of being abused by said oldies on that demo. I was just standing there with my banner for 95% of the time, and I was wished dead on three separate occasions. Nice folk.



First of all, _he_ is a _she_ and that's Mizz Garnet to you. 

You're complaining about a bunch of OAPs, who, aggravated beyond endurance, finally burst out with epithets in quavering voices? Feeble. Feeble _and_ dishonest of you. You went there openly looking for some action, looking to intimidate them. You knew what you were doing to them and you knew what effect you were having on them. Indeed you rejoice in it.

From your own blog: 'Over a hundred pro-choice demonstrators packed the pavement outside the City Temple _to give the anti-abortionists a reception they will not forget in a hurry.'_

You chanted abusive slogans at them: Meanwhile the '“Passion For Life”’s clientele, bussed in from as far afield as Cheltenham, _was given a clear message _from chanting protesters: _“Pro-life, that’s a lie - you don’t care if women die”. _'

You were up for a fight - with OAPs: _'The protest was militant'_. Oh yeah. You bet it was. Militant, with OAPs. 

You surrounded the entrance, refused to move to the other side of the road and terrified meeting attendees had to be escorted into the meeting by the police.  "The police ... sprang a demand that the protest take place on the other side of the road ... _protesters refused'_

One of your number further intimidated the OAPs using the disgraceful redwatch-style intidimatory tactics of photographing them. 'a well-known Cardiff anarchist singled out for arrest on a trumped-up charge of assaulting a police officer. If taking a photo now constitutes assault, civil liberties is in an even worse state than we feared.'

You openly boast about how threatening you were to the OAPs and your unique take on civil liberties: 'A grey-faced meeting organiser, clearly rattled by the st_rength_ and _passion_ of the demo, demanded the right to speak. However, pro-choice activists can be assured of one thing: the Permanent Revolution megaphone will never be allowed into the hands of an anti-abortionist. _He was given short shrift_ ...' Yes, I bet he was. You big, badass muthaf***** you.

You use abusive terms for your opponents, freely describing them as 'bigots'. You have no grounds for calling them bigots, though you would richly merit that description yourself.

You yourself say that the protesters were younger than meeting attendees, you yourself say that this included males. In other words, _young male _protesters, were, in full abusive cry, ranged against a bunch of OAPs, blocking their way and terrifying them. Very nice folk.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.


----------



## penderyn2000 (Mar 9, 2008)

Fantastic to see that Cardiff PR have now recruited Llantwit as well as controlling the actions of the entire demo as alleged by both Garnet and the Cardiff Mind the Gap website.
There is only one problem with Garnet's observations.  He wasn't there.  He is basing everything he says on an article at http://cardiffpr.wordpress.com and the accompanying video.
The arrest took place well before anyone arrived for the meeting.
No-one was obstructed from going to the meeting.  The entrance was clear at all times.
The clientele for the meeting were both male and female, old and young.
Another account of the demo is at http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/03/last_nights_pro


----------



## llantwit (Mar 9, 2008)

A. That's not my blog.
B. A more weird and imaginative string of exaggerations and non-sequiturs I've never read.
10/10 for imagination.
You're frothing at the mouth as much as your imaginary pro-choicers, love. With me a poor pensioner and all. I feel quite intimmidated.


----------



## El Jefe (Mar 9, 2008)

Garnet said:


> How about them? For a start Pro-Life Pavement Counsellors who stand outside abortion clinics try to talk women out of having abortions and tell them that Jesus loves them, harmless stuff like that. They DO NOT abuse women. Typical Pro-abortion smear tactic, belonging with the other bully boy weapons in their armoury: intimidation and harassment.




I've seen it happen with my own eyes. You're full of shit


----------



## llantwit (Mar 9, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> I've seen it happen with my own eyes. You're full of shit


I've seen it, too. And I know women who've experienced it.
"Pro-life pavement counsellors" my big wrinkly white arse.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 9, 2008)

Brockway said:


> That's a great photo


I prefer this one..


----------



## Col_Buendia (Mar 9, 2008)

Jesus Garnett, yr one up tight little 'miss'. I hope someone pops yr cherry soon so u can find a more useful outlet for yr repressed energies. And don't forget to use a condom


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 9, 2008)

i don't get this - does the fact that someone has reached the age of 65 (and also passed the age where there's any danger of them being in the situation of an unwanted preganancy) mean that they are exempt from being verbally had a go at if they insist on spouting their offensive, anti-choice bullshit?

being older doesn't stop you from being a nasty piece of work, and it shouldn't make you think you can get away with saying whatever you like.  My parents are both pensioners - my dad's in his seventies and if he's talking bollocks i'll tell him - not treat him with kid gloves.


----------



## Geri (Mar 9, 2008)

Very true. I got assaulted by an old woman once when I was protesting outside a circus.


----------



## Cakes (Mar 9, 2008)

Garnet said:


> ... people find the idea of tearing a harmless, helpless foetus limb from limb pretty fucking disgusting, particularly when strenuous efforts may be being made in the same premises to save the life of a neonate of similar age.


This is absolutely true, as I have already said, most people find the idea of late abortion abhorant. Thank goodness that it is such a rare occurance. The people I feel most sorry for are those women who would give anything to be continuing a healthy pregnancy to term, but have to go through a late abortion instead. Must be heart-breaking, I know it can take years to recover from the distress. 

I worry if their distress is increased by all those gorey photos and vicious accusations made by people like Passion for Life?



Garnet said:


> Neither do I pay any mind to the kind of middle-aged male wierdos who get a sick thrill from terrorising old aged pensioners going about their lawful business going to a public meeting.


Me neither! That would be a completely inappropriate and unneccesary thing to do.

Glad that kind of thing didn't occur at the peaceful picket I went to in Cardiff last week.


----------



## Garnet (Mar 10, 2008)

penderyn2000 said:


> Fantastic to see that Cardiff PR have now recruited Llantwit as well as controlling the actions of the entire demo as alleged by both Garnet and the Cardiff Mind the Gap website.
> There is only one problem with Garnet's observations. He wasn't there.  He is basing everything he says on an article at http://cardiffpr.wordpress.com and the accompanying video.
> The arrest took place well before anyone arrived for the meeting.
> No-one was obstructed from going to the meeting.  The entrance was clear at all times.
> ...



There are quite a few things wrong with Penderyn's observations. For example, he can't read.

Garnet is a she. 

And no, she is_ not_ basing everything she says merely on an article at Cardiff PR. 

Though the article is illuminating for making clear the effect the demonstration was intended to have:

"Over a hundred pro-choice demonstrators_ packed the pavement_ outside the City Temple _to give the anti-abortionists a reception they will not forget in a hurry."_

For boasting that the protestors would not move to the other side of the street. 

"[The police] sprang a demand that the the protest take place on the other side of the road ... protesters refused."

If the intention of the demonstration was just that and not also intimidation of the meeting attendees, they would have complied with the request. They didn't because it wasn't.

And for bragging, among other feats of big badass derring do, that the invincible PR foghorn would never be allowed into the hands of an anti-abortionist who was _"given short shrift"_. I bet he was, free speech not being something Cardiff PR is used to.

Hence his muddled, self-contradicting and peevish blog reply. 

He issues flatulent abuse about pro-lifers but then sanctimoniously informs the world that comments involving personal insult and misinformation are normally barred.

He posts a report about the demo on his blog. But wait! His blog's reportage and accompanying video can't be relied upon by his hapless reader as an accurate account of events.

Cardiff PR _is_ proud of its role in building the demo but _isn't_ responsible for everything which happened on it, though _there's nothing he wants to dissociate himself _from anyway.

There was _no_ attempt to stop attendees from getting into the meeting but protesters who _packed the pavement refused to move over to the other side of the road._

The megaphone _was _used to make speeches _not _shout slogans, though abusive slogans _were_ chanted.

Free contraception and universal sex education are desperately needed to cut down on the number of abortions, though we already have those things and the number of abortions has gone _up_ not down.

Confused? Of course he is. But then given the WP/PR's habit of changing their minds who could possibly be surprised?


----------



## Col_Buendia (Mar 10, 2008)

What a dick.

Let's follow your logic, Aurelia/Garnet:


OAPs (people without reproductive capabilities) are entitled to decide what happens to those with the reproductive capabilities to carry a pregnancy.
Therefore, others without reproductive capabilities must also be entitled to decide for those who carry pregnancies.
Therefore men, who can't carry a pregnancy, are entitled to decide for women what should happen to their own bodies.

Nice move. Back to square one. Good luck with popping your cherry - maybe you can get a cuddle from the confused fuckwit who scribbles the Mind The Gap blog - someone so scared of debate that s/he closes the comments on it!


----------



## Dic Penderyn (Mar 14, 2008)

*statement from woman arrested at City Temple Protest*

Anyone on here witness the arrest?




			
				statement from woman arrested at City Temple Protest said:
			
		

> Some of you will know that I was arrested outside the City Temple on the 4th May during a protest against a rally held by Anne Widdecombe. This was an unlawful arrest, vindictive, vengeful and ultimately brutal. Already a couple of people have come forward offering to be witnesses to the arrest, and I am very grateful to them, but there was a large crowd gathered there at the time and there may be others who also witnessed events. Please pass on this statement and witness request to any individuals or groups who were present.
> 
> First of all it was great to see so many turn up to the protest outside Anne Widdecombe's anti-abortion rally . The right to safe abortion was not easily won, and came only after the unnecessary deaths and terrible suffering of thousands of women in back-street abortions. I can't believe that any woman would want to go back to that.
> 
> ...


----------



## untethered (Mar 14, 2008)

Cakes said:


> This is absolutely true, as I have already said, most people find the idea of late abortion abhorant. Thank goodness that it is such a rare occurance. The people I feel most sorry for are those women who would give anything to be continuing a healthy pregnancy to term, but have to go through a late abortion instead. Must be heart-breaking, I know it can take years to recover from the distress.
> 
> I worry if their distress is increased by all those gorey photos and vicious accusations made by people like Passion for Life?



What's the difference between killing unborn disabled children and born ones?

The idea that people who "have to go through a late abortion" find abhorrent is that rather than having a healthy, able, "normal" child they might have to have a disabled one.

So they kill it.


----------



## fogbat (Mar 14, 2008)




----------



## llantwit (Mar 14, 2008)

Traumatised for life.


----------



## Cakes (Mar 14, 2008)

untethered said:


> What's the difference between killing unborn disabled children and born ones?



Well for a start killing children is illegal, where as abortion is legal under certain circumstances.

I don't think there is any moral difference between terminating a disabled fetus or an abled-bodied fetus. Neither does the largest democratic disabled people's campaign group in the UK, which is strongly pro-choice.

People shouldn't use disability as a political tool to attack women's rights. It's offensive and illogical.


----------



## untethered (Mar 14, 2008)

Cakes said:


> Well for a start killing children is illegal, where as abortion is legal under certain circumstances.



I wasn't talking about legality. I'm sure you realise that.



Cakes said:


> I don't think there is any moral difference between terminating a disabled fetus or an abled-bodied fetus. Neither does the largest democratic disabled people's campaign group in the UK, which is strongly pro-choice.



"Terminating"? Why not just say "killing"? 

Anyway, you've made your position entirely clear. Able-bodied and disabled unborn children should have an equal likelihood of being killed by their mothers.



Cakes said:


> People shouldn't use disability as a political tool to attack women's rights. It's offensive and illogical.



Perhaps not as offensive as killing unborn children for matters of social convenience.

Approximately half of unborn children are "women" too. Don't they get rights as well?


----------



## Cakes (Mar 14, 2008)

Untethered, I think you use of terminology is very interesting but prefer to stick to the conventional terms used in law and medicine.

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, which is very different from the killing of a baby or child. Although you may personally feel that they amount to the same thing, this is just your opinion and is not shared by many other people.


----------



## untethered (Mar 14, 2008)

Cakes said:


> Untethered, I think you use of terminology is very interesting but prefer to stick to the conventional terms used in law and medicine.



Why? So you can continue to fudge the moral issues? No thanks.



Cakes said:


> An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, which is very different from the killing of a baby or child. Although you may personally feel that they amount to the same thing, this is just your opinion and is not shared by many other people.



While you may choose to adopt specialist terminology that deals with this specific case, the general one is still _killing_. Something that is alive is caused to no longer be alive. If that isn't killing, what is?

Why is it so hard for you to be intellectually honest about this matter? It's no different in principle from referring to civilian casualties in war as _collateral damage_.

You can obfuscate you like, but you promote the killing of children.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 14, 2008)

untethered said:


> You can obfuscate you like, but you promote the killing of children.




Only in the same way that wankers wipe out millions of lives on a regular basis...


----------



## untethered (Mar 14, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> Only in the same way that w- wipe out millions of lives on a regular basis...



Go back to school.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 14, 2008)

You felt the need to censor the word "wankers" from my post while quoting it? 

Have you ever felt that your morality is a little out of step with everybody else's? As someone who calls themselves a patriot, you ought to move further towards embracing the values of your countrymen.


----------



## osterberg (Mar 14, 2008)

Dic Penderyn said:


> Anyone on here witness the arrest?



 This has got lost a bit with Untethered's ranting.
It's pretty shocking sinister stuff and anyone who can get down to the courts on the 28th should.
 Can we be kept up to date with developments.?


----------



## untethered (Mar 14, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> Have you ever felt that your morality is a little out of step with everybody else's? As someone who calls themselves a patriot, you ought to move further towards embracing the values of your countrymen.



I decide each issue on its merits. Do you have a better idea?


----------



## Cakes (Mar 14, 2008)

untethered said:


> ... you promote the killing of children.



No I don't. I don't promote abortion either.

What I promote is the right for us all be able to make our own free and informed decisions about abortion, to be able to decide for ourselves whether it is right or wrong.


----------



## Cakes (Mar 14, 2008)

osterberg said:


> This has got lost a bit with Untethered's ranting.


Sorry! Will desist from derailing!


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 14, 2008)

untethered said:


> I decide each issue on its merits. Do you have a better idea?



I guess a better idea would be to cease derailing this thread about local issues in Wales by discussing the wider issue with you, even by means of jeering and piss-taking - if I really wanted to discuss the abortion issue from the level you're approaching it from, I'd be checking out the message boards at www.catholic.com.


----------



## untethered (Mar 14, 2008)

Cakes said:


> No I don't. I don't promote abortion either.
> 
> What I promote is the right for us all be able to make our own free and informed decisions about abortion, to be able to decide for ourselves whether it is right or wrong.



Wriggle wriggle wriggle.

So that's predicated on the idea that both choices are equally acceptable.

If, say, you wanted to give people a similar choice about having sex with children, would it be reasonable to conclude that a) you're comfortable with people having sex with children and b) you're promoting sex with children?


----------



## Garnet (Mar 18, 2008)

Dic Penderyn said:


> when the pro-life audience arrived I took photographs as *they filed through the noisy and chanting crowd*.



Yet again the nature of the demonstration, which meeting attendees had to pick their way through, is clearly described.  

Remember that the demonstrators refused to move to the other side of the road.



Dic Penderyn said:


> I want to make it absolutely and totally clear that I did nothing ... to provoke or antagonise the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Garnet (Mar 18, 2008)

Cakes said:


> Untethered, I think you use of terminology is very interesting but prefer to stick to the conventional terms used in law and medicine.
> 
> An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, which is very different from the killing of a baby or child. Although you may personally feel that they amount to the same thing, this is just your opinion and is not shared by many other people.



Really? Does Cakes deny that the termination of a pregnancy involves the deliberate destruction of a living foetus? Is he suggesting that there is such a thing as a pregnancy without a living foetus? What on earth does he think happens during spontaneous abortion? Is he seriously suggesting that pregnant women who feel their foetuses kick inside them are delusional? Can he suggest any clinical reason for a woman having an induced abortion when there is no foetus living within her?

Engaged in such a phenomenal flight from reality, no wonder Cakes finds pictures of aborted foetuses so mind-rocking. He's so ignorant of basic human biology that he doesn't even know - or can't bear to admit - that pregnant women have foetuses living and growing in their wombs.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 18, 2008)

It is not acceptable here to post real names of posters without their explicit consent; kindly refrain from doing so.


----------



## llantwit (Mar 18, 2008)

Garnet said:


> Really? Does Cakes deny that the termination of a pregnancy involves the deliberate destruction of a living foetus? Is he suggesting that there is such a thing as a pregnancy without a living foetus? What on earth does he think happens during spontaneous abortion? Is he seriously suggesting that pregnant women who feel their foetuses kick inside them are delusional? Can he suggest any clinical reason for a woman having an induced abortion when there is no foetus living within her?
> 
> Engaged in such a phenomenal flight from reality, no wonder Cakes finds pictures of aborted foetuses so mind-rocking. He's so ignorant of basic human biology that he doesn't even know - or can't bear to admit - that pregnant women have foetuses living and growing in their wombs.



Yes, you won the argument. Well done. You have persuaded us that we are all murderous paedophiles with the sheer force of reason and logical argument. That must feel good. Now bugger off.


----------



## dylanredefined (Mar 18, 2008)

Garnet said:


> Yet again the nature of the demonstration, which meeting attendees had to pick their way through, is clearly described.
> 
> Remember that the demonstrators refused to move to the other side of the road.
> 
> ...


----------



## Meltingpot (Mar 18, 2008)

llantwit said:


> There are also many who believe Ann Widdecombe doesn't have a right to live.



Such as who? Surely she's allowed to have her point of view. It's comments like that which make this board suck for debating.


----------



## llantwit (Mar 18, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> Such as who? Surely she's allowed to have her point of view. It's comments like that which make this board suck for debating.


Oh ffs grow an irony detector. Do you really think I was suggesting lots of people want to murder Anne Widdecombe?
Stupid people annoy me.


----------



## Meltingpot (Mar 18, 2008)

llantwit said:


> Oh ffs grow an irony detector. Do you really think I was suggesting lots of people want to murder Anne Widdecombe?.



Yes, it looked that way. 



llantwit said:


> Stupid people annoy me.



I don't know you, htf how am I supposed to know whether you're joking or not? And don't insult people you don't know.


----------



## llantwit (Mar 18, 2008)

Meltingpot said:


> Yes, it looked that way.


Irony: when the literal meaning is different to the implied meaning.
The whole point of irony is that it initially LOOKS like it means something different to what it actually implies.


Meltingpot said:


> I don't know you, htf how am I supposed to know whether you're joking or not? And don't insult people you don't know.


I know you well enough to see that you cannot detect implied meaning. This suggests a certain degree of stupidity. It's merely an observation.


----------



## Meltingpot (Mar 18, 2008)

llantwit said:


> Irony: when the literal meaning is different to the implied meaning.
> The whole point of irony is that it initially LOOKS like it means something different to what it actually implies.
> 
> I know you well enough to see that you cannot detect implied meaning. This suggests a certain degree of stupidity. It's merely an observation.



I've posted on forums like this one long enough to know that detecting implied meaning is pretty difficult when all you have to go on is the text record. Even university students have sometimes thought I was being serious when I wasn't.

That's what smilies are for.


----------



## Geri (Mar 18, 2008)

Garnet said:


> Really? Does Cakes deny that the termination of a pregnancy involves the deliberate destruction of a living foetus? Is he suggesting that there is such a thing as a pregnancy without a living foetus? What on earth does he think happens during spontaneous abortion? Is he seriously suggesting that pregnant women who feel their foetuses kick inside them are delusional? Can he suggest any clinical reason for a woman having an induced abortion when there is no foetus living within her?
> 
> Engaged in such a phenomenal flight from reality, no wonder Cakes finds pictures of aborted foetuses so mind-rocking. He's so ignorant of basic human biology that he doesn't even know - or can't bear to admit - that pregnant women have foetuses living and growing in their wombs.



Why do you assume Cakes is a man?


----------



## Garnet (Mar 21, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It is not acceptable here to post real names of posters without their explicit consent; kindly refrain from doing so.



My mistake. Apologies to the individual concerned. It won't happen again.


----------



## Garnet (Mar 21, 2008)

llantwit said:


> Yes, you won the argument. Well done. You have persuaded us that we are all murderous paedophiles with the sheer force of reason and logical argument. That must feel good. Now bugger off.



Really, llantwit, is that the best you can do, venture petty sarcasm and crummy schoolboy swearing in lieu of argument? 
And why the peevish tone, eh?


----------



## llantwit (Mar 21, 2008)

Because I äm peeved, and can think of better things to do than argue with right wing ideologues.


----------

