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

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

1…168169170172174

Comments

  • #5132
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #5133
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    You don't seem to have moved your obsession at all.


  • #5134
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    a) we're dealing with page 130 of the exit poll breakdown. 33% (margin or error corrected) strongly to very very very strongly in favour of aor12. 66% somewhat in favour to dead against aor12.

    Firstly you're on the wrong page (in more ways than one), abortion on request stats start on page 131, which for those who don't have a copy to hand I've pasted below. It clearly states 52% agree with abortion on request up to 12 weeks, 39% disagree and the remainder are either undecided or don't know. This has already been dealt with by a previous poster here. These statistics do nothing to support any of your assertions, quite the reverse in fact.

    452709.JPG

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #5135
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    For if they could set the parameters to reflect the view of the people, but choose instead to limit the people so as to get their own agenda in, what would you think of that, as a democrat?

    The way to think of bundling something which the electorate don't want (aor12) with something they do want (liberalization of abortion) is to consider "bloatware"

    "unwanted software included on a new computer or mobile device by the manufacturer."


  • #5136
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Firstly you're on the wrong page (in more ways than one), abortion on request stats start on page 131,

    My apols

    It clearly states 52% agree with abortion on request up to 12 weeks

    The only people "over the line" on aor12 are the people who strongly agree (35%). Everyone else is partially over the line to greater or lesser degree - or dead against.

    As pointed out earlier, a democracy isn't served when only 35% of the voters have their wants arrive over an acceptable threshold (even if some would have preferred more liberalization)

    You know the solution: de-liberalize the proposal until to reach a more representative figure. Would you like to deal with that?


  • Advertisement
  • #5137
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The only people "over the line" on aor12 are the people who strongly agree. Everyone else is partially over the line to greater or lesser degree - or dead against.

    Even if you eliminate the slightly agree, neither agree nor disagree, and slightly disagree, you still have far more people in favour of abortion on request than against it. The exit polls reflect the vote in this regard, which is of course is what you'd expect given that everyone who voted in this referendum was made well aware that a yes vote would in all probability lead to availability of abortion on request in 12 weeks. Your assertion that the people of this country do not want this is entirely specious.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #5138
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Even if you eliminate the slightly agree, neither agree nor disagree, and slightly disagree, you still have far more people in favour of abortion on request than against it.

    The question is democracy. You don't get democracy by simply eliminating the desires of a segment of the population.

    The argument is presented: 65% of people aren't (to greater or lesser degree), getting what they want.

    There is no suggestion that up to 12 weeks be dumped - for that would only give strongly disagree what they want. So where is the middle ground, which see's something other than 35% of the population getting what they want?

    What do you think a democratic number would be? 66% getting what they want? 50.1%?

    Forget the overall landslide. Forget "people knew what they were going to get". We have an accurate insight into what people want.


  • #5139
    railer201
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 968 ✭✭✭railer201


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The question is democracy. You don't get democracy by simply eliminating the desires of a segment of the population.

    The argument is presented: 65% of people aren't (to greater or lesser degree), getting what they want.

    There is no suggestion that aor12 be dumped - for that would only give strongly disagree what they want. So where is the middle ground, which see's something other than 35% of the population getting what they want?

    What do you think a democratic number would be? 66% getting what they want?

    Forget the overall landslide. Forget "people knew what they were going to get". We have an accurate insight into what people want.

    Lobby your TD's then, that's where it's at right now and hey guess what ? - they are elected via proportional representation - so there you go - representative democracy - it couldn't be fairer. :)


  • #5140
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You don't get democracy by simply eliminating the desires of a segment of the population.

    You do if that segment of the population say that they don't strong feelings about the issue one way or the other. Alternatively, put those somewhat in favour with the in favour side, those somewhat not in favour with the against side, and divide the don't knows down the middle. Whatever way you slice it or dice it the result is largely the same and in accordance with the vote results. You argument seems little more than a rather bitter display of confirmation bias. If the figures were reversed and someone on the yes side was to put forward the arguments you're coming up with, are you honestly suggesting you'd entertain them?

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #5141
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The question is democracy. You don't get democracy by simply eliminating the desires of a segment of the population.

    The argument is presented: 65% of people aren't (to greater or lesser degree), getting what they want.

    There is no suggestion that up to 12 weeks be dumped - for that would only give strongly disagree what they want. So where is the middle ground, which see's something other than 35% of the population getting what they want?

    What do you think a democratic number would be? 66% getting what they want? 50.1%?

    Forget the overall landslide. Forget "people knew what they were going to get". We have an accurate insight into what people want.

    Where do you get this math that 65% of people aren’t getting what they want? 66% voted for repeal. 52% in uncoupled exit polling said they were okay with AOR12, while another 39% said they were not. I’m not seeing where you get the funny math except where you say

    “
    a) we're dealing with page 130 of the exit poll breakdown. 33% (margin or error corrected) strongly to very very very strongly in favour of aor12. 66% somewhat in favour to dead against aor12.”

    Where you bizarrely lump together those who are still in favor somewhat with those who are flatly opposed to it. How does that figure help this discussion at all? If you’re somewhat in favor, you’re more in favor of it than against. For someone who shouts from the rooftops about principled democracy you sure do throw your own take on it under the bus when it suits you.

    Never mind that there isn’t even a bill that has been proposed yet. The referendum hasn’t even been certified yet as it still has petitions outstanding which will get preliminary hearing on Monday. The way you’ve been going on about attacks on Democracy you’d swear they already signed AOR12 into law in the dead of night a week ago. It’s good to see you taking such an interest in civics though, it will exemplify for you how it works.


  • Advertisement
  • #5142
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    You do if that segment of the population say that they don't strong feelings about the issue one way or the other.

    The poll question represents a folk on a sliding scale in support for aor12. I mean, you don't take those "strongly disagreeing" with aor12 as disagreeing strongly because they actually wanted a more liberal abortion regieme. Do you?

    Because it's a sliding scale, they are further from strongly agree than somewhat agree.







    Alternatively, put those somewhat in favour with the in favour side, those somewhat not in favour with the against side, and divide the don't knows down the middle. Whatever way you slice it or dice it the result is largely the same and in accordance with the vote results.

    My argument is that 35% (more like 32% once margin of error corrected) get what they want to. And the rest don't get what they want - to greater or lesser degree. There is no dicing with that, not when you're looking at 68%

    Your deciding to delete sections wholesale, or force viewpoints into sections that don't represent their views doesn't stack up. The point of democracy is that views find expression. Suitably weighted of course

    Spare all the motivational stuff and what I wouldn't do if the positions were reversed. That just masks the fact that you're dicing and slicing yourself in undemocratic ways. The debate is democracy served or not.


    So: if the aor12 had been originally presented in a somewhat less liberal way, do you suppose % strongly agree would increase?


  • #5143
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,151 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The poll question represents a folk on a sliding scale in support for aor12. I mean, you don't take those "strongly disagreeing" with aor12 as disagreeing strongly because they actually wanted a more liberal abortion regieme. Do you?

    Because it's a sliding scale, they are further from strongly agree than somewhat agree.


    My argument is that 35% (more like 33% once margin of error corrected) get what they want. And the rest don't get what they want - to greater or lesser degree. There is no dicing with that.

    Your deciding to delete sections wholesale, or force viewpoints into sections that don't represent their views doesn't stack up. The point of democracy is that views find expression. Suitably weighted of course

    Spare all the motivational stuff and what I wouldn't do if the positions were reversed. That just masks the fact that you're dicing and slicing yourself in undemocratic ways. The debate is democracy served or not.


    So: if the aor12 had been originally presented in a somewhat less liberal way, do you suppose % strongly agree would increase?


    How did you establish that the 17% that somewhat agree don't fall in with the 35% as "getting what they want"? Their response indicates it's preferable that aor12 is available rather than not, i.e. their response was positive towards aor12.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5144
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,008 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    So as I understand it (and I apologise if I've been slow on the uptake but it's all a bit strange conceptually to me) perhaps we can get 99% of people to agree that a tiny step is necessary, 95% of people to agree that two steps would be a good idea, 80% who are comfortable with going a good bit further, 66% who are happy to kick the gates down.............etc, you get the jist -

    What you're saying is that in the above situation the clear winner is the tiny step as 99% of the people agreed on that? That's just seems a recipe for never actually doing anything much, the slowest progress possible. I'm not even sure it counts as democracy, some mad version of it perhaps.


  • #5145
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    What you're saying is that in the above situation the clear winner is the tiny step as 99% of the people agreed on that? That's just seems a recipe for never actually doing anything much, the slowest progress possible. I'm not even sure it counts as democracy, some mad version of it perhaps.

    Work it the other way. That 1% strongly agree is sufficient for change. Mad. Then 2%, then 3%. All mad.

    You arrive at 33% and the balance for change is achieved. And that's okay?


    Remember too, that the 52/48 split nominally for aor12 doesn't take into account the margin of error - which was about 3% too liberal. Would you be happy with a nominal 51/49 split against aor12 means the whole idea is junked. Not modified, not softened - junked.

    Hardly. So why ought that work the other way?


  • #5146
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    My argument is that 35% (more like 32% once margin of error corrected) get what they want to. And the rest don't get what they want - to greater or lesser degree. There is no dicing with that, not when you're looking at 68%

    Rubbish. 35% get what they definitely want, 17% get what they somewhat want, 8% either don't know what they want or don't care, 9% get something they somewhat don't want and 29% get something they definitely don't want. It's not a sliding scale, it is very rough approximation of one using six discrete positions. The result still represents the most reasonable consensus of the preference of the majority of the population, which is what a democracy aspires to achieve, and has clearly succeeded in doing so in this case. This is considerably better than what preceded it which was clearly objectionable to the majority.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #5147
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Work it the other way. That 1% strongly agree is sufficient for change. Mad. Then 2%, then 3%. All mad.

    You arrive at 33% and the balance for change is achieved. And that's okay?


    Remember too, that the 52/48 split nominally for aor12 doesn't take into account the margin of error - which was about 3% too liberal. Would you be happy with a nominal 51/49 split against aor12 means the whole idea is junked. Not modified, not softened - junked.

    Hardly. So why ought that work the other way?

    Shot yourself there. If we wouldn’t listen to 33% why should we obey 37% who don’t support any legislation?


  • #5148
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Delirium wrote: »
    How did you establish that the 17% that somewhat agree don't fall in with the 35% as "getting what they want"? Their response indicates it's preferable that aor12 is available rather than not, i.e. their response was positive towards aor12.

    Not positive enough - otherwise they'd have bought in fully. Preferable if black/white. But would prefer something else if given the option.

    You're very first past the post in all this aren't you!

    Let's add some preferences - adjusting the proposal to the place where each category can get exactly what they want (forget the lack of practicality for a mo)

    Strong agree - 12 weeks
    Somewhat agree prefer 9 weeks
    Neutral prefer 6 weeks
    Somewhat disagree prefer 3 weeks
    Strongly disagree prefer 0 weeks

    Why would a democracy decide on 12 weeks?


  • #5149
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Overheal wrote: »
    Shot yourself there. If we wouldn’t listen to 33% why should we obey 37% who don’t support any legislation?

    You listen to both and represent both. Compromise, it's called in the trade.


  • #5150
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,395 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You listen to both and represent both. Compromise, it's called in the trade.

    This isn't a trade though. Supposedly prolife's objection to abortion is that it is murder. And now you're telling us you'd actually be ok with a little bit of murder? Why wasn't that ever on the cards before you lost? Were you lying all that time when the official prolife line was that no compromise with killing was possible?

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #5151
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Not positive enough - otherwise they'd have bought in fully. Preferable if black/white. But would prefer something else if given the option.

    You're very first past the post in all this aren't you!

    Let's add some preferences - adjusting the proposal to the place where each category can get exactly what they want (forget the lack of practicality for a mo)

    Strong agree - 12 weeks
    Somewhat agree prefer 9 weeks
    Neutral prefer 6 weeks
    Somewhat disagree prefer 3 weeks
    Strongly disagree prefer 0 weeks

    Why would a democracy decide on 12 weeks?

    Where'd you get the strong agree 12 weeks from? I'd suggest the strong agree position would more likely be 'as soon as possible and as late as necessary'. The democracy selected 12 weeks because 12 weeks was what was discussed at length and as a result 12 weeks was the understanding of probable legislation that the people of the country took with them to the polling booths.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • Advertisement
  • #5152
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,151 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Not positive enough - otherwise they'd have bought in fully. Preferable if black/white. But would prefer something else if given the option.

    You're very first past the post in all this aren't you!

    Let's add some preferences - adjusting the proposal to the place where each category can get exactly what they want (forget the lack of practicality for a mo)

    Strong agree - 12 weeks
    Somewhat agree prefer 9 weeks
    Neutral prefer 6 weeks
    Somewhat disagree prefer 3 weeks
    Strongly disagree prefer 0 weeks

    Why would a democracy decide on 12 weeks?
    Where was it established that somewhat agree are looking for a small window for aor?

    In the citizens assembly, there was an equal amount that wanted later than 12 weeks so wondering why that's not a consideration.?

    It's also funny that you're saying that black and white is preferable while saying an 'agree is only 'agree' if it's 'strongly agree'.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5153
    railer201
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 968 ✭✭✭railer201


    smacl wrote: »
    Where'd you get the strong agree 12 weeks from? I'd suggest the strong agree position would more likely be 'as soon as possible and as late as necessary'. The democracy selected 12 weeks because 12 weeks was what was discussed at length and as a result 12 weeks was the understanding of probable legislation that the people of the country took with them to the polling booths.

    .....which led to the 2 to 1 landslide for YES, just a gentle reminder to those who are now endeavouring to spin the result.


  • #5154
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You listen to both and represent both. Compromise, it's called in the trade.

    Yes… this is why I spoke last week about them just pandering to such people by making an 11 week abortion on demand. Others today have mentioned an eight week abortion on demand

    Either way all of your kicking and screaming is entirely pedantic at this point. I struggle to understand why you are stomping your feet so loud, acting as if the legislature has gone ahead and passed 12 weeks citing a television poll as it’s evidence of mandate. Your tantrum is entirely unhinged from the fact that thus far this government has gone to great and expensive lengths to try and gauge the will of the people going as far as to create the citizens assembly and perform referenda and have national debates on the issue and preview potential legislation - On what grounds do you think they’re going to just stop cold at a television exit poll and say “OK yeah that’s it right there” and just shove in abortion on demand to 12 weeks without any further pulling or public debate? on what grounds do you think they’re going to just stop cold at a television exit Paul and say “OK yeah that’s it right there“ and just shove in abortion on demand 12 weeks without any further pulling or public debate ! Why would the government be willing to waste everybody’s time passing a piece of legislation with the potential to be so controversial that the next government will just repeal and replace it within two years ? Why do you suppose there will be no further public discussion or debate on the 12 week matter ??

    Your entire hissy fit is implicitly centered around this conspiracy theory that they will do nothing else in the democratic process to gauge what degree of legislation the country is now going to be willing to except now that the referendum is on its way to being certified What is your proof for that ??


  • #5155
    Achasanai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 730 ✭✭✭Achasanai


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Not positive enough - otherwise they'd have bought in fully. Preferable if black/white. But would prefer something else if given the option.


    You have no idea the nuances in the poll (this is a good reason to not rely on exit polls to decide on legislation: that this needs to be said over and over again is embarrassing for those on the No side). I know people who voted Yes, but were absolutely against the 12 weeks. However, they realised that in cases of abortion for rape and incest (which they supported) this period was necessary.



    Regardless, we should vote on the actual election result,and not an opinion poll. This should go without saying, but I am quite frankly amazed at how people on the No side are desperately trying to spin a landslide result.


    Out of interest, you spoke about compromise and representing those who voted No. If the result a landslide for No, how would you suggest the Yes side would be looked after following the referendum?


  • #5156
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    volchitsa wrote: »
    This isn't a trade though.

    Democracy is a trade. No one gets fully what they want - except those at the middle point.


    Supposedly prolife's objection to abortion is that it is murder. And now you're telling us you'd actually be ok with a little bit of murder? Why wasn't that ever on the cards before you lost? Were you lying all that time when the official prolife line was that no compromise with killing was possible?

    It wasn't on the cards because a compromise position wasn't put to the people. Remember?


  • #5157
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,151 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Democracy is a trade. No one gets fully what they want - except those at the middle point.

    It wasn't on the cards because a compromise position wasn't put to the people. Remember?


    What form would that compromise position take on voting day?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5158
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Where'd you get the strong agree 12 weeks from? I'd suggest the strong agree position would more likely be 'as soon as possible and as late as necessary'.

    Strongly agree will include those, just as strongly disagree will include those who would want a total ban on abortion and those who would be okay with difficult cases. The question looks only at aor12. Strongly agree might want more than aor12. But will also include those happy with aor12
    The democracy selected 12 weeks because 12 weeks was what was discussed at length and as a result 12 weeks was the understanding of probable legislation that the people of the country took with them to the polling booths.

    Democracy choos repeal and legislate. No vote was taken on the contents. A poll was though. And gave the result: 66% not getting what they want


  • #5159
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Delirium wrote: »
    Where was it established that somewhat agree are looking for a small window for aor?

    It wasnt. It was an example of one element of deliberalisation to indicate how each tier could be satisfied. What the actual delib ought to be could be established once you decide that democratic representation isnt found in 33%.

    Does the example illistrate the imbalance for you?

    By the way, any answers to the questions posed?
    In the citizens assembly, there was an equal amount that wanted later than 12 weeks so wondering why that's not a consideration.?

    Is that an answer? The c.a. was representative? Shall we look?
    It's also funny that you're saying that black and white is preferable while saying an 'agree is only 'agree' if it's 'strongly agree'.

    Strongly Agree. will include a range of folk. Some will find aor12 perfect, some want more liberalisation.

    'Somewhat agree' means something not fully meeting needs. Its inherent in the English.


  • #5160
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,151 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It wasnt. It was an example of one element of deliberalisation to indicate how each tier could be satisfied. What the actual delib ought to be could be established once you decide that democratic representation isnt found in 33%.

    Does the example illistrate the imbalance for you?
    but 52% does, but you are dismissing anyone that isn't strongly agree for no apparent reason other than to frame things as legislating for a minority.

    By the way, any answers to the questions posed?

    Is that an answer? The c.a. was representative? Shall we look?
    It was pretty close. It raised the different issues attached to abortion that needed consideration for legislation should repeal happen. Which was the ultimate purpose of the CA.

    Strongly Agree. will include a range of folk. Some will find aor12 perfect, some want more liberalisation.

    'Somewhat agree' means something not fully meeting needs. Its inherent in the English.
    Indeed, that could mean that 17% wanted >12 weeks or possibly no limit.


    It's certainly more likely they support aor12 than not since they stated 'somewhat agree'.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #5161
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,395 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Democracy is a trade. No one gets fully what they want - except those at the middle point.

    Well of course - they get what was voted for - that is the compromise.
    Unless you think a 12 week period is the most extreme form of prochoice view possible. It's not.

    But my point was that prolife said no compromise was possible because abortion was murder.
    Have you changed your mind on that?

    If I thought we were voting in child sex abuse, I don't think I'd find a "compromise" around sex abuse only for red haired children any more acceptable. If it's murder then it's murder and you need to make your case better.

    And if you can't do that (and you've had 35 years to do so) then you probably need to rethink your opinions.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It wasn't on the cards because a compromise position wasn't put to the people. Remember?
    What was put to the people was a Yes/No question because that is how a referendum works. It would not be legal to do otherwise.

    However the government also went to great lengths to be upfront about the compromise legislation (and it was a compromise, not least when they watered down the CA's proposals) they intended to bring forward in the case of a Yes vote.

    That is what people voted Yes to.

    Prolife waited until you lost that vote before beginning to suggest a compromise was even possible. They should have done it before, and put forward alternative legislation for instance. You'd have been in a much stronger position, both for the vote and now. You might even have won the referendum with your compromise.

    But then you'd have and to admit that your opposition to abortion is based on distaste for it, rather than on a belief that it really is murder.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



Advertisement