511 wrote: » Correction: Africa and Asia are overpopulated. Europe needs higher birthrates.
sabat wrote: » This isn't really a response to my point which was merely highlighting the disingenuous use of a photo by a pro-repeal blogger but even if the vote was restricted to women of child bearing age I would guess the margins would be broadly similar to the general population.
Eyes Down Field wrote: » As a man, Why should I have a say in what a woman choses to do with her, body, her life.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Do you think a woman should be able to abort pregnancies at seven months? No, you don't, like most normal people .........
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Looked like a decent sized crowd but sure if people want to dismiss views... let them.https://twitter.com/KatyRobinson198/status/881217325676072961
_Whimsical_ wrote: » Actually that picture looks like the crowd were made up of a pretty varied swathe of society. I'm seeing quite a lot of women between 18 and 45 let's say. Certainly it is clear from that that its not a majority of older people attending.
freshpopcorn wrote: » I'm actually amazed at the people I know who support the pro-life movement. Their the complete opposite to what the internet portrays.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » Quite a lot of middle aged men are very concerned with what young women do with their bodies. (Pic taken from a Facebook site shared by a middle aged man who's the father of a couple of my mates)https://imgur.com/U7IsbyM
Eyes Down Field wrote: » I think the referendum on the 8th should be decided by women only. As a man, Why should I have a say in what a woman choses to do with her, body, her life.
_Whimsical_ wrote: » There are pictures of the entire crowd in this thread and is quite clear from them that there wasn't a single majority really amidst the couple of hundred faces visible. If one side feels their grasp of the facts adequately supports their stance there's no reason for unrepresentative photos. You'll find fifteen or so middle aged men at pretty much every single event in Ireland. That there were several men in attendance is all we can accurately gather from that pic.
_Whimsical_ wrote: » I think a lot of people have more nuanced views than they feel are represented by the pro life or pro choice sides right now. Unfortunately we seem incapable of any sort of mature conversation about it or teasing out the issues in public. I'd love to see a proper, respectful debate about it but we always get a mud slinging "goodies vs baddies" approach.
martingriff wrote: » So if you partner was pregnant you be happy if she just went and had a termination. After all it's her body why should a man (you) have a say
gctest50 wrote: » martingriff wrote: » So if you partner was pregnant you be happy if she just went and had a termination. After all it's her body why should a man (you) have a say At the moment she can just get up and go abroad
RayM wrote: » It was a high turnout, as marches go, but probably nowhere near the 70,000 claimed by the organisers (and unquestioningly parroted by RTE). Maybe a bit closer to ten thousand than "the ten thousands", which is still very high. The majority of those participating were elderly and male, and there was a lot of religious iconography too (not that there's anything wrong with religious iconography, but carrying statues of the Virgin Mary down O'Connell Street is a bit "extra" if you ask me). There were a lot of priests present too, including a certain Fr Brian McKevitt (editor of Alive! magazine) in his full Dominican regalia. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's interesting that a genuine Christian like Fr Peter McVerry, for example, doesn't feel the need to prance around the north inner city in a gigantic white frock, swinging his rosary beads around and telling people what to do with their own bodies. I don't know - I think the sight of elderly men shouting "murderer" at young women might be a bit alienating to people who are genuinely on the fence. Also, picking a child with Down Syndrome up and shoving her into the faces of counter-protesters might alienate people too. Both of those things happened at yesterday's march.
sabat wrote: » That's just blatant lying.
martingriff wrote: » True however my question still stands as her partner would he be happy that she just did it as it's her body he as a man should have no say
gctest50 wrote: » martingriff wrote: » True however my question still stands as her partner would he be happy that she just did it as it's her body he as a man should have no say So you have a couple that are together and she wants to terminate her pregnancy and he doesn't want that to happen ? It's a hard case but hard cases make bad law It should be illegal for every woman just because of a quarreling couple ?
Guy:Incognito wrote: » How about the simple solution of you stay out of my life and I stay out of yours. If you don't want an abortion youre free to not have one. The availability of abortion will have no impact on your life unless you go out of your way to involve yourself. Just like all the things I don't involve myself with don't impact my life.
gctest50 wrote: » And how many of them had a uterus and were aged between say 18 and 40 ?
_Whimsical_ wrote: » You couldn't have proved my point better if you tried there. I didn't say I'm anti abortion in every case. I'm not. Admitting nuance, particularly in the light of the case this week that saw a girl who sought an abortion at 6 months choose to take that baby home with her to live, is surely acceptable? To want to have a conversation about it rather than exchange insults or use it as an opportunity for some tired value signaling is too much to ask? That's frankly the sign of complete immaturity. Not suggesting that's just you, it's pretty much the cookie cutter response id expect from most pro choice advocates. Unfortunately for you though we all have vote and the more this hackneyed response is trotted out the more less vocal, more nuanced minded people the pro choice side will lose, for better or worse.
_Whimsical_ wrote: » .........the pro choice side will lose, for better or worse.
freshpopcorn wrote: » I never had a doubt about the marriage referendum passing. I found during the marriage referendum everybody on Yes side was on the same page. However if you ask people in the repeal campaign what circumstances they want abortion legalised they can all give you different answers and don't agree with one another.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » And? What has that got to do with the point you made?
RayM wrote: » It was a high turnout, as marches go, but probably nowhere near the 70,000 claimed by the organisers (and unquestioningly parroted by RTE).
freshpopcorn wrote: » They got a good crowd and the one thing for certain is most of these people will vote.
Ann_Landers wrote: » It seemed on a par with the Repeal march last September. Both were well attended. What I found curious though was the pro-life march was one of the main headlines on the RTÉ news site the day it happened whereas the news story on the Repeal march was well hidden on RTÉ New's front page the day it happened. Surely they should be on equal footing in terms of coverage? Both marches had counter-protesters though there seemed to be more counter-protesters this weekend than at the Repeal march.
Ann_Landers wrote: » Weren't many of the protesters from Northern Ireland?
