At Least 25,000 Attend Anti-Abortion Vigil

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?

I haven't posted on this subject previously but I've been looking through some forums and I think its staggering how frequently the pro choice side are resorting to abusing pro life people. If you don't believe me have a look at the debate going on under every single news story related to the abortion debate on thejournal.ie If I get abused I will just walk away from this as I am not going to lower myself to that level.

There is no basis for the above statement - I was at the vigil in Merrion Square yesterday and I was not there for religious reasons. I didn't display any religious items and I didn't pray. I didn't notice one priest or nun (although I'm sure there were some there, just like there were probably some lorry drivers, plumbers etc) and apart from three ladies who I saw reciting the rosary, I didn't think it had anything to do with religion. The word vigil might be a bad choice as it seems to convey a religious meaning but vigil means "wakefulness" - it doesn't necessarily mean a religious event. You could accuse a person of being motivated by religion on a whole range of issues and even if it wasn't true it might be a convenient way to rubbish their argument (by leveraging off the wrongs perpetrated by members of the Catholic Church). Nobody knows how many of the 25,000 were there due to their religious beliefs. I am not trying to defend the catholic church but the fact is that child abuse was rampant in other religions too but the media had their feeding frenzy on the catholic church and lets face it newspapers sell better when they have a banner headline which is about someone its readership sees every week. I don't think the Sunday World would sell many papers on the back of a headline about child abuse by an Amish preacher for example. Its possible that there was more abuse in the catholic church I don't know but it doesn't serve to condemn all members. I would also add that contrary to some posts the crowd was not predominantly old people who as one person said "will be dead in a few years". I moved from the Mount St end of the crown right through to around half way along the square and I didn't feel at any stage that there was a strong concentration of old people in fact quite the opposite in many sections it was predominantly young people. I have to say that I believe that far more people are pro life than any survey will reveal. When we were going to the march yesterday I would have to say that I felt a bit like a minority figure but the journey home changed my mind decisively. We walked back from Merrion Square to where we had parked in the city centre with placards in hand and several people commended us for marching. We went into a cafe for a coffee to warm up and the young lad behind the counter came down to our table and said fair play to ye for making the effort. In the lift to our floor of the multi storey car park a couple in the lift, who I reckon were in their late thirties, said the same. I have to say that it gave me a great boost. I have never trusted surveys anyway as many of he people who set the questions either don't have a clue or are biased to begin with and set them in a manner which will skew the results.

There are a number of incorrect statements being made by pro choice people but the biggest craziest argument being made in my view is that abortion should be allowed for women who are the victim of a rape. There were 189,000 abortions in the UK in 2009 - how many were as a result of a rape? People are using a situation which might apply to less than 0.01% of the population to try and justify legislation. Extreme cases make for bad law. Legislation is not based on what happens at the margins. It seeks to do the most good and the least harm. I have had two circumstances in the last 5 years which required me to exceed the speed limit. Both of these were a matter of life or death. There isn't a guard in the country who would have ticketed me for either of them and not a judge who would have convicted me. Despite this I do not think that the law should be changed to allow for these circumstances as undoubtedly it would not be for the greater good. The greater good is served by keeping all motorists within the speed limit.

Another card played by the pro life side was to accuse pro choice people of not trusting women to make the correct decision - this is a kind of slight which tries to demonise pro choicers. The speeding analogy is relevant here also; If women can be trusted then I am going to assume that men can be too, so why don't we abolish speed limits - do we not trust motorists to do the right thing - no of course we don't.

A previous poster asked where were the 25,000 when the carers were marching. I believe strongly that what was done to carers was reprehensible but admittedly I didn't travel to Dublin to support them - maybe I will in the future but I am not a serial protestor so I can't latch on to every righteous cause. But I would counter by asking you why you aren't campaigning to force the government to do something about suicide. Ireland's suicide rate is horrific but whats being done about it. How can all this pain and suffering be allowed to happen year after year with little or no objection, and then this mass outpouring of emotion materialises about an issue which, though important is not even close to as serious as the fatalities happening in every city, town and village in Ireland, which have been happening for years now and which have grown to epidemic proportions.

We have a fantastic maternal mortality rate. Suicide of pregnant women is extremely low according to the medical profession. Why don't we focus on the statistic we have which puts us at the bottom of the world rankings instead of the one which puts us at the top?

Some people say that this all boils down to when you believe human life begins. I don't think that it has anything to do with that. I believe that it all boils down to personal responsibility. When I was single I slept around like most single men. I used contraception but I was aware that it wasn't fool proof. I would never have considered abortion if I (we) had an accident. I thought about this when I was younger and decided I would have a pair of balls (pardon the pun) and do the honourable thing - I mean stand by the girl not necessarily marry her. Why do so many people think that its ok to just do whatever you want and if the result doesn't suit you just take the easiest way out regardless of the consequences (and there are consequences). Some posters have said that this is about choice, if you don't want an abortion you can choose not to have one, I could just as easily say if you don't want a baby don't have sex, or have sex but wear a condom, or use the pill or any one of the multitude of methods for preventing a pregnancy from beginning in the first place.

Some people are saying that Europe will force us to legislate for the X case but you know Europe has not been much of a friend to Ireland and the people should wake up and see that. There was no bailout of Ireland, we were told to bailout European Banks and we were forced to mortgage all our futures to pay for it. It was French and German Banks that got bailed out and Europe has little in the way of moral authority left to lecture us with.

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I firmly believe that abortion should be available to women who want it. If a woman finds herself pregnant and wants to keep the baby she has the legal right and support to do so. If a woman becomes pregnant and chooses to have an abortion she should have the legal right and support to have an abortion in this country. Pro-life supporters have the right to freedom of speech but it is high time that they stopped being able to deny a woman the right to end her pregnancy, regardless of her reasons.

If I became pregnant I would have no hesitation in going to England to have an abortion. No woman in this country should be forced to go abroad to seek an abortion in order to appease anybody's sense of morality. Church and State should be entirely seperate entities.

It's high time the Pro-life people put their disgusting placards and propaganda into the dust bin of history where it belongs and stop thinking that because abortion isn't legal in this country that it isn't happening.

Well said, Pumpkinseeds, and I admire your honesty. Bit tired of hearing from both sides how damaging abortions are to women. I understand that it's an effort to find common ground, but I'd rather they just left it as "no woman wants to be in a position to need an abortion" instead of "abortion is traumatic, takes a lot of counselling to get over" etc etc. For some women, yes it is, and of course counselling should be made available. But there are many others whose overwhelming emotional response to an abortion is relief. Yet we seem stuck with this story of the poor helpless woman and there's a ring of contrition and penance to it.

padd b1975 wrote: »

So when you say your position is the opposite of pro life, what exactly do you mean?

Anti life??

Clearly pro-choice.
Can't people choose their own labels? I'm sure you wouldn't describe yourself as anti-choice because you disagree with the pro-choice side.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Ah, I see. So for you, it's important that abortion isn't available so we can make sure those damned irresponsible women are punished for their sexual choices or circumstances. Sound.

You're mis quoting me please don't do that I didn't call anyone damned. I'm not looking to punish anyone. I want the greater good to prevail and I know it isn't ideal but the innocent shouldn't suffer.

Reductio ad absurdum...

"Anti-abortion pill kills mother, leaves fetus alive."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-antiabortion-pill-kills-mother-leaves-fetus-al,1955/

padd b1975 wrote: »

Classy, using a slur on people with downs syndrome as an insult.

Very nice.

What in the name of the sweet lord Jesus....

padd b1975 wrote: »

I don't have the power to 'play God'.

Nobody does.

IMHO.

Really. We now have the ability to keep 24 week old fetuses alive up to the stage of independant existance. We can keep fatally ill people alive until their families are ready to let them go.

What exactly counts as "playing God" in your world?

In mine that line has been crossed several times already.

Chipboard wrote: »

I don't think we'll look to the US to solve this (or indeed any other) problem.

The article is a joke.

*gets irresponsible lady coat.

starlings wrote: »

The article is a joke.

*gets irresponsible lady coat.

I didn't really read it, I was expecting something serious.

jill_valentine wrote: »

My point is that a lot of the people who consider themselves pro life are, when you dig into it a little, not awfully concerned about the potential child at all. Really, they don't want abortion to be available because, to their mind, there should be some negative consequences associated with sexual choices - even if an alternative situation is available.

It wouldn't matter if we could demonstrate the importance of abortion access in every other regard, some people would still resist it purely because to their mind it would be "cheating", as if it lets young women "off the hook" for their sex lives. You hear it from anti-abortion politicians, preachers and mouthpieces all the time, in different guises, and that's the real reason the American right in particular is so fixated on it.

If one has a problem with a human life they shouldn't just kill it. They don't call an abortion a termination for no reason. A life has to be terminated.

I take issue with your comment about pro-life people not really being concerned about the potential child. You are in no position to say that. With your position, some would never get the chance to be able to give you their opinion.