Did anybody here attend the Rally For Life/repeal the 8th marches in Dublin?

PhoenixParker · 03-07-2017 11:06PM

okiss wrote: »

I think for the majority of woman they don't rush into abortion but they consider how having a baby will effect their lives, partners or the other children they may already have. Not every one going for an abortion is young or unmarried but for some woman having a child or another child can be life changing and not in a good way.

This is a huge point that's completely neglected in the discussion. People tend to picture "irresponsible" teenagers getting abortions but more women with an Irish address in their 40s get UK abortions every year then in their teens. Big numbers in their 30s too.

https://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Statistics

Unplanned pregnancy when breastfeeding and when you think you've hit a point where you can't get pregnant anymore are two of the most common scenarios.

Won't somebody think of the children - many women are, they're thinking of the living, breathing children in front of them.

FutureGuy · 03-07-2017 11:07PM

Regardless whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, if you think there were 70,000 or that it wasn't predominately made up of older people who are now past having children, you are not living in the real world.

ohnonotgmail · 03-07-2017 11:10PM

Syphonax wrote: »

Abortion is wrong and shouldnt be allowed, period. That would be my opinion. Unfortunately abortion is available and even those that break the law in Ireland by going abroad to have one, means that we must face the fact that abortion available and a fact of life that will not disappear.

I have every sympathy for women that dont want a child but have got themselves into that position, and in certain LIMITED instances, such as rape, abortion should be allowed, but for the most part I will defend the life of the unborn it doesnt have a voice.

I cant see that anybody has corrected you on this yet but a woman travelling for an abortion is not breaking the law in ireland. You can check the 13th amendment to the constitution if you dont believe me.

PhoenixParker · 03-07-2017 11:11PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why though? Either relive begins at conception or it doesn't.

Also if a life of equal value to a full term child is present from the moment of conception then shouldn't all women experiencing miscarriages be entitled to up to 42 weeks maternity leave and six months of statutory maternity pay? This is allowed for stillbirths 24 weeks and later but since there's no difference between a 24 week foetus and a 6 week one, both should be given equal consideration.

Perhaps we should start child benefit from conception too?

Syphonax · 03-07-2017 11:26PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I cant see that anybody has corrected you on this yet but a woman travelling for an abortion is not breaking the law in ireland. You can check the 13th amendment to the constitution if you dont believe me.

Yes but her unborn child might have thunk different had it had the choice.

You are effectively saying its ok to commit a form of murder so long as you're in a country that permits it, even if the length of time you spend in that country lasts only as long as the Abortion lasts and is solely for that purpose. Thats very convenient but still doesnt deny the fact you're robbing the unborn 'Irish' child of its natural right to exist simply by circumventing Irish law.

Have you not heard of basic humane rights?

ohnonotgmail · 03-07-2017 11:28PM

Syphonax wrote: »

Yes but her unborn child might have thunk different had it had the choice.

You are effectively saying its ok to commit a form of murder so long as you're in a country that permits it, even if the length of time you spend in that country lasts only as long as the Abortion lasts and is solely for that purpose. Thats very convenient but still doesnt deny the fact you're robbing the unborn 'Irish' child of its natural right to exist simply by circumventing Irish law.

Have you not heard of basic humane rights?

I am not effectively saying anything. I AM saying it is legal to travel for an abortion. I was correcting your lack of understanding of the relevant law.

Syphonax · 03-07-2017 11:32PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I am not effectively saying anything. I AM saying it is legal to travel for an abortion. I was correcting your lack of understanding of the relevant law.

Concrats, you have solved the mystery of abortion in Ireland then and are not saying anything, nothing.

Syphonax · 03-07-2017 11:32PM

Hush hush

Yourself isit · 03-07-2017 11:32PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why though? Either life begins at conception or it doesn't.

The clue is in the name. It's not called life day. Birthday. The celebration of the anniversary of the birth.

mick.oleary · 03-07-2017 11:38PM

Syphonax wrote: »

Yes but her unborn child might have thunk different had it had the choice.
Have you not heard of basic humane rights?

It is more of a tadpole than a child and it cannot think.

Syphonax wrote: »

You are effectively saying its ok to commit a form of murder...

That is exactly what I am saying but I would not use the word murder because it has connotations that make it difficult to come to a conclusion that respects the rights of the woman.

ohnonotgmail · 03-07-2017 11:40PM

Syphonax wrote: »

Concrats, you have solved the mystery of abortion in then and are not saying anything, nothing.

Travelling for abortion doesnt solve the problem. tbe sooner the 8th is gone the better.

AnGaelach · 04-07-2017 12:07AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I heard this said a lot on this site during the marriage equality campaign. It actually wasnt true at all in that case. So I am very very doubtful about it in this case.

Very significant difference between gay marriage and abortion though. With gay marriage there was only 2 people involved, with this there's a life being extinguished. And the "I know someone who is gay and I think they should be allowed to marry" doesn't really play as well if you're saying "I know someone who had an abortion and I think we need more abortions".

If you want to conflate the two, be my guest, but you're walking into your own doom at the ballot box.

andekwarhola · 04-07-2017 12:13AM

gctest50 wrote: »

Sums it up in one photo :

" Not one fertile person "

http://twitter.com/earley/status/881145355789840385

I'm pro choice myself and would vote for repeal but I always cringe at this kind of selective signalling/back-slapping.

AnGaelach · 04-07-2017 12:20AM

FutureGuy wrote: »

Regardless whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, if you think there were 70,000 or that it wasn't predominately made up of older people who are now past having children, you are not living in the real world.

I found it hard to believe there was "70-80,000" and the Garda estimates of 10-20,000 seems much more realistic. There tends to be an overestimation by most organisers, whether it's water charges or pro-life marches. RTÉ seemingly gets attacked no matter which figures they choose.

Although I would like to see a comparison between the rallies. There seemed to be a magnitude more at the pro-life march than attended the pro-choice rally that happened a few months ago. With such a high turnout (as protests in Ireland go), I think the pro-life side has delivered a shock to the pro-choice lobby.

Even if the turnout wasn't 70-80,000, that's the figure being bandied about and is going to give the pro-life side enormous momentum several months out from the campaign proper.

RayM · 04-07-2017 12:32AM

AnGaelach wrote: »

And the "I know someone who is gay and I think they should be allowed to marry" doesn't really play as well if you're saying "I know someone who had an abortion and I think we need more abortions".

Another way of looking hypothetically at it is: "What if my sister or daughter gets pregnant in the future and decides to have an abortion?"

She's made her decision, nothing will change her mind. She is desperate to terminate the pregnancy. What do you do in those circumstances? Disown her? Support her? Maybe she can't afford to travel to the UK. Would you lend her the money for the abortion? Would it not be better for her mental and physical well-being to have the procedure safely and legally - and as early as possible - in Ireland?

hinault · 04-07-2017 12:38AM

FutureGuy wrote: »

Regardless whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, if you think there were 70,000 or that it wasn't predominately made up of older people who are now past having children, you are not living in the real world.

Presumably those "older people" that you refer to do have, or have had, children of their own.

AnGaelach · 04-07-2017 12:39AM

RayM wrote: »

Another way of looking hypothetically at it is: "What if my sister or daughter gets pregnant in the future and decides to have an abortion?"

Yeah, that doesn't play to the ears of the pro-life as you think it does...

RayM wrote: »

She's made her decision, nothing will change her mind. She is desperate to terminate the pregnancy. What do you do in those circumstances? Disown her? Support her? Maybe she can't afford to travel to the UK. Would you lend her the money for the abortion? Would it not be better for her mental and physical well-being to have the procedure safely and legally - and as early as possible - in Ireland?

Again, that's not as emotion-evoking as you seem to think it is. Simply not wanting a pregnancy wouldn't be grounds for me to help her, even if it was my (theoretical) daughter.

And I'm one of the people in favour of amending the Article to include foetal abnormalities/rape.

hinault · 04-07-2017 12:40AM

I attended the Pro Life rally.

RayM · 04-07-2017 12:45AM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Again, that's not as emotion-evoking as you seem to think it is. Simply not wanting a pregnancy wouldn't be grounds for me to help her, even if it was my (theoretical) daughter.

I don't know how any of us would react in that situation, but I find it hard to imagine even a stringent pro-life person being so hard that they would refuse to put their principles aside and help. I mean, even if she was utterly desperate? Even if the alternative was that she'd have to save up the money herself and have a later abortion in the UK?

Outlaw Pete · 04-07-2017 12:48AM

Ann_Landers wrote: »

And you called another poster long-winded? :eek:

This is something I actually said to nozz on another thread.... that as soon as anyone replies to his long posts with one of their own..... they are the ones condemned for being longwinded... never him.

Boards is well over 95% prochoicers though and so hardly surprising.

AnGaelach · 04-07-2017 12:49AM

RayM wrote: »

I don't know how any of us would react in that situation, but I find it hard to imagine even a stringent pro-life person being so hard that they would refuse to put their principles aside and help. I mean, even if she was utterly desperate? Even if the alternative was that she'd have to save up the money herself and have a later abortion in the UK?

Because the pro-life side see the action as murder. It's like asking "if your daughter was going to murder someone regardless of what you do, would you put aside your principles and help her murder someone?"

Again, this isn't anything like the gay marriage vote where most people didn't care if their sons or daughters married someone of the same sex. This involves the extinguishing of a life.

You don't just "put aside your principles" in that scenario, you're essentially asking people to break with their most deeply held-belief, not on the grounds of it being the least evil choice - but of it being the most expedient desire.

If you're relying upon "what if your daughter wants an abortion?" as the crux of your argument to convince people, I can't see it building much momentum.

Zubeneschamali · 04-07-2017 12:54AM

AnGaelach wrote: »

"if your daughter was going to murder someone regardless of what you do, would you put aside your principles and help her murder someone?"

Of course. I would, I'm her father.

I'm sure she'd be able to kill him, but I'd be better at the whole plastic sheet Dexter bog-hole thing.

But good for her for taking that first big step!

RayM · 04-07-2017 12:59AM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because the pro-life side see the action as murder. It's like asking "if your daughter was going to murder someone regardless of what you do, would you put aside your principles and help her murder someone?"

Again, this isn't anything like the gay marriage vote where most people didn't care if their sons or daughters married someone of the same sex. This involves the extinguishing of a life.

You don't just "put aside your principles" in that scenario, you're essentially asking people to break with their most deeply held-belief, not on the grounds of it being the least evil choice - but of it being the most expedient desire.

If you're relying upon "what if your daughter wants an abortion?" as the crux of your argument to convince people, I can't see it building much momentum.

Those who view it as "murder" are usually on the extreme end of the pro-life side, and nothing is likely to change their minds. They're the people who marched with statues of the Virgin Mary and waved their rosary beads around on Saturday. They're a minority within a minority. The vast majority of people have a rather more nuanced view of abortion (for instance, accepting it as perhaps a "necessary evil" in the cases of rape or fatal foetal abnormality). I think most people's principles become a lot more flexible when their own loved ones are involved.

MightyMandarin · 04-07-2017 01:02AM

andekwarhola wrote: »

I'm pro choice myself and would vote for repeal but I always cringe at this kind of selective signalling/back-slapping.

I'm on the opposite side of the debate personally, but this type of **** goes both ways aswell. I've heard pro-lifers say that any repeal people are all "lesbian/gay college yuppies who haven't a notion what they're on about" aswell.

Unfortunately the **** on both sides seems to be most visible at these rallies. Case and point is the statues of the Virgin Mary at the Pro-8th March and those stupid pink 'fanny hats' seen at the Repeal March.

The extreme elements of each side are the ones marching and shouting the loudest unfortunately, and nothing looks like it's going to change.

MightyMandarin · 04-07-2017 01:07AM

I'm just curious, is there any sort of "Amend the 8th Campaign" going?

Most people I talk to (who end up lying with the Repeal or Protect the 8th campaigns, once they decide which is worse: the status quo or abortion on demand?) and indeed the majority in the opinion polls seem to favour an amendment/re-definition of the 8th amendment as opposed to scrapping it altogether or keeping it as is.

To be honest, I feel alienated from the Pro-8th Campaign (especially when I see some of the **** going around on saturday like Crosses and Virgin Mary statues...) and I wouldn't be in favour of a repeal at all, so I'm kinda stuck in the middle and I imagine a lot of people feel the same.

Zubeneschamali · 04-07-2017 01:07AM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Case and point is the statues of the Virgin Mary at the Pro-8th March and those stupid pink 'fanny hats' seen at the Repeal March.

Those are Pussy hats - they even have cat ears.

And BVM imagery has a lot more baggage than a pussy hat, which is just a reaction to Mr. US President's "grab 'em by the pussy" remarks.

MightyMandarin · 04-07-2017 01:11AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Those are Pussy hats - they even have cat ears.

And BVM imagery has a lot more baggage than a pussy hat, which is just a reaction to Mr. US President's "grab 'em by the pussy" remarks.

It's not even just the hats; the whole dressing up in all-black, and constant anti-church, anti-catholic rhetoric just turns me off them entirely, the same way a lot of pro-life marchers shout "murderers" or "baby killers" at repeal protesters.

They're as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned.

04-07-2017 01:14AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Those are Pussy hats - they even have cat ears.

And BVM imagery has a lot more baggage than a pussy hat, which is just a reaction to Mr. US President's "grab 'em by the pussy" remarks.

I think his/ her point stands, though.

I'm about as pro-life as they come, but have been repeatedly slapped-down (ok, on Twitter, not real life) any time I suggest that we pro-choicers avoid taunting pro-lifers, and treat them with respect.

The inevitable gaggle of extremists will duly arrive on my timeline, and anyone else's who says the same thing, accusing us of 'tone-policing' women.

If even an alleged-SJW like myself is disillusioned and disaffected by the dominant pro-choice movement, I can only imagine how fed-up the middle-ground are.

AnGaelach · 04-07-2017 01:15AM

RayM wrote: »

Those who view it as "murder" are usually on the extreme end of the pro-life side, and nothing is likely to change their minds. They're the people who marched with statues of the Virgin Mary and waved their rosary beads around on Saturday. They're a minority within a minority. The vast majority of people have a rather more nuanced view of abortion (for instance, accepting it as perhaps a "necessary evil" in the cases of rape or fatal foetal abnormality). I think most people's principles become a lot more flexible when their own loved ones are involved.

That's quite simply untrue. Even my pro-repeal friend recognises it as murder, he's just falling to repeal as he believes it to be more prudent than leaving the Article in place.

Don't let that get in the way of your caricaturing though, I'm sure it will do you well in the coming campaign.

Zubeneschamali · 04-07-2017 01:17AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I suggest that we pro-choicers avoid taunting pro-lifers, and treat them with respect.

Aren't you the gentleman! Cucumber sandwich?

Did anybody here attend the Rally For Life/repeal the 8th marches in Dublin?

Comments