Rally for life

K-9 · 05-07-2009 03:04AM

conchubhar1 wrote: »

get over the orange order comment...... are you a member? is that why you seem caught up on it

Hmmm......

Deflecting the very point they brought up.

Methinks somebody hasn't a clue of something they "know it all about".

conchubhar1 · 05-07-2009 03:11AM

K-9 wrote: »

Hmmm......

Deflecting the very point they brought up.

Methinks somebody hasn't a clue of something they "know it all about".

not deflecting it - was a fairly straight forward comment

i dislike the orange order - but ignorant naive pro lifers and stormfront i dislike them much much more

duh?

is that a qoute ''something they "know it all about"'' ?
who is they?

ScumLord · 05-07-2009 03:11AM

Beee, bob, doooo, baob dooooo jimmy bob dooo delayy bob doooo....

It's much worse in real life boooooob deeeee boooooo laaaa cuuunnntyboooo.

PrivateEye · 05-07-2009 03:14AM

What was weird was that apparently those marching were predominantly young, and not old grannys.

Thats well off to be honest. I was on the counter-demo and I honestly think half their march was dying. They had an 'official mass' at 1pm before the demo which says it all about the target crowd.

I asked one of them (after he called me a godless homo :rolleyes: lovely stuff) If he was on the march last month showing solidarity with the living children abused by the church. He strolled off anyway!

The youth block was, I admit, worryingly large, but in the context of the rally nothing really. That was a national demonstration remember. I expected near enough no young people. They also spent THOUSANDS on advertising today. Probably got something silly for every head there!

Irish Ferries, PAYE, the Pension Levy, the Iraqi Occupation, the demo the day the Rossport Five were released.... it wasn't up there. It wasn't even close. People have to ask themselves why a right-wing Christian group would have a demo right now, at this moment in time.

Hurr Durr, to take attention of somebody else. Soembody has been feeling hot under the collar (clever pun?) lately and *bang!* out come Youth Defence with a 'Life' rally. They're a predictable bunch really.

As for the Orange Order, however they came up, god they probably look at Youth Defence and go 'really?' Declines in their numbers are being put down to the growth of secularism.

*fingers crossed* and Youth Defence might f<ck off too soon enough!

conchubhar1 · 05-07-2009 03:16AM

one could only hope they do

K-9 · 05-07-2009 03:19AM

conchubhar1 wrote: »

wow i hate those stomefront tits more than loyalists and orange order members - now that impressive

No doubt there'll be some some FUD to dispense.
.

conchubhar1 · 05-07-2009 03:21AM

okay

1 - FUD ???? (fear, uncertainity and doubt? - bollix - its called an opinion)

2 - give it up - you have made way too many off topic comments on a post which is quite explanatory

K-9 · 05-07-2009 03:27AM

conchubhar1 wrote: »

okay

1 - FUD ???? (fear, uncertainity and doubt? - bollix - its called an opinion)

2 - give it up - you have made way too many off topic comments on a post which is quite explanatory

Ah well, so it was just a throw away remark, that you where pulled up on?
You've nothing to back it up with, Fair enough!

conchubhar1 · 05-07-2009 03:30AM

OPINION

I dislike the orange order but hate those other groups more - what do you expect me to back it up with?

a picture of me with an angry face while looking at them marching?

davyjose · 05-07-2009 04:06AM

I've always wondered about pro-choice. How exactly do they get the voting card into the uterus???

Davidius · 05-07-2009 04:11AM

I disagree with both sides.

conchubhar1 · 05-07-2009 04:12AM

hardy har

its choice for the mother

davyjose · 05-07-2009 04:21AM

conchubhar1 wrote: »

hardy har

its choice for the mother

Mother? See that's why I'm against -- three people involved only 1 gets a choice. Fair?

conchubhar1 · 05-07-2009 04:23AM

davyjose wrote: »

Mother? See that's why I'm against -- three people involved only 1 gets a choice. Fair?

does the father have to go through labour?
mother the child?

who says the father doesnt get a say anyway?

the baby can't have a say - as it isnt a baby that can think or have a choice yet

davyjose · 05-07-2009 04:31AM

conchubhar1 wrote: »

does the father have to go through labour?
mother the child?

who says the father doesnt get a say anyway?

the baby can't have a say - as it isnt a baby that can think or have a choice yet

There's no proof the baby can't think. Anyway, I'm not too keen to get into this argument right now, at half four... but....

Pro-choice has been abused. Of that there is no doubt. In britain, abortion is used quite highly as a form of contraception. There can be pro-choice, but how can we know that is a valid qualified choice.

Also, boo ****ing hoo about the "going through labour" argument. That's the absolute worst excuse to terminate a pregnancy. I can understand it for almost any other reason apart from that.

Plus, I'm pro-euthanasia, if that matters.

conchubhar1 · 05-07-2009 04:35AM

right
there is no way for it to communicate its choice!

if she is raped - having to deliver the child and raise it or give it away...... is traumatising

very very few people would use it as a form of contraceptive

you would have to go and get it aborted - you know exactly what is happening and what you did

no one takes that lightly

no it doesnt matter - it shows you want to put people out of their misery but force women to be put into misery if they do not want that child for any array of reasons

davyjose · 05-07-2009 04:46AM

conchubhar1 wrote: »

very very few people would use it as a form of contraceptive

That's not something you can know, or prove TBH. But from what I've heard, it happens****.

So the baby can't choose, ok, fair enough(I was being smart-aleccy. Apologies). But, if the woman is being put into misery by having a child, then she shouldn't really be having sex, now should she?

The case of a rape is different, but again I'm being drawn into a very complex argument that I don't have the time/complete sobriety to engage in. I'm not pro-life, but I'm not anti-life either. The system getting abused is my biggest concern. you can try to make that seem ignoble, but I don't agree that it is.

Perhaps a screening process, or some kind of evaluation needs to be put in place before we start handing out abortions for all.

**** And if I'm wwrong then that's something that maybe the pro-choicers need to discuss, rather than admonish anyone who dares be against them, i.e. being right-wing or old-fashioned or whatever label gets thrown around. Be less confrontational and self-righteous about the whole damn thing. Because there are very valid arguments on both sides.

conchubhar1 · 05-07-2009 05:09AM

true - just basing that one on human nature...

rape + contraceptives are also not 100%

it wont be abortions for all - i doubt the number would increase from the amount that travels abroad each year

having a choice - i dont see how you could call that wrong

i will agree that cases against abortion can be good and valid - but these still hold true when their is a choice

instead of you have to go abroad because it is wrong for these reasons - tough for you!
this is just the way it is
think before you have sex you unholy abomination
etc etc etc
crap

The_Minister · 05-07-2009 10:54AM

On the point of examining if abortion is used as contraception.
Russia - more babies aborted then born
Romania pre-dictator (began with a C, forget his name) - four abortion to one live birth.
Japan - openly considered a form of contraception.

So it would seem to happen that people to have abortions instead of stopping the baby being made in the first place.

PrivateEye60999888 wrote:

People have to ask themselves why a right-wing Christian group would have a demo right now, at this moment in time.

Hurr Durr, to take attention of somebody else. Soembody has been feeling hot under the collar (clever pun?) lately and *bang!* out come Youth Defence with a 'Life' rally. They're a predictable bunch really.

I was thinking that they were gearing up for Lisbon II. Much of their material mentioned Europe.

bronte · 05-07-2009 12:29PM

conchubhar1 wrote: »

does the father have to go through labour?
mother the child?

who says the father doesnt get a say anyway?

Qft.
Show up, make your 'contribution' (congrats on that by the way, I hear its a real challenge :rolleyes: ) And can then fcuk off after the nearest skirt that catches your eye whilst expecting 'rights'.
FFS!
Maybe you'll get them when you contribute a bit more than something that equates to a sneeze that can be performed in your sleep.

Arrrgggghh!

IvySlayer · 05-07-2009 12:32PM

bronte wrote: »

Qft.
Show up, make your 'contribution' (congrats on that by the way, I hear its a real challenge :rolleyes: ) And can then fcuk off after the nearest skirt that catches your eye whilst expecting 'rights'.
FFS!
Maybe you'll get them when you contribute a bit more than something that equates to a sneeze that can be performed in your sleep.

Arrrgggghh!

Don't judge all fathers the same way.

A baby should be 50-50 between a mother and father.

bronte · 05-07-2009 12:39PM

IvySlayer wrote: »

Don't judge all fathers the same way.

A baby should be 50-50 between a mother and father.

When the male in the equation does 50% of the work , sure.
That doesn't happen though.

pablomakaveli · 05-07-2009 01:09PM

If you don't have legal abortions in a country you'll only see an increase in backstreet abortions where women are at risk of being killed. At least in this country we're near enough to the UK so that isn't a problem. But it's something thats happened in Eastern European countries in the past.

A lot of pro-life people seem to throw out this idea that if abortion is legalised women will start throwing caution to the wind when having sex which is a load of crap. Women still will want to avoid becoming pregnant and will take the same precautions as they do now. But if they do become pregnant and feel they can't have a baby perhaps because they are not mature enough, they can't afford it or the father has walked out on them they should have that choice.

At the very least victims of rape, women who could die from carry the pregnancy to full term or women carrying a stillborn or seriously deformed foetus should be able to get an abortion.

Nodin · 05-07-2009 01:17PM

The_Minister wrote: »

Did anyone see this today?

I wasn't in town so I missed it, but apparently several thousand people were at it.

It was an hour late starting and I think your total could have a nought taken off of it.

I can't find reportage on it at the moment.

Nodin · 05-07-2009 01:23PM

PrivateEye wrote: »

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/darg/appendix_18sept_yd.html

Add to this Justin Barrett and his neo-nazi friends, .

A motley crew indeed

carlybabe1 · 05-07-2009 02:02PM

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

So is it banning contraceptives march next saturday then?

Yep, swiftly followed by a ""banning anything that gives you a choice as to what you can do with your own body"" march, then we'll start to see science books being thrown out of certain schools as it interferes with the religious teaching

philologos · 05-07-2009 02:16PM

PrivateEye wrote: »

Thats well off to be honest. I was on the counter-demo and I honestly think half their march was dying. They had an 'official mass' at 1pm before the demo which says it all about the target crowd.

I personally think it's a bad idea to have pro-life causes and religious institutions directly associated with eachother. The assumption was that the people who would be at this event were Catholics. Fair enough a large proportion of them may have been Catholics, but it should have aimed to be more inclusive.

I personally wasn't there but I was invited to go by a friend of mine who is pro-life like I am.

Continuing on PrivateEye, I think it isn't helpful to assume that all pro-lifers are Catholics. Wouldn't it have been more helpful if you debated the merits of pro-choice rather than debating the sexual abuses in the Catholic Church?

OP: In reference to your post, what do I think about such a rally. Apart from my above criticism, I think it is a great sign that in Ireland there is the freedom for people to be able to argue their point on abortion. I also think it was good that the pro-choicers counterbalanced the debate, although I completely and utterly disagree with them on the subject. Interest groups, demonstrations, and rallys are a healthy sign of democracy.

PrivateEye · 05-07-2009 03:29PM

Continuing on PrivateEye, I think it isn't helpful to assume that all pro-lifers are Catholics.

I don't assume all pro-lifers are Catholics, I know plenty of non-believers who are pro-life. The issue with this march is that is was called by Youth Defence, and began with an official mass. Thus, it was clearly a far-right catholic march.

As I said over in Politics, to give an example....if I support a cause like Shell To Sea, and Sinn Féin call a picket at Corrib House, I wouldn't attend. Why? It's a Sinn Féin picket, and by going along and holding a Sinn Féin placard you're merely serving to help that groups presence. (Replace with Labour Youth/Socialist Party whatever you want

)

This was a march called by a bigoted far-right group who have assaulted people in the past, occupied womens centres and stood in the way of womens democratic right to travel. They have a clear religious agenda. One of their ex-leaders was not far off a neo-nazi. In a word, they're filth. If somebody calls a pro-life rally on their own back that is completely different from Y.D/Coir. It wasn't more inclusive, they were happy to make it a standard rosary beads and guilt affair.

Your posts a good one but, not least in relation to the opinions of those we completely disagree with beign engaged with. While I want safe, legal abortion in Ireland, I realise its a sensitive subject. The people we have to debate it with are not right-wing lunatics like Youth Defence, once you attack somebody with a pool cue or a hurley stick you lose all respect.

Húrin · 05-07-2009 03:38PM

billy the squid wrote: »

People are not trying to impose abortion on anyone

except the unborn children who can't protest.

PrivateEye wrote: »

Thats well off to be honest. I was on the counter-demo and I honestly think half their march was dying. They had an 'official mass' at 1pm before the demo which says it all about the target crowd.

How dare they be Catholics! There were plenty of non-religious there. Such as me and friends, and many other young people there. However there was too much Catholicism in the speeches afterwards. The pro-life movement is making a grevious error if it ties its fortunes to that of the Catholic church in Ireland.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

right
there is no way for it to communicate its choice!

if she is raped - having to deliver the child and raise it or give it away...... is traumatising

very very few people would use it as a form of contraceptive

Pro-choice advocates would have us believe that the majority of abortions are performed upon women who were raped, judging by the amount of times it is brought up.

philologos · 05-07-2009 03:47PM

PrivateEye wrote: »

I don't assume all pro-lifers are Catholics, I know plenty of non-believers who are pro-life. The issue with this march is that is was called by Youth Defence, and began with an official mass. Thus, it was clearly a far-right catholic march.

Do you have any clear evidence that it was organised primarily by Youth Defence? If so, it would have been a deterrent for me to have attended. They were involved in an incident at my university earlier this year which I also didn't attend, but I know the type of behaviour that is associated with them.

PrivateEye wrote: »

As I said over in Politics, to give an example....if I support a cause like Shell To Sea, and Sinn Féin call a picket at Corrib House, I wouldn't attend. Why? It's a Sinn Féin picket, and by going along and holding a Sinn Féin placard you're merely serving to help that groups presence. (Replace with Labour Youth/Socialist Party whatever you want )

I agree with you. However, I would call you out on Labour Youth / Socialist Party, as it is clear that the Socialist Workers Party were involved in the pro-choice element of the rally yesterday. Personally, I think if you are going to have an event on pro-life, it should be on the merits of pro-life vs pro-choice and vice versa rather than a debate on external issues.

PrivateEye wrote: »

This was a march called by a bigoted far-right group who have assaulted people in the past, occupied womens centres and stood in the way of womens democratic right to travel. They have a clear religious agenda. One of their ex-leaders was not far off a neo-nazi. In a word, they're filth. If somebody calls a pro-life rally on their own back that is completely different from Y.D/Coir. It wasn't more inclusive, they were happy to make it a standard rosary beads and guilt affair.

I personally think free speech is to be valued, but at the same time as I've said above I don't condone Youth Defences behaviour. I don't have an issue with pro-life rallies however, nor do I have an issue with pro-choice rallies.

I know that it wasn't inclusive, that's my criticism. There are a large proportion of Irish people who are non-Catholic, of other Christian denominations, other religions or of no beliefs at all. I'd suspect a high percentage of this group are also pro-life.

PrivateEye wrote: »

Your posts a good one but, not least in relation to the opinions of those we completely disagree with beign engaged with. While I want safe, legal abortion in Ireland, I realise its a sensitive subject. The people we have to debate it with are not right-wing lunatics like Youth Defence, once you attack somebody with a pool cue or a hurley stick you lose all respect.

Of course we completely disagree, but I've managed to be able to discuss this issue relatively calmly with friends of mine without having either side getting hysterical about it. It needs to be discussed and presented, but only in the right way.

However, I do think there are also fanatics on the pro-choice side, particularly those associated with the far-left. I don't see either side as being better than another.

What we should do is try to remove external factors from the real debate on ethics of abortion.

We're more in agreement than not in relation to how manner is important in a free discussion on abortion

Rally for life

Comments