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.

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

1…3233353738…42

Comments

  • #1022
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,999 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    A hotel hosts an event.. But it doesn't mean it endorses the event?. Incoherence.
    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    These hotels are private companies....you know that. The buck stops with them.

    That is some pretty skewed logic.

    Have you any idea where all this would end if every single company providing a service only dealt with people of the same ideological position on every subject? Have you any clue what an appalling vista you're painting if you were to draw that scenario to it's natural conclusion? It's positively dystopian.

    When you say that you're content to see a company intimidated into refusing business you're saying you're happy to live in a society where people pay with their livelihoods for holding opinions. They also pay if they happen to work for a person who holds an unpopular opinion, even if that opinion is a belief in the freedom of speech, basic democratic principles and who doesn't believe in censorship. It's frankly a shocking perspective.


  • #1023
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    That is some pretty skewed logic.

    Have you any idea where all this would end if every single company providing a service only dealt with people of the same ideological position on every subject? Have you any clue what an appalling vista you're painting if you were to draw that scenario to it's natural conclusion? It's positively dystopian.

    When you say that you're content to see a company intimidated into refusing business you're saying you're happy to live in a society where people pay with their livelihoods for holding opinions. They also pay if they happen to work for a person who holds an unpopular opinion, even if that opinion is a belief in the freedom of speech, basic democratic principles and who doesn't believe in censorship. It's frankly a shocking perspective.

    What company was intimidated?


  • #1024
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    This weekend the Aisling hotel which canceled the pro life conference recently, is due to host a meeting by a Humanist group on the touchy subject of assisted suicide ( see screensave )

    The humanist group were willing pay their money to the hotel for use to rent a room to host their meeting & the hotel accepted their money , now just because a meeting on assisted suicide is being hosted at their hotel, doesn,t mean that the hotel endorses the humanist groups views, it just means they re renting out a room to a group who were willing to pay for use of the room , nothing more/nothing less .

    It's people sitting around discussing the issue, not spreading dangerous lies. Pro-life groups hold similar events in Ireland now that are not stopped by anyone. Comparing the assisted suicide event to the one that was cancelled is dishonest.


  • #1025
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    This weekend the Aisling hotel which canceled the pro life conference recently, is due to host a meeting by a Humanist group on the touchy subject of assisted suicide ( see screensave )

    The humanist group were willing pay their money to the hotel for use to rent a room to host their meeting & the hotel accepted their money , now just because a meeting on assisted suicide is being hosted at their hotel,  doesn,t mean that the hotel endorses the humanist groups views, it just means they re renting out a room to a group who were willing to pay for use of the room , nothing more/nothing less .

    It's people sitting around discussing the issue, not spreading dangerous lies. Pro-life groups hold similar events in Ireland now that are not stopped by anyone. Comparing the assisted suicide event to the one that was cancelled is dishonest.
    Its three pro life meetings after being canceled now, two more this week by ( Unbroken ) a group of rape victims + people conceived in rape telling their stories.

     The first meeting that was canceled on the other group ( [font=Georgia, serif]Human Life International )[/font] on about breast cancer & abortion, as I haven,t studied med- I have no idea if their claim is accurate or not, Id need to do my own research on that claim , but here,s an idea if they are telling lies regarding breast cancer like some people are saying would it not of been a good idea for someone on the opposing side to of gone to their meeting record what they say about breast cancer , & if its not accurate etc report them to the referendum commission ? the referendum commission will be sending out brochures in the coming months regarding the facts of the referendum , if the claims by  ( [font=Georgia, serif]Human Life International )[/font] are untrue then won,t the referendum commission include something debunking false claims in their information brochure they l be sending out to households prior to the referendum ?


  • #1026
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    From what I Interpret you appear to be arguing that people have a right not to be offended, I strongly disagree with such a view- we all hear something we mightn,t like or mightn,t agree with + mightn,t want to hear that can cause offence, but that,s life not everyone is gonna agree with you nor share your worldview, Im not saying someone should go out to cause offence to people on purpose, what I will defend is a persons right to say something even if it causes offence or even if its something that some people don,t want to hear, I ll defend his/her right to say it.

    A quote from your post.

    "" I ask, because you are always present to defend near-absolute freedom of speech as a position of ideological purity which (to me, anyway) comes over as the attitude of one who has never personally faced any consequences as a result of unrestricted free speech. ""

    Regarding the whole abortion debate, some might say that the people out campaigning for unrestricted access to abortion/abortion on demand won,t face any consequences as they re the ones who are alive,, they re not the ones who will be aborted, some might say its very easy for some people to be all for abortion on demand when you re not facing the consequence or situation of being aborted.

    429201.jpg

    That said unlike some certain people Im not trying to silence others I don,t like or don,t agree with- Im not trying to pressure venues to cancel pro choice meetings nor am I tearing down pro choice posters .

    Your opening line is already a complete misrepresentation of my post, so the rest of your response is not worth replying to.

    I very clearly was not talking about causing offence, I was talking about causing danger; when a speaker uses their platform to claim that, as in my example, 'gay people spread disease', it increases the risk that gay people in the community will be ostracized, or even attacked.

    When a speaker falsely claims that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, they are creating an entirely false fear in their audience - one which could cause damage to them. If a speaker claims that contraception does not work, the risk is that the audience will believe them, will not use any contraception and either become unexpectedly pregnant or contract any number of sexually transmitted diseases.

    That is not causing 'offence', that is causing serious, life-changing and possibly life-threatening consequences to your listeners.

    Freedom to Speak is not some immutable universal truth; it's a right which must be balanced with other rights, including that of the rights of others to live as safely and freely as possible.


  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Kind of surprising that someone from this background would be getting seriously involved in student politics in the first place...

    Her platform ironically didn't mention the pro life views. As of late she basically started making a load of pro life moves. There's this thing with fresher's guide but also was trying to limit any mention of repeal on campus. Free speech defenders should technically be delighted since she was in opposition to any mention of repeal..

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/ucdsu-president-defends-dropping-abortion-information-from-freshers-guide-1.3227623

    Basically went for the the role for pro life reasons, not for the students. Hijacking the role for something you didn't even have in your campaign promises is pretty dishonest and impeachment will go proper preceedings.


  • #1028
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    .
    Katie Ascough calling herself Katie Martin because daddy is Sean Ascough, director at Iona

    https://twitter.com/GoChaela/status/779744422070145024


  • #1029
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    and this :

    The absolute state of @RonanMullen expressing concern for rape victims when he worked for Desmond Connell back in the day.



    https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/913406806004772864


  • #1030
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,690 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    Its three pro life meetings after being canceled now, two more this week by ( Unbroken ) a group of rape victims + people conceived in rape telling their stories.

     The first meeting that was canceled on the other group ( [font=Georgia, serif]Human Life International )[/font] on about breast cancer & abortion, as I haven,t studied med- I have no idea if their claim is accurate or not, Id need to do my own research on that claim , but here,s an idea if they are telling lies regarding breast cancer like some people are saying would it not of been a good idea for someone on the opposing side to of gone to their meeting record what they say about breast cancer , & if its not accurate etc report them to the referendum commission ? the referendum commission will be sending out brochures in the coming months regarding the facts of the referendum , if the claims by  ( [font=Georgia, serif]Human Life International )[/font] are untrue then won,t the referendum commission include something debunking false claims in their information brochure they l be sending out to households prior to the referendum ?

    The unbroken group is almost as bad as the Human Life International group.

    They spread lies by saying women who have an abortion after a rape are more likely to commit suicide than if they had the baby which is the exact opposite of the truth, they also exist purely to pour shame onto rape victims who choose to have an abortion.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-el-salvador-suicide-teens/rape-abortion-ban-drives-pregnant-teens-to-suicide-in-el-salvador-idUSKCN0IW1YI20141112

    Look, if you are a rape victim, nobody is going to force you to have an abortion. People might suggest it, out of concern for your state of mind, but unless you surround yourself with utterly dispicable people, if you are a victim of a rape who decides to have the baby, most people will be supportive of that.

    On the other hand, if you are raped and you do not want to have that baby, these crowd of self righteous arseholes are labelling you as a selfish murderer who values her own 'choice' over the life of a 'baby'.

    Rape is a hugely traumatic event that can take years to emotionally recover from. Adding to that violation a forced pregnancy that will drag out the ordeal for another year at least is cruel and horrific.

    The woman Rebecca Kiessling has made a career out of the circumstances of her own conception. She never suffered a rape, her mother did, she is not a victim of a rape. If her mother had aborted her, she would never have existed to know she was aborted. There are an infinite number of circumstances where she would not have been born. If her mother hadn't been ovulating when she was raped, This woman also would not exist.

    You are surrounded every day by the 'ghosts' of an infinite number of potential humans that were never born. If Rebecca's mother had aborted her, she might have had a different baby with a partner of her choosing. By rebecca being born, she denied a potential other baby from being born. Just like by me being born, the baby that could have been born a month later never existed...

    It is a totally ridiculous argument to parade out 'abortion survivors' as arguments against abortion. Every one of us only exists due to a confluence of unlikely events that all had to happen exactly in sequence going back 3 billion years. It's pure emotional blackmail. Her entire argument is designed to make people feel guilty.

    It is enough for us to worry about actual people rather than giving 'rights' to potential persons

    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?"



  • #1031
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,642 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    Her platform ironically didn't mention the pro life views. As of late she basically started making a load of pro life moves. There's this thing with fresher's guide but also was trying to limit any mention of repeal on campus. Free speech defenders should technically be delighted since she was in opposition to any mention of repeal..

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/ucdsu-president-defends-dropping-abortion-information-from-freshers-guide-1.3227623

    Basically went for the the role for pro life reasons, not for the students. Hijacking the role for something you didn't even have in your campaign promises is pretty dishonest and impeachment will go proper preceedings.

    Well more than that she apparently pledged to 'facilitate' the union's pro-choice position when she was elected. Surely she was aware the rest of the union would be watching her like a hawk for any signs of backtracking on that pledge? If she was genuinely looking to use the presidency in some sort of Trotskyite entrtyist strategy to advance the pro-life cause...I find it bizarre that a clearly intelligent person would think she could pull that one off...


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,943 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    About Katie Ascough being impeached...
    “The UCDSU President not only censored information that we have been distributing for over twenty years, but did this under the guise of avoiding fines; despite the fact that the maximum fine we could have possibly received was less than the cost of reprinting the publication containing said information. The manner in which she did this also worries many students. The President overrode the other sabbatical officers’ collective stance, despite stating that she would “delegate,” and “facilitate” UCDSU’s stance on abortion. Many students who have signed this petition are fearful of whether more stances made by the other sabbatical officers, and UCD students as a whole, will be altered, or even overridden to assuage the UCDSU President.”

    She abused her position and attempts are being made to vote her out democratically.

    Source


  • #1033
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,146 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    That is some pretty skewed logic.

    Have you any idea where all this would end if every single company providing a service only dealt with people of the same ideological position on every subject? Have you any clue what an appalling vista you're painting if you were to draw that scenario to it's natural conclusion? It's positively dystopian.

    When you say that you're content to see a company intimidated into refusing business you're saying you're happy to live in a society where people pay with their livelihoods for holding opinions. They also pay if they happen to work for a person who holds an unpopular opinion, even if that opinion is a belief in the freedom of speech, basic democratic principles and who doesn't believe in censorship. It's frankly a shocking perspective.

    There's a line though. I've said i don't care if a prolife group holds a meeting. I do care if they're spreading lies and causing harm.

    You might have a daughter and say that she's allowed date whoever and 99% of the time that would be fine. Except for the 1% of the time she bring home a member of the hutch gang.

    People and companies have moral limits. Just because a company who's owner is christian does business with muslims doesn't mean they're ok doing business with ISIS.


  • #1034
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    gctest50 wrote: »
    and this :

    The absolute state of @RonanMullen expressing concern for rape victims when he worked for Desmond Connell back in the day.



    https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/913406806004772864
    What pisses me off about these groups is that they're trying to make it sound like pro-choice people will be going around forcing rape victims to have abortions, or ostracising children conceived through rape. Pro-choice means just that: that is a woman is made pregnant through rape that she will have the choice to continue with the pregnancy or not, and that she will receive the support she needs regardless of her decision.

    "Our laws should punish rapists, not babies" FFS, makes me sick on 2 counts: 1) it makes it sounds like the law mandates that raped women have abortions and 2) the penalty for rape in this country is woefully inadequate.

    You'll get more judgement from the anti-choice side for getting raped than from the pro-choice side for deciding to continue with the pregnancy, I'll wager.


  • #1035
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,146 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    kylith wrote: »
    "Our laws should punish rapists, not babies" FFS, makes me sick on 2 counts: 1) it makes it sounds like the law mandates that raped women have abortions and 2) the penalty for rape in this country is woefully inadequate.

    It also takes the woman, the victim, out of the equation. The rapist and foetus matter, the woman's not worth mentioning.

    I guess when you're trying to justify that stance it's better not to think of Miss Y. A rape victim, who was suicidal and was restrained and force fed until they could cut her open.
    I know there's a lot of hyperbole regarding the Handmaids tale at the moment (let's face it, we're nowhere near that level of oppression) but the Miss Y case definitely brings it to mind.


  • #1036
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Well more than that she apparently pledged to 'facilitate' the union's pro-choice position when she was elected. Surely she was aware the rest of the union would be watching her like a hawk for any signs of backtracking on that pledge? If she was genuinely looking to use the presidency in some sort of Trotskyite entrtyist strategy to advance the pro-life cause...I find it bizarre that a clearly intelligent person would think she could pull that one off...

    She also used to have a column for publication Alive! which is known for it's extremist views. Her sister has since taken over her column.


  • #1037
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,146 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    She also used to have a column for publication Alive! which is known for it's extremist views. Her sister has since taken over her column.

    If you go to the website there's a link on the main page to "Youth Forum" which is an article by katie

    http://www.alive.ie/the-youth-forum.html

    The article is called "You can be a couch potatoe or a leader" and no, it wasn't me that misspelled potato :)


  • #1038
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Hope I'm not breaking any rules in posting something from the Abortion thread in Atheism & Agnosticism. A poster wrote:
    The link states: An event hosted by Unbroken Ireland, a group which represents and advocates for those affected by pregnancy after rape, has had its booking cancelled after pro-abortion protesters threatened to demonstrate against it
    If this is correct it means that the hotel was informed that a protest against the event would take place (which is fair enough, and only polite to let the hotel know about it) and that that was why they declined to host the event, not that threats were made against the hotel itself or its staff.


  • #1039
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    kylith wrote: »
    What pisses me off about these groups is that they're trying to make it sound like pro-choice people will be going around forcing rape victims to have abortions, or ostracising children conceived through rape. Pro-choice means just that: that is a woman is made pregnant through rape that she will have the choice to continue with the pregnancy or not, and that she will receive the support she needs regardless of her decision.
    Indeed.
    429257.jpg

    Credit goes to a former boardsie/current lurker.


  • #1040
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,146 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    kylith wrote: »
    Hope I'm not breaking any rules in posting something from the Abortion thread in Atheism & Agnosticism. A poster wrote:

    If this is correct it means that the hotel was informed that a protest against the event would take place (which is fair enough, and only polite to let the hotel know about it) and that that was why they declined to host the event, not that threats were made against the hotel itself or its staff.

    Who informed them and who was organising the protest? Because I haven't seen anything about it in the FB groups I'm in. Pro life groups are saying that the staff were intimidated or threatened or that the hotel was told that there would be protests. I haven't seen anyone trying to organise a protest or threaten/intimidate anyone.


  • #1041
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Grayson wrote: »
    Who informed them and who was organising the protest? Because I haven't seen anything about it in the FB groups I'm in. Pro life groups are saying that the staff were intimidated or threatened or that the hotel was told that there would be protests. I haven't seen anyone trying to organise a protest or threaten/intimidate anyone.

    That, I do not know. None of the groups I subscribe to mentioned anything about it either. The poster in A&A simply said that they'd googled it and that's what came up on the link, which they did not provide. I think that 'threating to protest' and 'threatening staff' are poles apart though.


  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    You have to laugh at the sneering that is going at pro life groups when these people are just attempting to retort the non-stop sanctimonious pro-choice arguments. There's a reason these talks are riling certain fractions up and that's because they are exposing the crocodile tears.

    I'm in support of rape victims having the option to abort (in the first trimester, any stage for ffa) but the people dealing with these situations have always been sanctimoniously used by the prochoice side of the debate and the consequently by the religious fractions of the prolife side (which isn't as big as many would have you believe) but they don't really care all that much about these people otherwise calls for abortion down the years would have been focused on it being made legal for them and only them. If they had done that, then I feel abortion would have been available for rape and ffa long ago.

    The 2013 act made provisions with regards to risk of loss of life from physical illness, emergency and suicide and there was almost no reaction to this from the prochoice and that was very telling. I feel had rape victims and ffa pregnancies also been included as exemptions, the reaction would have been equally as muted. Reason being: those making the most noise have their eyes on a much different prize than the one they are pretending to.

    There's a lot of talk about how we need to stop exporting our problems to England and how we need to provide medical care for pregnant women seeking abortions and some even believe it should be free. Well, these people need to wake up as any healthy Irish women that is say 4, 5, 6 months pregnant and wishes to have the life of their healthy baby ended, will ALWAYS have to travel. Nothing will ever change that. "Medical procedures" like that will never be available in Ireland. Our abortion laws save lives. We will never be a UK or a Holland in that regard. No matter how much some would like us to be.

    Oh and the electorate will be paying very close attention to any pandering, double speak or signs that they are effectively being led up the garden path (see an example of that below) and if it's felt that they are, then I can absolutely see people erring on the side of caution and going with a No. Which would be a shame in my view as we for sure need to sort out our abortion laws so that the women (and girls) that need them, can avail of them.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOHgb3fwfA


  • #1043
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    I love it when people who consistently try to turn arguments in to a polarised black/white, left/right, us/them narrative get themselves tangled up and end up smearing the pro-choice side because it's "the left" while simultaneously calling themselves pro choice. :pac:


  • #1044
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,496 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    Is this still Ireland or are we just a giant American college campus now?


  • #1045
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    The Fake Sheikh wrote: »
    Is this still Ireland or are we just a giant American college campus now?

    What exactly is your point? President of Student Union abusing role and it backfires...


  • #1046
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    The 2013 act made provisions with regards to risk of loss of life from physical illness, emergency and suicide and there was almost no reaction to this from the prochoice and that was very telling.
    Yes, it was very telling. The 2013 act was a fudge to fill in the cracks in the constitution. Its aim was not to protect women or to improve women's rights. Simply to try and avoid cases that embarrassed Ireland. The pro-choice campaigns didn't support it, because it wasn't, and isn't good enough.

    We've still had womens' lives put in danger and the state attempting to force women to undergo medical procedures, even after the 2013 act came into force.

    So, yes, the silence from the pro-choice side about the 2013 was spot on; it's not good enough, not even if you support abortion in limited circumstances.
    I feel had rape victims and ffa pregnancies also been included as exemptions, the reaction would have been equally as muted.
    If rape & FFA had been included in the 2013 act, we wouldn't be having this conversation because the 8th amendment wouldn't exist. The 2013 act wouldn't exist. It would be an entirely different conversation.

    Whatifery is pointless here.
    Our abortion laws save lives.
    There is a long list of bereaved families and violated women who would disagree with you.
    We will never be a UK or a Holland in that regard. No matter how much some would like us to be.
    Yeah, you wouldn't have to look back very far to find people who declared with the same level of surity that same-sex marriage or transgender rights will never, ever happen in Ireland.


  • #1047
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,496 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    What exactly is your point? President of Student Union abusing role and it backfires...

    I wasn't even referring to that. Everything boils down to left/right alt-right/antifa levels these days.
    It seems people are taking notes on how things go across the Atlantic which is not good.

    Fake news/no platforming/propaganda
    If both sides could just piss off at this stage and let people vote when the time comes around, that would be great.


  • #1048
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    The Fake Sheikh wrote: »
    I wasn't even referring to that. Everything boils down to left/right alt-right/antifa levels these days.
    It seems people are taking notes on how things go across the Atlantic which is not good.

    That might be what happens when pro life groups operate from across the Atlantic....


  • #1049
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,496 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    That might be what happens when pro life groups operate from across the Atlantic....

    The other side are just as Americanised in their MO.


  • #1050
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    The Fake Sheikh wrote: »
    The other side are just as Americanised in their MO.

    They're still based in Ireland and far more transparent than pro life groups.


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,496 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    They're still based in Ireland and far more transparent than pro life groups.

    That has nothing to do with what I said.


Advertisement