At Least 25,000 Attend Anti-Abortion Vigil

Grayson · 20-01-2013 09:28PM

COYVB wrote: »

They're perfectly entitled to be against it, nobody is saying they aren't. But are they perfectly entitled to force their religious beliefs (and these ARE religious beliefs for the most part) upon people who want no part in their religion?

My point is this. What you do in the comfort of your own home is your business. You can have consensual relations with whoever you please using what every freaky aids you can find.
Should you want to marry someone, no-one should force you not to.

But, if I knew of say a serial killer who was killing children, I wouldn't be ok with that. If I knew of someone performing ritual sacrifice, I wouldn't be ok with that.

Likewise if I believe that abortion is actually a little baby getting killed, I wouldn't be ok with that. I couldn't. I could never believe that it's ok to kill a baby and neither could you. No matter what the other persons belief was, yiou just couldn't sanction that actual killing of children.

The thing is that you and I are ok with it because we know that it isn't a child. But I can understand if someone believed it was why they'd want to force their beliefs. And it's pretty much the only time I can see why they're doing it.

The issue isn't whether or not they should force their beliefs, it what's their beliefs are. And that's what should be discussed.

uck51js9zml2yt · 20-01-2013 09:30PM

brokenarms wrote: »

What do ye all expect. Legal murder of babies is not really the correct direction for us.

And what ever way you look at it.

That's what it is. Split hairs if you may. But at the end of the procedure, a baby is minced .

Feck that.

don't forget, they keep telling us it's not a baby but a foetus.
I still believe the world is flat as well.
Pharoah and Herod had their reasonings as well.

robman60 · 20-01-2013 09:30PM

B0jangles wrote: »

People generally acquire more information and facts with time, not fewer, unless they wilfully ignore opportunities to learn or simply choose to reject facts they don't like.

Of course people acquire more information with time. That information can influence a person either way, however. It's pretentious of you to presume I haven't investigated this subject thoroughly just because I'm younger than you. In general, the more I've learned the more opposed to abortion I've become, and that comes with reading both pro-choice and pro-life information, as well as unbiased information, if such a thing exists regarding abortion. :rolleyes:

philologos · 20-01-2013 09:31PM

gingernut125 wrote: »

I wish the pro life campaigners put their efforts into educating young girls about safe sex, a lot of Irish women already have abortions, just because they have to go abroad doesn't mean that it's not uncommon.
I know most of them don't want to encourage sex before marriage but if they cared so much for the innocent lives (as they it) surely condoms are the lesser of two evils.

I think minimising abortion by contraceptives or any other means should be important, but the only 100% iron clad way of ensuring that unplanned pregnancies wouldn't take place would be if people didn't have sex before they were in a stable marriage, but then again, the world doesn't like to hear this as a possibility.

I'd put it to you that a lot of pro-life people do this already. Admittedly probably not the devout Roman Catholic sort though.

dvpower · 20-01-2013 09:35PM

philologos wrote: »

I think minimising abortion by contraceptives or any other means should be important, but the only 100% iron clad way of ensuring that unplanned pregnancies wouldn't take place would be if people didn't have sex before they were in a stable marriage, but then again, the world doesn't like to hear this as a possibility.

I'd put it to you that a lot of pro-life people do this already. Admittedly probably not the devout Roman Catholic sort though.

People in stable marriages also have unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

ShooterSF · 20-01-2013 09:38PM

Grayson wrote: »

My point is this. What you do in the comfort of your own home is your business. You can have consensual relations with whoever you please using what every freaky aids you can find.
Should you want to marry someone, no-one should force you not to.

But, if I knew of say a serial killer who was killing children, I wouldn't be ok with that. If I knew of someone performing ritual sacrifice, I wouldn't be ok with that.

Likewise if I believe that abortion is actually a little baby getting killed, I wouldn't be ok with that. I couldn't. I could never believe that it's ok to kill a baby and neither could you. No matter what the other persons belief was, yiou just couldn't sanction that actual killing of children.

The thing is that you and I are ok with it because we know that it isn't a child. But I can understand if someone believed it was why they'd want to force their beliefs. And it's pretty much the only time I can see why they're doing it.

The issue isn't whether or not they should force their beliefs, it what's their beliefs are. And that's what should be discussed.

And if that is truly their beliefs why aren't they marching to have the government hold a referendum to make it illegal again for a woman to travel abroad for an abortion like we still have with regard assisted suicide? But they won't because they know their support would drop off pretty fast. For most of them all they care about is imposing their religion on others, that's why the life institute and youth defense etc. don't spend any effort lobbying for better conditions for youth that are actually alive.

King of Kings · 20-01-2013 09:38PM

gingernut125 wrote: »

I know most of them don't want to encourage sex before marriage but if they cared so much for the innocent lives (as they it) surely condoms are the lesser of two evils.

how do you know their opinion on sex,sex before marriage or contraceptives?
Do you know mine?

people are just hellbent to brand all anti abortion people under a label (since it's boards it's usually a derogitory one) - they're actually quite a diverse bunch - from liberal thinkers to disenfranchised nutcases.
They hold differing views on a host of issues - one issue unites them (it's even a stretch to say that)

Quite not too dis-similiar to the pro-choice lobby if people here were honest they'd actually cop that on.

But why let the truth ruin the fun of talking ****e.

COYVB · 20-01-2013 09:40PM

Grayson wrote: »

Likewise if I believe that abortion is actually a little baby getting killed, I wouldn't be ok with that. I couldn't. I could never believe that it's ok to kill a baby and neither could you. No matter what the other persons belief was, yiou just couldn't sanction that actual killing of children.

The difference is that as long as the fetus/embryo/baby/whatever you want to call it is dependent on the mother for its survival, that is to say cannot survive outside her body independently, then it is, if you pardon the callous connotations of the word, a parasite

amdublin · 20-01-2013 09:40PM

I was one of the 100 pro-choice counter demonstration.

My god those pro-lifers are scary!

The King of Moo · 20-01-2013 09:43PM

Talk of "religious zealots" and "gobsh*tes* really does the pro-choice argument no favours. You simply can't assume that every person involved in this protest was either stupid or a religious fundamentalist, or both. Given the numbers involved, and the small population of this country, it's unlikely that this was the case.

It's generally a bad idea to assume that the person you're arguing against is stupid, and it's particularly so in such an emotive argument, where people are going to get very defensive, and that will bring down the level of debate on both sides.

Let's look at these assumptions:

1. Were many of these people religious zealots? Doubtful. There's very little Christian zeal in Ireland, or many other European countries. Go to America and parts of Africa, and it would be understandable to assume that people involved in such a protest would be religious zealots, as in those places one is more likely to find fundamentalist strains of Christianity.
But there are very few dogmatic Christians in Ireland. For most religious practitioners here, religion is more of a casual social affair, Mass a place to meet people and have a chat on Sunday before heading for a few pints.
Many people also go along out of habit, as that's what they, their parents, and most people they know have done.
Religion doesn't occupy their thoughts a lot, they don't go around quoting scripture, and they're not full of hate, like many religious fundamentalists.
Many such Irish people would oppose abortion simply as it's the Church's position, or because it conforms to their generally conservative views.
Of course there are some spiteful extremist Youth Defence types, but your average Irish churchgoer isn't like that.

2. Are people who oppose abortion stupid? Not necessarily. One does not have to stupid to be religious in general. The human brain has an amazing ability to compartmentalise information. A person can believe something that clearly seems irrational, yet simultaneously be highly intelligent and rational in other ways. There have been many great scientists and philosophers who were also devoutly religious.
But does one necessarily have to be stupid to oppose abortion? No. Even though it's an opinion I don't agree with, I can easily understand how someone can believe that life begins at conception, and that therefore killing an unborn child is murder. It amazes me how so many ethicists grapple with the issue of when life begins and the morality of abortion, yet so many ordinary people (on both sides) have realised that it's apparently a simple black and white issue.

As for the question of whether a small number of people have the right to impose their religious beliefs on other people through legislation: of course they don't.
But do the goverment have that right?: of course they do, within the bounds of Irish and international law.
People might not like the idea of religion influencing political decisions, but the reality is that no political decisions are made without bias, be they social, racial or religious biases, to give but a few examples.
People might not like it if democratically-elected politicians make decisions which are influenced by their beliefs, and they have the right to protest against those decisions, but the government has the right to make legislation which has been influenced by religion.

This is why I usually avoid threads on abortion. There's so little rational debate compared to other issues, because too many people on both sides of the debate simply assume that those they're arguing against are completely wrong and/or stupid.

So the next time you're arguing with someone about abortion, don't ask them why they want to control women's reproductive systems, because that's probably not what they're thinking about.
A better question would be "Why do you oppose abortion?"

B0jangles · 20-01-2013 09:44PM

robman60 wrote: »

Of course people acquire more information with time. That information can influence a person either way, however. It's pretentious of you to presume I haven't investigated this subject thoroughly just because I'm younger than you. In general, the more I've learned the more opposed to abortion I've become, and that comes with reading both pro-choice and pro-life information, as well as unbiased information, if such a thing exists regarding abortion. :rolleyes:

But I'm really a wordy and pretentious twelve-year old!

No but seriously, did not meant to be patronising, I'm just going by my own experience and those of many of my contemporaries; issues which seem straightforward right-or-wrong scenarios do start revealing their complexities when they become issues which directly affect your own life.

For example; a woman is pregnant with a fetus which she has been told has fatal abnormalities - should she be required to bring that pregnancy to term - carry for 9 months and then deliver a baby she knows will die minutes later?

That what is legal in Ireland at the moment.

Or a woman with a severe alcohol/drug problem becomes pregnant. She is afraid that her addiction will seriously (or indeed already has) damage/d the fetus she is carrying, She is not confident she will be able to control her addiction long enough for the baby to be delivered unharmed. She feels that it would be better to abort the pregnancy early rather than face the strong possibility that her addiction will seriously injure the fetus she is carrying and cause lifelong problems to the baby that will be born.

melekalikimaka · 20-01-2013 09:46PM

it just shows still the sicken hold the church still has on the population, still listening to the big man in Rome over basic common sense

CillianL · 20-01-2013 09:47PM

Does anyone have an idea why at the last few pro-life rallies there has been a lot of young women?

Seems a bit strange to be honest.

In Ireland the abortion issue is a bit like telling kids not to drink in the house but leaving the option to drink next door in the neigbours. I don't personally think abortion on demand is a nice thing but we should admit that thousands of women are going to England every year for those abortions so we may as well legalize it and recognise the reality that's there

gingernut125 · 20-01-2013 09:50PM

King of Kings wrote: »

how do you know their opinion on sex,sex before marriage or contraceptives?
Do you know mine?

people are just hellbent to brand all anti abortion people under a label (since it's boards it's usually a derogitory one) - they're actually quite a diverse bunch - from liberal thinkers to disenfranchised nutcases.
They hold differs views on a host of issues - one issue unites them (it's even a stretch to say that)

Quite not too dis-similiar to the pro-choice lobby if people here were honest they'd actually cop that on.

But why let the truth ruin the fun of talking ****e.

I said most

Annasopra · 20-01-2013 09:50PM

robman60 wrote: »

I find that insulting frankly. While I'm aware that people's views change, that's mainly due to ignorance regarding facts/having an opinion in order to conform originally.

I've heard the argument from both sides, and only one seems right to me.

I used to be anti divorce, pro life, dana supporting at 17; I grew out of that and would now be completely the opposite

padd b1975 · 20-01-2013 09:51PM

melekalikimaka wrote: »

it just shows still the sicken hold the church still has on the population, still listening to the big man in Rome over basic common sense

So says the mod of mythology.:o

otto_26 · 20-01-2013 09:51PM

COYVB wrote: »

This is the most baffling thing about it. Bringing in a Pro Choice law for abortion would in no way change anything about the way Pro Life people go about their day to day lives. They'd still be against abortion, and that's absolutely fine, because nobody would force or encourage them to have them - that's where the CHOICE bit comes in. It's always really confused me how they don't get that.

Allowing other people to do things that your religion doesn't allow doesn't have any affect on those who follow that religion. None at all.

I think we should bring in gun laws to allow everyone to bare firearms easily like hand guns and machine guns from the age of 18, also new laws which allow me to shoot anyone I think might be a danger to me on my property.

But people are against this on a moral ground they say its not the right thing to do. People say they could get shot on the street but I say you can get beaten to dead on the street, people have the tools to beat people to death just like having a gun to shoot someone, so what difference would it make. People don't just shoot someone because they have a gun, like they don't just beat someone to death because they have a Hurley.

This is the most baffling thing about it. Bringing in a Pro guns laws for people would in no way change anything about the way anti-gun people go about their day to day lives. They'd still be against gun laws, and that's absolutely fine, because nobody would force or encourage them to have them - that's where the CHOICE bit comes in. It's always really confused me how they don't get that.

It's my right as an 18 year old man to carry a machine gun with me if I CHOOSE. Nobody has the right to tell me otherwise especially not on moral ground.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

squod · 20-01-2013 09:54PM

amdublin wrote: »

My god those pro-lifers are scary!

Some of the 400 signees of the Dublin declaration were there.

Dr. Eoghan de Faoite: I begin by saying that, yes, I am a democrat. I believe in the democratic process and I respect it. Two questions were directly raised about the recent international symposium on maternal health care that I was directly involved with and about the declaration that came out of that. Members wanted further elaboration. On 8 September last, a symposium on maternal health was held in Dublin. It was chiefly organised by Professor Eamon O'Dwyer of the National University of Ireland, Galway, who is one of Ireland's most senior obstetricians and has an absolutely impeccable track record of obstetric care. That symposium was addressed by international experts in the field of maternal health care, emergency obstetrics and cancer in pregnancy. We had the world's leading expert in cancer in pregnancy, Professor Frédéric Amant from Belgium, come to address that conference, which was extremely well attended, with over 160 medical practitioners attending.

At the end of that symposium a declaration, which is now commonly known as the Dublin declaration, was released. I will not read it in its entirety but it has three main points. The first point is that abortion is never medically necessary - the direct and intentional termination of the life of the unborn child is not medically necessary. Second, there is a fundamental difference between abortion and emergency treatment or any other medical treatment a woman may need to save her life. Third, the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women. That declaration has been released in the past few weeks and, to date, 400 medical practitioners have signed up in support of that declaration.

Noodleworm · 20-01-2013 09:55PM

There is no lack of information on the failings of abstinence education, or how comprehensive honest sex ed is the best option.
I'm pro choice, and I'm fine for peoples beliefs, but when at the counter protest yesterday I was sickened by the amount of money being spent. Thousands of signs printed, screens, sound systems, busses. They could be spending that money on , i don't know, say.. sex ed, childcare, parenting classes, food for disadvantaged families, etc etc. Things that actually prevent abortion.

Id like to see what kind of turn out they'd have without all that american money.

COYVB · 20-01-2013 09:55PM

otto_26 wrote: »

I think we should bring in gun laws to allow everyone to bare firearms easily like hand guns and machine guns from the age of 18, also new laws which allow me to shoot anyone I think might be a danger to me on my property.

But people are against this on a moral ground they say its not the right thing to do. People say they could get shot on the street but I say you can get beaten to dead on the street, people have the tools to beat people to death just like having a gun to shoot someone, so what difference would it make. People don't just shoot someone because they have a gun, like they don't just beat someone to death because they have a Hurley.

This is the most baffling thing about it. Bringing in a Pro guns laws for people would in no way change anything about the way anti-gun people go about their day to day lives. They'd still be against gun laws, and that's absolutely fine, because nobody would force or encourage them to have them - that's where the CHOICE bit comes in. It's always really confused me how they don't get that.

It's my right as an 18 year old man to carry a machine gun with me if I CHOOSE. Nobody has the right to tell me otherwise especially not on moral ground.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You carrying a machine guy with you on your person is a risk to me, as a person, and to the greater community. Someone could liberate it from your possession and use it for nefarious means. Therefore restricting the firearms restrictions in Ireland can adversely affect the population of the country. That's quite a bit different to abortion, which is the removal of an embryonic life form that cannot sustain it's life without the support of a mother. The mother should not be forced to sustain that embryo if she doesn't want to.

Annasopra · 20-01-2013 09:55PM

squod wrote: »

Some of the 400 signees of the Dublin declaration were there.

They're still scary; Dublin declaration or not

padd b1975 · 20-01-2013 09:56PM

gingernut125 wrote: »

I wish the pro life campaigners put their efforts into educating young girls about safe sex, a lot of Irish women already have abortions, just because they have to go abroad doesn't mean that it's not uncommon.
I know most of them don't want to encourage sex before marriage but if they cared so much for the innocent lives (as they see it) surely condoms are the lesser of two evils.

I think you could address this point to both sides of the debate in fairness.

otto_26 · 20-01-2013 09:56PM

COYVB wrote: »

I think you'll find freedom of speech is fine, it's people dictating how others should live their lives based on their religious beliefs where the line gets drawn.

I'm confused I'm pro life and I am not religious....:eek:

robman60 · 20-01-2013 09:57PM

B0jangles wrote: »

But I'm really a wordy and pretentious twelve-year old!

No but seriously, did not meant to be patronising, I'm just going by my own experience and those of many of my contemporaries; issues which seem straightforward right-or-wrong scenarios do start revealing their complexities when they become issues which directly affect your own life.

For example; a woman is pregnant with a fetus which she has been told has fatal abnormalities - should she be required to bring that pregnancy to term - carry for 9 months and then deliver a baby she knows will die minutes later?

That what is legal in Ireland at the moment.

Or a woman with a severe alcohol/drug problem becomes pregnant. She is afraid that her addiction will seriously (or indeed already has) damage/d the fetus she is carrying, She is not confident she will be able to control her addiction long enough for the baby to be delivered unharmed. She feels that it would be better to abort the pregnancy early rather than face the strong possibility that her addiction will seriously injure the fetus she is carrying and cause lifelong problems to the baby that will be born.

I think the fatal fetal abnormality scenario is not the most contentious issue in the abortion debate. The fact that the child is not compatible with life makes it somewhat more acceptable to abort. Personally, I'm still against dictating when the child should die, but counter arguments regarding this very specific case are rational too, and I acknowledge that.

Your second case is an intrinsic one, but I don't think the possibility of illness or presence of illness are legitimate grounds for abortion. It would also be absolutely impossible to legislate for such a scenario, without implementing a more liberal abortion regime.

COYVB · 20-01-2013 09:58PM

otto_26 wrote: »

I'm confused I'm pro life and I am not religious....:eek:

Who said you were religious?

otto_26 · 20-01-2013 09:58PM

COYVB wrote: »

You carrying a machine guy with you on your person is a risk to me, as a person, and to the greater community. Someone could liberate it from your possession and use it for nefarious means. Therefore restricting the firearms restrictions in Ireland can adversely affect the population of the country. That's quite a bit different to abortion, which is the removal of an embryonic life form that cannot sustain it's life without the support of a mother. The mother should not be forced to sustain that embryo if she doesn't want to.

Just like someone could liberate my Hurley from my possession and beat you to death with it... What's your point?

padd b1975 · 20-01-2013 09:59PM

mango salsa wrote: »

I used to be anti divorce, pro life, dana supporting at 17; I grew out of that and would now be completely the opposite

Pro death?

+1 re Dana, some of her later stuff was just not up to scratch.
Jumped the shark around 1982.:cool:

Annasopra · 20-01-2013 10:01PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Pro death?

+1 re Dana, some of her later stuff was just not up to scratch.
Jumped the shark around 1982.:cool:

Oh ffs - the opposite of pro life equals pro choice

COYVB · 20-01-2013 10:01PM

otto_26 wrote: »

Just like someone could liberate my Hurley from my possession and beat you to death with it... What's your point?

A gun is made for shooting things, a hurley is made for hitting a sliotar. Technically, you could use a gun to hit a sliotar too, and you could use a hurley to beat someone, but that's not what they're made for

King of Kings · 20-01-2013 10:02PM

gingernut125 wrote: »

I said most

yes , you did and i'm calling you out on that cos it's horse**** stereotyping.

you do not know their views on anything beyond abortion.

At Least 25,000 Attend Anti-Abortion Vigil

Comments