Rally For Life!!!

am946745 · 07-07-2015 9:47pm

newmug wrote: »

Fatal foetal abnormalities are diagnosed incorrectly a huge proportion of the time. Let the baby be born, then see. Unless it will cause a risk to the mother aswell. Its analogous to the reason they scrapped the death penalty - something might show up later to prove the accused innocent. Its too late if they're dead!

Exactly!! a women I know had a test of downs syndrome which resulted in a miscarriage of a healthy baby.

newmug · 07-07-2015 9:48pm

Fudge You wrote: »

The way you write is very evil. Do you know any woman that had to have an abortion???

Some abortions are necessary, and are devastating too.

How about caring for your fellow human???

A bit of common sense would be very helpful to the people of the catholic church.

Catholic Church??????? Who mentioned them?????? And thats the whole point, I care very much about unborn fellow humans.!!!!!

And yes, I DO know women who HAD to have abortions, and got them here in this country. An abortion NEVER WAS ILLEGAL IF THE PREGNANCY POSED A RISK TO THE MOTHER.

lazygal · 07-07-2015 9:50pm

newmug wrote: »

Fatal foetal abnormalities are diagnosed incorrectly a huge proportion of the time. Let the baby be born, then see. Unless it will cause a risk to the mother aswell. Its analogous to the reason they scrapped the death penalty - something might show up later to prove the accused innocent. Its too late if they're dead!

The risk of death or serious health risks to the mother!!! And no, its not a reason to kill the baby, it can be a reason to terminate the preg. ie c-section the baby out. You know this stuff, stop trying to distract.

And yes, IMO parents should be obliged to donate to their children, as long as it doesnt pose a risk of death or health risks to the parent.

You really seem to be laying the wrong traps. I am not falling in to them, because you have the wrong impression of pro-lifers motives. You have not directly explained what you think our "agenda" is, but whatever it is, you seem to have it wrong.

Our "agenda" is to improve and save lives, especially of those who cannot speak for themselves. Simple as that.

Do you know the risks of csections? You make it sound like a walk in the park, cut the woman open and csection the baby out. A c section can have serious complications, like vaginal births, that can affect a girl or woman for life. Imagine a 14 year old girl, pregnant and suicidal, being forced to have a c section that may result in her never being able to give birth vaginally and will affect the number of children she can have in the future, all because you think she should have to bear her rapist's child. Have you only compassion for the unborn?

And you're in favour of parents being forced to donate organs and blood to their children. How would this be enforced? Would there be a cut off when my children are 18?

Not a NSA agent · 07-07-2015 9:51pm

newmug wrote: »

AdOption should be the first option when you have an unwanted pregnancy..

Unwanted pregnancy and unwanted child are 2 different things. If a woman doesnt want to be pregnant telling her she can have an adoption AFTER the pregnancy isnt much good. If the woman has to stay pregnant it isnt dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

A woman may not want to have a child but is willing to go through pregnancy and have an adoption.

newmug wrote: »

Fatal foetal abnormalities are diagnosed incorrectly a huge proportion of the time.

Statistics?

lazygal · 07-07-2015 9:51pm

newmug wrote: »

Catholic Church??????? Who mentioned them?????? And thats the whole point, I care very much about unborn fellow humans.!!!!!

And yes, I DO know women who HAD to have abortions, and got them here in this country. An abortion NEVER WAS ILLEGAL IF THE PREGNANCY POSED A RISK TO THE MOTHER.

Why did the Attorney General force Miss X to return to Ireland, if she could have had an abortion here all along?

newmug · 07-07-2015 9:57pm

lazygal wrote: »

Do you know the risks of csections?.... Have you only compassion for the unborn?

And you're in favour of parents being forced to donate organs and blood to their children. How would this be enforced? Would there be a cut off when my children are 18?

I dont have all the answers, but I know KILLING THE CHILD is not one of them.

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Unwanted pregnancy and unwanted child are 2 different things. If a woman doesnt want to be pregnant telling her she can have an adoption AFTER the pregnancy isnt much good. If the woman has to stay pregnant it isnt dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

A woman may not want to have a child but is willing to go through pregnancy and have an adoption.

You cant have a pregnancy without a child. Anyway, again, killing it is not the answer to an unwanted pregnancy either.

lazygal wrote: »

Why did the Attorney General force Miss X to return to Ireland, if she could have had an abortion here all along?

I assume because in his mind, there was nothing wrong with her. Now, answer me what I've been asking you all along:

WHAT

DO

YOU

THINK

THE

PRO-LIFE

AGENDA

IS?

robdonn · 07-07-2015 10:00pm

am946745 wrote: »

Exactly!! a women I know had a test of downs syndrome which resulted in a miscarriage of a healthy baby.

CVS (Chorionic villus sampling) has a risk of miscarriage, about 2%, but has the benefit of a 98% chance of knowing if your baby has serious genetic disorder. And it is generally only performed after other screenings have shown that there is a high chance of a genetic disorder.

newmug · 07-07-2015 10:05pm

Looks like Lazy Gal has gotten lazy. She's gone for the night. As am I, adios.

am946745 · 07-07-2015 10:06pm

robdonn wrote: »

CVS (Chorionic villus sampling) has a risk of miscarriage, about 2%, but has the benefit of a 98% chance of knowing if your baby has serious genetic disorder. And it is generally only performed after other screenings have shown that there is a high chance of a genetic disorder.

What benefit if we are killing 2% of the children?

Delirium · 07-07-2015 10:11pm

newmug wrote: »

Looks like Lazy Gal has gotten lazy. She's gone for the night. As am I, adios.

MOD NOTE

Less of the baiting/goading comments.

Also, please don't 'shout' in your posts. Especially in really, really large font sizes.

Lets try to keep the discussion somewhat calm and civil.

Thanks for your attention.

gctest50 · 07-07-2015 10:13pm

am946745 wrote: »

Exactly!! a women I know had a test of downs syndrome which resulted in a miscarriage of a healthy baby.

am946745 wrote: »

What benefit if we are killing 2% of the children?

bit of good news on that front :

non-invasive test for it :

http://www.merrionfetalhealth.ie/harmony-prenatal-test/

About the Ariosa Harmony™ Prenatal Test

DNA from the fetus circulates in the mother’s blood. Cell free DNA (cfDNA) results from the natural breakdown of fetal cells (presumed to be mostly placental) and clears from the maternal system within hours of giving birth.

During a pregnancy, cfDNA can be tested to give the most accurate screening approach in estimating the risk of fetus having a common chromosome condition sometimes called a trisomy. This occurs when there are three copies of a particular chromosome instead of the expected two

https://www.rcsi.ie/obstetrics_gynaecology_patients

robdonn · 07-07-2015 10:14pm

am946745 wrote: »

What benefit if we are killing 2% of the children?

It is a medical procedure that has risks, like most procedures do. Caesarean Sections have risks that could kill the mother, but is still a procedure that the mother can choose to have even if not medically necessary.

As for it's benefits? It can give a family an additional 20-28 weeks to prepare, both physically and emotionally, for raising a child that may require very special needs.

The Black Oil · 07-07-2015 10:17pm

newmug wrote: »

Fatal foetal abnormalities are diagnosed incorrectly a huge proportion of the time. Let the baby be born, then see. Unless it will cause a risk to the mother aswell.

am946745 wrote: »

Exactly!! a women I know had a test of downs syndrome which resulted in a miscarriage of a healthy baby.

Except the plural of anecdotes ≠ data.

newmug wrote: »

You really seem to be laying the wrong traps. I am not falling in to them, because you have the wrong impression of pro-lifers motives. You have not directly explained what you think our "agenda" is, but whatever it is, you seem to have it wrong.

Our "agenda" is to improve and save lives, especially of those who cannot speak for themselves. Simple as that.

Agenda? This debate, in the wider Irish landscape, is wrapped in a lot of denial. Denial as in, help our perspective is not represented by the media, etc. Denial that some Irish women will have abortions regardless of the protests that take place in Dublin. You're gonna say that this cuts both ways. Maybe, but the not so subtle denial is more vocal on the pro-life side. Denial of reality's a pretty powerful agenda.

robdonn · 07-07-2015 10:27pm

gctest50 wrote: »

bit of good news on that front :

non-invasive test for it :

While the Harmony Prenatal Test is less invasive, it is simply a pre-screening process like other blood tests.

HPT is more accurate than other blood tests in detecting high risk factors for Trisomy, so it means that less women then go on to have unnecessary CVS tests. It does not replace CVS.

Not a NSA agent · 07-07-2015 11:09pm

newmug wrote: »

You cant have a pregnancy without a child. Anyway, again, killing it is not the answer to an unwanted pregnancy either.

You dont like the answer but it is an answer for it, more so than adoption as it will actually end the pregnancy.

http://www.youthdefence.ie/projects/baby-hope/
No killing required sometimes

robdonn · 07-07-2015 11:09pm

Just a followup on the attendance issue:

I tried to contact a few journalists from a few news outlets that said that the Gardaí gave an estimate of between 5,000 - 8,000. Only got a reply from one, Ruairi Casey who wrote the article for NewsTalk. When I asked him his source for the estimate he told me "Garda Press Office".

So, I contacted the Garda Press Office again and told them that a journalist referred to them as their source for the figure, and received the ever helpful and blunt response:

Good evening Robert,

As previously stated - no figures available.

Kind regards,

Seán

Seán Mac Seoin
Garda Press Office

Now this is not conclusive evidence, from the tone and brevity of the emails from the Garda Press Office I feel as if they just couldn't be bothered giving me a better reply. And I only received a reply from a single journalist, it is highly likely that many of them simply copied from each other.

None of the articles actually specify where they got the information, simply that it came from a Senior Garda officer. This may have been an officer at the event.

So there may be some lazy journalism here, but it happened on both sides. Lifenews.com have claimed that the Gardaí gave an estimate of between 25,000 - 30,000. Without information from the Garda Press Office to support it, it's just as invalid as any other estimates.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 08-07-2015 12:47am

newmug wrote: »

Fatal foetal abnormalities are diagnosed incorrectly a huge proportion of the time. Let the baby be born, then see. Unless it will cause a risk to the mother aswell. Its analogous to the reason they scrapped the death penalty - something might show up later to prove the accused innocent. Its too late if they're dead!

Think of everything that is behind this sentence, please. Please think if that was your family member and of all the emotional and social and physical realities that underlie that sentence and try to see how heartless it sounds.

MrPudding · 08-07-2015 6:46am

am946745 wrote: »

4500... right.

People are notoriously bad a judging crowd size. I think I posted this pic, or similar, at the last one of these demos.

6034073

This is from the 'where's Wally' world record attempt. How many people so you think are in the picture?

You can get the answer here, and I think it might surprise you. This count came from Guinness, and I personally, not unreasonably I believe, will lend greater weight to a figure from them than a figure from the organisation that organised the rally.

All that said, I still don't necessarily think the anti-choice people necessarily made the figures up, though clearly they could have. I genuinely believe that we are extremely bad at estimating crowd size.

MrP

am946745 · 08-07-2015 10:25pm

MrPudding wrote: »

People are notoriously bad a judging crowd size. I think I posted this pic, or similar, at the last one of these demos.

I do the marathon every year. It was the same crowd as the runners spectators. Not sure if that is 25,000, but for sure it was not 10,000.

If I had been asked (given the about of posters/print material that was given out) I would say around 20,000 to 22,000, that would have been my personal opinion. As someone who was there.

MrPudding · 08-07-2015 10:52pm

am946745 wrote: »

I do the marathon every year. It was the same crowd as the runners spectators. Not sure if that is 25,000, but for sure it was not 10,000.

If I had been asked (given the about of posters/print material that was given out) I would say around 20,000 to 22,000, that would have been my personal opinion. As someone who was there.

Again, forgive me, but I will go with the figure from Guinness where they actually counted the people rather than guesstimated them.

MrP

Second Toughest in_the Freshers · 09-07-2015 3:45pm

I'd say there were at least 17 million of them out there....

robdonn · 09-07-2015 5:29pm

Was just contacted by one of the journalists:

two Garda superintendents along with another officer at scene, press office didn't issue estimates as was rightly pointed out.

So not an estimate issued by Garda Press Office, but instead an estimate from three supervising Gardaí at the rally.

Still a much more trustworthy source than the rally organisers.

amdublin · 10-07-2015 8:40am

robdonn wrote: »

Was just contacted by one of the journalists:

So not an estimate issued by Garda Press Office, but instead an estimate from three supervising Gardaí at the rally.

Still a much more trustworthy source than the rally organisers.

So what was their estimate? Just to be clear...

robdonn · 10-07-2015 9:42am

amdublin wrote: »

So what was their estimate? Just to be clear...

5,000 - 8,000. This is the number given by the officers at the event and later reported in the papers.

amdublin · 10-07-2015 4:31pm

robdonn wrote: »

5,000 - 8,000. This is the number given by the officers at the event and later reported in the papers.

Ok so we now know the number and where it came from. Seems clear cut to me.

Thanks for all that work!!

robdonn · 10-07-2015 4:37pm

amdublin wrote: »

Thanks for all that work!!

Since both sides are likely to give numbers weighted to the level of support they think the rally should have had, I figured that trying to track down an official estimate is fairer. The Gardaí, no matter what the beliefs of the officers in attendance, must measure somewhat accurately to assess safety issues.

Not to mention that I hate made-up numbers, as 130% of my posts prove.

freshpopcorn · 12-07-2015 2:20pm

Working out how many people in a crowd is a disaster to be honest no matter what the situation. You'll always get the over optimistic person and the negative person.

amdublin · 12-07-2015 2:27pm

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Working out how many people in a crowd is a disaster to be honest no matter what the situation. You'll always get the over optimistic person and the negative person.

I think the 5000 - 8000 nicely covers the range of optimistic and negative.

MrPudding · 12-07-2015 3:15pm

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Working out how many people in a crowd is a disaster to be honest no matter what the situation. You'll always get the over optimistic person and the negative person.

Which I why I like the 'where's Wally' picture. There was no estimate, each individual person was counted.

MrP

Cabaal · 12-07-2015 3:49pm

am946745 wrote: »

Relevant because I was and you were not. There was a lot more people than during the Dublin Marathon.

errr, Dublin Marathon is held on a totally different street to the one in the picture you've posted

This:
https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11214722_10153060107909150_7053623447537732277_n.jpg?oh=de9f1934ecb7e162f889d1dbcc3dc6b3&oe=5621F758

Is NOT the same street the Dublin marathon starts at or holds most of the groups

THIS is the street the Dublin marathon starts at
http://www.mynextrace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Start-2012.jpg

Dublin Marathon had more people then the photo you posted, that means the pro-life protest was alot less then 14k,

Especially considering the people running the Dublin marathon are very tightly packed, don't have signs, don't have buggys etc. (I should know, I've run it enough times)

Rally For Life!!!

Comments