Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

1…2627293132…42

Comments

  • #842
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    I think it should be legal for mothers to kill newborns up until they are five weeks old.
    I know many will disagree with that but I don't see why.
    If you don't agree with it, then just don't do it yourself!

    #prochoicelogic

    You have said before not so long ago that you would support first trimester abortions for non-therapeutic reasons as well as therapeutic ones so outbursts such as the above on confusing when considered in that context. Are you pro-choice or aren't you? :confused:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100761748&postcount=597


  • #843
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,464 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Because even just thinking in pure financial terms, there are false economies, where it is counter productive to charge someone for something, if giving it to them for free saves money in the long term.

    If your broadband provider forced everyone to buy a router when they signed up to the service, they'd save the cost of the router, but it would cost them a fortune trying to troubleshoot all the problems when a customer tries to plug her phone cable into a 56k modem and wonders why her fiber broadband isn't working

    If you force a woman to have a baby because she can't afford to pay for an abortion, you're stuck paying the costs of delivering the baby, all the pre-natal care, all the post natal care, and then you're stuck with a woman having to raise a child that she didn't want for one of the variety of reasons each of which has long term financial costs...

    That's a "loss leader", which is not really relevant here.


  • #844
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,464 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    January wrote: »
    Maternity care is free to everyone though, abortion is maternity care, so should fall under that bracket.

    Strictly speaking, it's not really "maternity" though, more "anti-maternity" if anything.
    Grayson wrote: »
    Medical abortions are still safer than colonoscopies. And that's why it should be safe and legal.
    Oh I agree 100%, no argument there at all.
    Grayson wrote: »
    How about we just use existing structures like medical cards?
    That's a different discussion for another day, I'd suggest keeping medical cars out of the debate it's a divisive enough topic already :o
    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    A left-wing pro-lifer will be along in a minute to tell you you are facilitating the profiteering of the abortion industry. (Feel free to insert quotation marks where appropriate across that sentence)

    How is it profiteering, if the state saves money because the lower socioeconomic classes aren't breeding like rabbits costing us all money in the DSP bill, it's a win win!?


  • #845
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Regarding the hotel, I've been sent evidence of a post in a group with more than 40,000 people in it, asking people in the group to get involved in messaging the hotel's Facebook page:

    And I've posted the number of posts that appear on the hotels page. It's feck all.

    Strangely, on twitter it's the opposite. I checked one hotel and there was one pro choice message at the hotel. There was 7 pro life messages.
    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Do you honestly think the hotel canceled because they hadn't known what type of group they were dealing with until the protesters told them? Realistically, they canceled because they were afraid of protests and 'trouble' at the event. The protesters wouldn't even have to explicitly threaten this, even a hint of it would send any hotel running for the hills because, as tomwaterford points out, that stuff is catastrophic for business.

    There have been loads of pro life events in hotels in Ireland. Can you point to one that had a big protest outside?

    Also, all the facebook posts and news articles have pro lifers explicitly saying that the staff experienced threats and intimidation. In which case they're lying.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    To those who are defending pressuring the hotel into cancelling the event as "part of free speech", how would you feel about a group pressuring councils into banning certain parties from putting up posters at election time, or pressuring the companies who produce the posters into refusing to do so?

    How would you feel about the large printing companies agreeing, one by one, not to print posters from FF because of pressure from FG supporters? What if FG weren't able to have their Ard Fheis anywhere because FF supporters had successfully pressured every hotel with a large function room into not hosting them?

    Actually, I'm fine with it depending on the content that those groups have. I don't care if a pro life group has a meeting. That's fine. Have a march too. I'm not ok with a group that lies to vulnerable pregnant women who are looking for help. I'm not ok with them fundraising. I don't think they should be allowed do that. I think the people that do that should be charged and fined/jailed.
    I think any organisation that campaigns on an issue should be honest and not tell lies like abortion causes breast cancer, abortion makes women into child abusers.
    The same would go for a political party. Political parties in Ireland are censured if they lie but because these groups are non profits and charities they get away with this bullsh1t and that's ridiculous.


  • #846
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,692 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    kylith wrote: »
    Is paying €50 for a filling a punishment for not cleaning your teeth?

    It's a medical procedure and all medical procedures cost money, pills aren't free. As I said, I believe that it should be affordable, and all-but free on medical card, as all medications are.

    I'm fully aware that medical abortions are not pleasant affairs, thanks, nor is the morning after pill by all accounts, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of turnips, or medications.
    I misunderstood where you were coming from.

    Some people think that if a woman isn't charged for her abortion, she'll be using abortion as form of contraception, I was just pointing out that abortions are extremely unpleasant, and there is no need to have a financial payment as a disincentive for women to use other methods of contraception.

    In order to minimise pain for everyone, I think abortion should be free for everyone, because it would take financial considerations totally out of a decision for whether a woman/couple should have a baby, and allow people to make that decision early and with the lowest risk to the woman, and to have abortions happen at their earliest possible time, so that there is no possibility of causing any degree of pain or suffering to the foetus.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Advertisement
  • #847
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    You have said before not so long ago that you would support first trimester abortions for non-therapeutic reasons as well as therapeutic ones so outbursts such as the above on confusing when considered in that context. Are you pro-choice or aren't you? :confused:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100761748&postcount=597

    lol @ "outburst".

    Yes I have said the above and stand by it but the comments that I am replying to are not only referring purely to first trimester abortions, or indeed abortions carried out purely for therapeutic reasons. They are in fact sneering at the very notion that someone could be against abortion *at all* and determine that it's a rational response to say to such people that "Well, if you don't like abortions, don't have one".


  • #848
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Strictly speaking, it's not really "maternity" though, more "anti-maternity" if anything.

    In the vast majority of cases it's the exact same thing as medical management of a miscarriage or a D&C. Both of which are already done in maternity hospitals.


  • #849
    Zerbini Blewitt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 171 ✭✭Zerbini Blewitt


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    I think it should be legal for mothers to kill newborns up until they are five weeks old.
    I know many will disagree with that but I don't see why.
    If you don't agree with it, then just don't do it yourself!

    One can’t help noticing that your debating technique seems to be a combination of scattergun, hyperbole & gish gallop (def.)

    and at the same time yours is, arguably, the most coherent pro-life contribution on this site (or in Ireland).

    Says it all really ;)


  • #850
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,464 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    In the vast majority of cases it's the exact same thing as medical management of a miscarriage or a D&C. Both of which are already done in maternity hospitals.
    Maternity, from the latin Maternus, itself a derivation of the latin Mater, for mother.
    Someone having an abortion is by definition avoiding becoming a mother (excluding of course the later term/live abortions that result in birth of course)


  • #851
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,496 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    This thread has taken a turn down hypocrisy avenue.

    It was all about proof early on but if it suits your argument you can throw up a pic with no source and say whatever you want about it.


  • Advertisement
  • #852
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 43,500 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Stick with the hotel issue please folks. I know this is relevant but the central issue is the hotel cancelling this issue, not abortion in general.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #853
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 43,500 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    2 posts deleted. Back on topic please.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #854
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    lol @ "outburst".

    Yes I have said the above and stand by it but the comments that I am replying to are not only referring purely to first trimester abortions, or indeed abortions carried out purely for therapeutic reasons. They are in fact sneering at the very notion that someone could be against abortion *at all* and determine that it's a rational response to say to such people that "Well, if you don't like abortions, don't have one".

    Yeah, lollerz.

    You are pro-choice. Thanks for clarifying.


  • #855
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,725 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    By forcing people to pay you are still punishing the weakest members of society - imagine a woman in Direct Provision getting under €20 a week, how the hell is she supposed to pay? How is a 15 year old schoolgirl supposed to get the full cost within a limited timeframe? How is someone who finds out late after a sexual assault supposed to get the increased cost together before reaching a term limit?
    Personally, I'd happily donate to a charity that paid for abortions for anyone who couldn't afford it.
    That's seems like a very reasonable solution and a very civic minded stance. I think if the public are told they will be made pay for the abortions of others it would make up a lot of people's minds on the issue.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    ELM327 wrote: »
    Why don't we make everything free, by that logic?

    Because even just thinking in pure financial terms, there are false economies, where it is counter productive to charge someone for something, if giving it to them for free saves money in the long term.

    If your broadband provider forced everyone to buy a router when they signed up to the service, they'd save the cost of the router, but it would cost them a fortune trying to troubleshoot all the problems when a customer tries to plug her phone cable into a 56k modem and wonders why her fiber broadband isn't working

    If you force a woman to have a baby because she can't afford to pay for an abortion, you're stuck paying the costs of delivering the baby, all the pre-natal care, all the post natal care, and then you're stuck with a woman having to raise a child that she didn't want for one of the variety of reasons each of which has long term financial costs...

    Many, many, many women and men and families have raised happy, healthy kids that, while they were pregnant they did not want and could not afford.
    Why is it that some mothers who gave children up for adoption spend years trying to contact them?


    On your purely economic argument. If we are to honestly perform a cost benefit analysis you would have to take into consideration the potential of the child not aborted to become a valuable member of society. A tax payer contributing much more than the cost of saved children's allowance.
    The potential to become a much loved brother, sister, mother, father grandparent, friend, colleague, neighbour.

    How do we calculate the cost of this lost potential against the benefit of reduced maternity and child allowance costs?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #856
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,464 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    On your purely economic argument. If we are to honestly perform a cost benefit analysis you would have to take into consideration the potential of the child not aborted to become a valuable member of society. A tax payer contributing much more than the cost of saved children's allowance.
    The potential to become a much loved brother, sister, mother, father grandparent, friend, colleague, neighbour.

    How do we calculate the cost of this lost potential against the benefit of reduced maternity and child allowance costs?

    I said lower socioeconomic class, as these are the people who will receive free abortions. Generally like begat like so the children would be of the lifetime dole classes aswell so it could be a big cost saving.


  • #857
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Yeah, lollerz.

    You are pro-choice. Thanks for clarifying.

    Eh, okay :confused:


  • #858
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,725 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    ELM327 wrote: »
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    On your purely economic argument. If we are to honestly perform a cost benefit analysis you would have to take into consideration the potential of the child not aborted to become a valuable member of society. A tax payer contributing much more than the cost of saved children's allowance.
    The potential to become a much loved brother, sister, mother, father grandparent, friend, colleague, neighbour.

    How do we calculate the cost of this lost potential against the benefit of reduced maternity and child allowance costs?

    I said lower socioeconomic class, as these are the people who will receive free abortions. Generally like begat like so the children would be of the lifetime dole classes aswell so it could be a big cost saving.

    If abortion is free for all, as is being campaigned for we will be paying for the abortions of upper class professionals and life time social welfare recipients alike.
    I know Levitt and Dubner, in their book Freakonomics showed a correlation between the introduction of abortion and subsequent lower crime rates in the US.

    No one has ever, to my knowledge calculated the economic cost of abortion only the benefits.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #859
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,464 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    If abortion is free for all, as is being campaigned for we will be paying for the abortions of upper class professionals and life time social welfare recipients alike.
    I know Levitt and Dubner, in their book Freakonomics showed a correlation between the introduction of abortion and subsequent lower crime rates in the US.

    No one has ever, to my knowledge calculated the economic cost of abortion only the benefits.
    I am pro choice but am definitely against free abortions for anyone.
    This is the problem.

    We need to not only repeal the 8th but then we need also to announce, before the referendum, what legislation will be brought in.

    I would guess the recomendation of the citizen's assembly will be brought in, which is a decriminalising of abortions below 12 weeks. they didnt make any mention of payment.

    If the question asked in the referendum specifies that abortions will be free, I would considering voting against repealing the 8th


  • #860
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    ELM327 wrote: »
    If the question asked in the referendum specifies that abortions will be free, I would considering voting against repealing the 8th
    The amendment will say nothing about how much they cost, where you can get them, when you can get them and who can provide them. Because that would be stupid.

    The amendment will simply say that the Oireachtas may legislate for abortion giving all due to regard <insert some fluff about social order or natural rights>.

    The cost of an abortion will be determined by regulation and market forces and the state paying for them is a matter of decision for the Depts. of Health and Social Protection.

    The only question that will be on the table for the population is whether the Dail should have the power to legalise (or indeed criminalise) abortion. Everything else is a what-if scenario that's ultimately irrelevant.


  • #861
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,725 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Akrasia wrote: »
    kylith wrote: »
    I disagree, I don't think it should be free. Affordable, yes, and subsidised if necessary, but not free.

    Because there needs to be a cost to punish the woman for getting an abortion?

    There is a cost by the way, by all accounts, even medical abortions are extremely unpleasant and cause bleeding, cramping, nausea, weakness, dizziness, fever, high heart rate and pelvic pain.

    If you gave a man a choice between paying a 50 quid fine, or getting a really hard kick in the testicles, a lot of people would choose to pay the fine, and even if they chose the kick in the balls, it would be just as much of a dis-incentive get that fine again in future.

    Nobody wants to punish people. But for a campaign declaring my body my choice we could expect them to add my money.

    For something that is so unpleasant it seems odd that in 2016 alone, 40% of those having abortions have had at least one before and 50 women each had 8 abortions. Those are the figures in the U.K. for 2016 alone.

    So if the figure of 40% in one year are having a second abortion. Multiple abortions seems to be the norm.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • #862
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Grayson wrote: »
    And I've posted the number of posts that appear on the hotels page. It's feck all.

    You do realise that Facebook has this wonderful feature where you can directly and privately message a business, right?
    Strangely, on twitter it's the opposite. I checked one hotel and there was one pro choice message at the hotel. There was 7 pro life messages.

    See above. Twitter has a similar feature.
    Actually, I'm fine with it depending on the content that those groups have. I don't care if a pro life group has a meeting. That's fine. Have a march too. I'm not ok with a group that lies to vulnerable pregnant women who are looking for help. I'm not ok with them fundraising. I don't think they should be allowed do that. I think the people that do that should be charged and fined/jailed.

    First of all, with what?

    Second of all, just to be clear, are you suggesting that the women due to speak at this event are lying when they say that they got pregnant as a result of rape and decided not to terminate? If so, have you any evidence of this?
    I think any organisation that campaigns on an issue should be honest and not tell lies like abortion causes breast cancer, abortion makes women into child abusers.

    This we can agree on. None of that has anything to do with the event in question.
    The same would go for a political party. Political parties in Ireland are censured if they lie but because these groups are non profits and charities they get away with this bullsh1t and that's ridiculous.

    LOL. Political parties in Ireland are censured if they lie? You've GOT to be kidding me. Really. Want a list of broken promises and outright betrayals of election manifestoes by literally every major party in this country? It could take me hours and hours to type it up, but if you honestly believe that political parties here face censure when they lie (citation needed?!) then I'd be willing to put in that time and effort...


  • #863
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,645 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    ELM327 wrote: »

    I would guess the recomendation of the citizen's assembly will be brought in, which is a decriminalising of abortions below 12 weeks

    Not looking like it will be that liberal:
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fg-ministers-believe-only-restrictive-abortion-law-will-pass-1.3236162


  • #864
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,464 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    seamus wrote: »
    The amendment will say nothing about how much they cost, where you can get them, when you can get them and who can provide them. Because that would be stupid.

    The amendment will simply say that the Oireachtas may legislate for abortion giving all due to regard <insert some fluff about social order or natural rights>.

    The cost of an abortion will be determined by regulation and market forces and the state paying for them is a matter of decision for the Depts. of Health and Social Protection.

    The only question that will be on the table for the population is whether the Dail should have the power to legalise (or indeed criminalise) abortion. Everything else is a what-if scenario that's ultimately irrelevant.
    If the referendum is passed there will be no 8th amendment.
    It will be repealed.

    What is left then is to legislate in the Oireachtas for abortion. We need, before the referendum, a passed bill that "if the referendum passed" this is the new legal status.


  • #865
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,464 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Not looking like it will be that liberal:
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fg-ministers-believe-only-restrictive-abortion-law-will-pass-1.3236162
    There's too much " believe

    "in the article for it to be relevant.


  • #866
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    ELM327 wrote: »
    If the referendum is passed there will be no 8th amendment.
    It will be repealed.

    What is left then is to legislate in the Oireachtas for abortion. We need, before the referendum, a passed bill that "if the referendum passed" this is the new legal status.

    I still reckon it wouldn't reference cost.


  • #867
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,971 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    ELM327 wrote: »
    If the referendum is passed there will be no 8th amendment.
    It will be repealed.

    What is left then is to legislate in the Oireachtas for abortion. We need, before the referendum, a passed bill that "if the referendum passed" this is the new legal status.
    2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act already exists.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Life_During_Pregnancy_Act_2013


  • #868
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,464 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    I still reckon it wouldn't reference cost.
    If it doesn't reference cost in the legislation, would it then be not free (ie chargeable) by default?
    osarusan wrote: »
    2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act already exists.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Life_During_Pregnancy_Act_2013
    yes but that is not what the citizens assembly suggested, nor is it abortion on request.

    PS: Generally using wikipedia as a source is to invite derision towards the point you are trying to make.


  • #869
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    ELM327 wrote: »
    If the referendum is passed there will be no 8th amendment.
    It will be repealed.
    It'll be replaced. Because it has to be.

    If the 8th is repealed, there is a still a constitutional question over whether abortion can be legalised. In fact, repealing the 8th and not replacing it could make us more restrictive on abortion.

    It has to be replaced with something that explicitly empowers the Dail to create legislation.
    What is left then is to legislate in the Oireachtas for abortion. We need, before the referendum, a passed bill that "if the referendum passed" this is the new legal status.
    Agreed.

    But at the end of the day, that's just for people's surity more than anything. The law can and will be changed without any further referendum.

    They will likely create draft legislation which will not change the law on abortion at all, with a view to changing it again once the dust has settled.
    ELM327 wrote: »
    If it doesn't reference cost in the legislation, would it then be not free (ie chargeable) by default?
    No?


  • #870
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,464 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    seamus wrote: »
    It'll be replaced. Because it has to be.

    If the 8th is repealed, there is a still a constitutional question over whether abortion can be legalised. In fact, repealing the 8th and not replacing it could make us more restrictive on abortion.

    It has to be replaced with something that explicitly empowers the Dail to create legislation.

    Agreed.

    But at the end of the day, that's just for people's surity more than anything. The law can and will be changed without any further referendum.

    They will likely create draft legislation which will not change the law on abortion at all, with a view to changing it again once the dust has settled.

    That's a good point. For clarity the amendment should be replaced with a statement empowering the houses of the oireachtas to legislate. That should be the question posed in the referendum. "To repeal the 8th and replace it with xxx"


  • Advertisement
  • #871
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    You do realise that Facebook has this wonderful feature where you can directly and privately message a business, right?



    See above. Twitter has a similar feature.

    And the post from the pro life group that was posted here said post on their page, not message. That's why i explicitly said posts on their page. Also, there's no evidence that they received any messages or threats or any type of intimidation. There's zero evidence that they were harassed which is also asserted.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Second of all, just to be clear, are you suggesting that the women due to speak at this event are lying when they say that they got pregnant as a result of rape and decided not to terminate? If so, have you any evidence of this?

    I said that these groups lie. I never said that those women were lying in their assertion that they were raped. If you can point out where i said that, go ahead. The group that were supposed to be in the ashling hotel do that. The members of that group have lied to vulnerable women. This has been shown earlier in the thread. As for the ones in the spencer/morgan, many of the organisers are in youth defense and the organisation wants to force women who are raped to have their rapists baby.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    This we can agree on. None of that has anything to do with the event in question.

    The group that were going to speak in the Aisling hotel have said this. they have told women that women who have abortions are more likely to get breast cancer and that women who have abortions but carry another pregnancy to term are more likely to be abusers. So yes, it is relevant. Why would a hotel want to host an organisation like that?
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    LOL. Political parties in Ireland are censured if they lie? You've GOT to be kidding me. Really. Want a list of broken promises and outright betrayals of election manifestoes by literally every major party in this country? It could take me hours and hours to type it up, but if you honestly believe that political parties here face censure when they lie (citation needed?!) then I'd be willing to put in that time and effort...

    During elections and referendums parties can be censured if they lie. If they just make stuff up they face consequences. They can make campaign promises but that's not the same. They can't tell knowing falsehoods. The commission will also issue clarifying statements.


Advertisement