nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

freshpopcorn

I heard a good bit about these online at the weekend. Did anybody on Boards attend either of these?
I think it was official the Rally for Life and the counter march was organised by the repeal side. I know in my local town their was a bus organised by the Rally for Life group. According to the net their was meant to have be a good turn out for the Rally for Life protest. This was discredited by repeal the 8th side but either side always tend to think they've a massive group and the other side is smaller.
From social media it appears to the same people commenting from both sides all the time in my experience with the typical comments getting all the likes. Outside of the internet/news articles I have never really heard many people on about it to be honest.
It will be a very interesting to see how a vote on this will go in my opinion it will all depend on what people are voting for. One thing I have noticed is repeal votes seem to be alienating the on the fence voters more so than the pro-life campaign.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Aren't you the gentleman! Cucumber sandwich?

I'm no gentleman, I'm a pragmatist.

The Marriage Equality Referendum was won with honey, not with piss and vinegar. I know this is a very different issue, but it's also a lot harder for covervatives to get on board with. Therefore, from a purely pragmatic, political strategy, the pro-choice movement needs to win the hearts as well as the minds of the middle ground. At the moment, all I see his taunting and ridiculing those who are not in agreement.

i couldn't care less what Biddy from Bally-go-backwards thinks about abortion. But I'd never be so stupid as to ridicule her into getting her vote (at least, not to her face).

RayM

AnGaelach wrote: »

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.

Even David Quinn and Breda O'Brien don't (publicly, at least) call it "murder".

Zubeneschamali

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The Marriage Equality Referendum was won with honey, not with piss and vinegar.

Nope, you just made that up.

In fact, there was a ****eload of rubbish about how gay people should tone it down and play nice if they wanted to win, and they (quite correctly) said bollocks to that.

njs030

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

Do you have proof of this claim?

Zubeneschamali

RayM wrote: »

Even David Quinn and Breda O'Brien don't (publicly, at least) call it "murder".

Murder is a most serious crime. Accusing people of crimes is defamation. They have more expensive legal advice than to accuse people of serious crimes when they know it isn't true.

AnGaelach

RayM wrote: »

Even David Quinn and Breda O'Brien don't (publicly, at least) call it "murder".

I forgot that they spoke with gravitas, representing all the pro-life leaning electorate...

As I said before, I'm giving you my experience of this issue.

[Deleted User]

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nope, you just made that up.

In fact, there was a ****eload of rubbish about how gay people should tone it down and play nice if they wanted to win, and they (quite correctly) said bollocks to that.

The Marriage Equality Referendum campaign was, hands down, the most positive, most progressive, most unifying of the 27 referendum campaigns that have been held in my lifetime.

You must not have been participating in the same campaign as I was. The Yes Equality side was remarkably respectful and gracious, even in the face of the most abject homophobia. This has been widely acknowledged as being key to its success, and the leaders of the Yes Equality campaign were contracted to advise the SNP in the context of Scottish Independence for exactly this reason.

RayM

AnGaelach wrote: »

I forgot that they spoke with gravitas, representing all the pro-life leaning electorate...

As I said before, I'm giving you my experience of this issue.

I wasn't suggesting that they speak with gravitas - quite the opposite - I was saying that even they don't call abortion murder.

Outlaw Pete

notjustsweet wrote: »

Do you have proof of this claim?

Yes.

1 in 20 posters who post on abortion threads post prochoice opinions.

AnGaelach

RayM wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that they speak with gravitas - quite the opposite - I was saying that even they don't call abortion murder.

You also don't have pro-choice speakers calling it a "clump of cells" in live interviews, must not be any one using that phrase then...

njs030

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes.

1 in 20 posters who post on abortion threads post prochoice opinions.

That's not statistical proof, it's your opinion.

Zubeneschamali

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You must not have been participating in the same campaign as I was. The Yes Equality side was remarkably respectful and gracious

Perhaps we are in parallel worlds: I seem to remember major newspapers giving the likes of John Waters space to bemoan how Political Correctness made it literally impossible to voice opposition to the SSM amendment.

These feckers will not thank you for taking the high road. Nor does tipping your hat to them convince anyone of anything. Kick 'em in the balls.

[Deleted User]

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes.

1 in 20 posters who post on abortion threads post prochoice opinions.

That's called self-selection bias.

There are a number of reasons why one side may be more vocal than the other. You can't assume that the posters is any one thread are a representative sample of the general public; for one reason, users of boards.ie might tend to predominantly attract one specific age cohort (perhaps 27 - 40), or those who respond to such threads may feel especially strongly about the rights of women, as opposed to the general population, whose more flexible (even indifferent) reaction may be far more conservative.

Almost by definition, those who don't particularly care about the rights of women, will be less likely to participate in a thread of this nature.

It's worth noting that we have data from properly-commissioned opinion polls, which show that a majority of the public want enhanced access to abortion (but not so-called 'abortion on demand')

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Kick 'em in the balls.

That's certainly a quaint referendum strategy.

Unfortunately, it's all too common amongst my fellow travellers in the Repeal movement. I certainly won't be participating in the campaign for this reason, but despite my skepticism, I wish the campaign all the best.

MightyMandarin

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

These feckers will not thank you for taking the high road. Nor does tipping your hat to them convince anyone of anything. Kick 'em in the balls.

The fact you call them 'feckers' just shows how little respect you have for them, and is exactly the type of attitude to polarise people even further.

Go ahead 'kick em in the balls' all you want; you're part of the problem in this referendum campaign, and with rhetoric like that you justify anyone from the other side talking bollocks about you.

Outlaw Pete

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There are a number of reasons why one side may be more vocal than the other.

I couldn't agree with you more but I was obviously referring to the vocal ones..... given that I was saying the reply was hardly surprising.

We know for example from the Repeal Poll that roughly 60% of Boardsies polled said they would vote to repeal given the choice and so yes, it absolutely appears that one side is more vocal than the other on these threads and that prolife boardsies don't post as much on abortion threads as prochice ones..... and I don't blame them tbh, as I know from my own experience (and watching how other prolifers are treated) that my (and their) posts get picked apart, twisted, ridiculed, mocked and held to a much higher standard than a prochoicer's posts would.

Hotblack Desiato

AnGaelach wrote: »

Very significant difference between gay marriage and abortion though. With gay marriage there was only 2 people involved

Yet the No side went on and on and on about kids for some reason :rolleyes: when the referendum didn't change the position with adoption, surrogacy etc. at all. People saw through it.

Hard to think of a red herring as big as that for a repeal the 8th vote. Any official anti-repeal campaign is unlikely to be stupid enough to bring up easily proven lies like 'abortion causes breast cancer'.

Ann_Landers

andekwarhola wrote: »

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

Me too.

Sorry if this sounds like whataboutery though but for any cause you can think of, there is a small minority of proponents who get up to crap like this. Pro-life, pro-choice, pro-guns, pro-necrophilia - anything you can think of. This isn't unique to any one campaign. A favourite of some pro-life supporters is to portray women who are pro-choice as ugly, bitter women who can't get a boyfriend and men who support pro-life as weak-willed, unmanly eunuchs. It's a crude way to try and dismiss their views, much like that pro-choice campaign tweet is also trying to do to the pro-life campaign.

It's really dishonest stuff, whatever the campaign and I always feel disappointed when a proponent of a cause I support resorts to this. There's no need for it. If you believe in the cause, there shouldn't be any need to resort to those kind of tactics.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The Marriage Equality Referendum campaign was, hands down, the most positive, most progressive, most unifying of the 27 referendum campaigns that have been held in my lifetime.

You must not have been participating in the same campaign as I was. The Yes Equality side was remarkably respectful and gracious, even in the face of the most abject homophobia. This has been widely acknowledged as being key to its success, and the leaders of the Yes Equality campaign were contracted to advise the SNP in the context of Scottish Independence for exactly this reason.

I don't know about this. I heard an fair amount of derogatory commentary towards Roscommon and its people in the aftermath of the results because the county marginally voted 'No'. And in the lead up, I certainly saw some 'Yes' campaigners being quite insulting towards anyone on the fence or a proclaimed 'No' that was quite bullying at times. I voted 'Yes' and was emphatic about it but that all made me uneasy at the time. The 'feelgood' stuff was often only towards anyone who was on-board with the 'Yes' vote.

Ann_Landers

AnGaelach wrote: »

There seemed to be a magnitude more at the pro-life march than attended the pro-choice rally that happened a few months ago.

You need to compare the pro-life march to the Repeal one that happened last September as that happened at the weekend too. That is the analogous one. The strike for repeal was a different thing altogether. A lot of people wouldn't want to take time off work to attend a march. I was at last September's march. It seems like the two marches were of similar size from comparing photos from the two events.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

I haven't read any Nozz posts but I simply am bemused as to why you would reference his/her long-windedness and then do the same? Just because someone writes a long-winded post doesn't mean the reply has to be just as waffly. Does nobody value succinctness?

I very much doubt 95% of boards users are pro-choice. Don't be such a victim!

[Deleted User]

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I couldn't agree with you more but I was obviously referring to the vocal ones..... given that I was saying the reply was hardly surprising.

We know for example from the Repeal Poll that roughly 60% of Boardsies polled said they would vote to repeal given the choice and so yes, it absolutely appears that one side is more vocal than the other on these threads and that prolife boardsies don't post as much on abortion threads as prochice ones..... and I don't blame them tbh, as I know from my own experience (and watching how other prolifers are treated) that my (and their) posts get picked apart, twisted, ridiculed, mocked and held to a much higher standard than a prochoicer's posts would.

Oh grow up.

Please don't for one moment assume, just because I am attempting to understand the warped viewpoint of the pro-life viewpoint, that I am in any way sympathetic to it.

I think the Repeal movement ought to be politically astute for its own gain, not because I believe in the putative legitimacy of the pro-life platform.

Ann_Landers wrote: »

... derogatory commentary towards Roscommon and its people in the aftermath of the results because the county marginally voted 'No'. And in the lead up, I certainly saw some 'Yes' campaigners being quite insulting towards anyone on the fence or a proclaimed 'No' that was quite bullying at times. I voted 'Yes' and was emphatic about it but that all made me uneasy at the time. The 'feelgood' stuff was often only towards anyone who was on-board with the 'Yes' vote.

Again, who cares?

It simply doesn't matter how Yes Equality campaigners behaved in the aftermath of the vote; to be quite frank, the derision heaped upon No voters was well deserved. I do not hide my contempt for those who opposed basic civil rights for the gay community, but I would never have said so on a doorstep during the campaign.

My point is not that it's wrong to feel an instinct to deride those who deny their fellow citizens basic civil rights, my point is simply a political fact: you do not deride them to their face.

Please don't confuse that with an attempt to afford these people equal legitimacy, nor that I hold some misguided belief that all opinions are equal.

These people are wrong. In fact, many of them are fools. But the aim is to win their hearts, not to lecture them.

Ann_Landers

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Again, who cares?

It simply doesn't matter how Yes Equality campaigners behaved in the aftermath of the vote

It wasn't just after the campaign, it was before also. The Roscommon stuff was after obviously but that wasn't the only time there was an ugly attitude towards anyone voting no or who wasn't sure. You said it was a peaceful, good-natured campaign and it often wasn't.

It personally matters to me that people put their point across in an articulate, classy manner. Anyone who strongly believe in their stance should be able to do this. I think that's the best way to persuade people and bring them around to your viewpoint. As you said, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I'm perplexed as to why you are now saying this doesn't matter?

A lot of the commentary on the 'Yes' side was quite insulting. I don't think that because it wasn't always said directly to people's faces that it doesn't count. After all, public commentary also influences people in their voting.

I'm not sure why your reply to me has such attitude. I'm simply pointing out that the campaign you recall isn't the same as the one I recall. Sorry to refute your point.

[Deleted User]

Ann_Landers wrote: »

As you said, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I'm perplexed as to why you are now saying this doesn't matter?

It doesn't matter after the vote.

I have no problem in stating, at this remove from the referendum, that those who fought for a No vote were largely homophobic.

Nobody with an ounce of intelligence would have said so during the referendum.

Some did say exactly that, and I suggest that these people had not an ounce of intelligence between them.

Ann_Landers

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It doesn't matter after the vote.

I have said in two posts so far that it was also before the vote. Not the Roscommon stuff but other stuff. Seriously, I've said it twice. Please read my posts correctly if you are going to reply to them.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Nobody with an ounce of intelligence would have said so during the referendum.

Some did say exactly that, and I suggest that these people had not an ounce of intelligence between them.

Thank you, this is what I was saying. It was not all the feelgoodery you have said it was. That's all I was saying.

freshpopcorn

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It doesn't matter after the vote.

I have no problem in stating, at this remove from the referendum, that those who fought for a No vote were largely homophobic.

Nobody with an ounce of intelligence would have said so during the referendum.

Some did say exactly that, and I suggest that these people had not an ounce of intelligence between them.

The people I knew who voted No were mainly old fashioned and religious in my experience. They'd never use homophobic language or be nasty they just believed in traditional marriage in a church. One person I met never knew it was possible to get married outside the church. IE a Civil marriage. The real homophobic voters I encountered tended to men and weren't overly religious.
I planned to do a bit campaigning for the marriage referendum but I didn't bother getting involved in anything official because I didn't really like the attitude of the canvasing. You were basically told to knock the door and say vote Yes because I said so. I found it a little disappointing. So, I just spoke to people who I knew instead who would have being unsure people and discussed their concerns and I won a few people around.

Annasopra

keano_afc wrote: »

Like they have in Canada, and are trying to push in the UK?

Who is trying to push that in the UK?

Annasopra

keano_afc wrote: »

Do you think the likes of Labour and PBP will be happy with anything other than abortion for any reason up to birth?

This is absolute and utter nonsense!

Annasopra

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I find it fairly hard to believe that the sunk costs of a ferry ticket would factor heavily in a woman's decision on whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

The irony is that they do. She feels more pressure to have an abortion when she has purchased a ticket. Whereas if it was free, safe and legal here she wouldnt have the same pressure.

keano_afc

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Who is trying to push that in the UK?

BPAS are vocal about ending restrictions on abortion:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/the-9-month-abortion-is-a-myth-british-women-must-be-allowed-to/

If they had their way, the likes of Sarah Catt and Natalie Towers would face no recrimination for killing their child.

ohnonotgmail

keano_afc wrote: »

BPAS are vocal about ending restrictions on abortion:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/the-9-month-abortion-is-a-myth-british-women-must-be-allowed-to/

If they had their way, the likes of Sarah Catt and Natalie Towers would face no recrimination for killing their child.

perhaps you should read the article before posting it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So completely decriminalising abortions wont lead to more late terminations.

Right so.