Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

smacl · 07-02-2020 7:50am

A_Lost_Man wrote: »

abortion is necessary because someday the world is going to die due to over population. In past religious leaders ban abortion because of less population and due to non availability of psy. But know there is psy everwhere.

A_Lost_Man wrote: »

Actually i was referring to "pussy". My point was in past due to non availibility of females for marriages (fvking ceremonies) church needed to increase their strength and they ban abortion and there was a problem with church it thought the human population is very less and to increase their followers they ban abortion for their personal beneift but know it is not a issue.

Mod warning: Statements such as "pussy is everywhere" in the context of abortion is insensitive to the point that I consider it trolling.

I note you've already received a yellow card in this forum yesterday. Any more of this type of nonsense and you will be banned.

Loafing Oaf · 07-02-2020 10:58am

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/election-2020-abortion-no-longer-an-issue-on-most-doorsteps-1.4164000

TDs saying the issue is not coming up on the doorsteps...

Hotblack Desiato · 07-02-2020 12:18pm

"I have had people from the pro-choice side say they are giving me their vote simply because in Irish politics so many people stick their finger in the air to see what way the wind is blowing, and people see politicians as flip-floppy and careerists and doing what they need to do to keep their seats,” Mr Tóibín said.

yeah right, if he told me it was going to rain tomorrow I wouldn't believe him...

As for being an opportunist on abortion, surely that applies to him, it was his chance to make a name for himself, Lucinda tried the same thing and it worked out great for her :pac:

aloyisious · 07-02-2020 12:36pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/election-2020-abortion-no-longer-an-issue-on-most-doorsteps-1.4164000

TDs saying the issue is not coming up on the doorsteps...

So instead Mr Tóibín is going to raise it on the doorstep himself, that's quaint.

end of the road · 07-02-2020 3:40pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/election-2020-abortion-no-longer-an-issue-on-most-doorsteps-1.4164000

TDs saying the issue is not coming up on the doorsteps...

i'm almost sure i suggested this would be the case either here or another thread.

Hotblack Desiato · 07-02-2020 3:45pm

Pro-choice voters need to be asking candidates about safe access zones and removing the medically unnecessary three day wait.

PopePalpatine · 07-02-2020 7:48pm

I'm honestly considering giving low preferences to the FG trio just to put a dent in Toibin's chances.

smacl · 07-02-2020 7:56pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm honestly considering giving low preferences to the FG trio just to put a dent in Toibin's chances.

I suspect we're going to end up with a rainbow coalition of some sort, with all the variety and appeal of a pavement pizza after a night on the lash, which will last six months tops. Toibin would fit right in. It is a sad state of affairs where your candidate selection runs from least worst to totally abhorrent.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2020 8:18pm

smacl wrote: »

I suspect we're going to end up with a rainbow coalition of some sort, with all the variety and appeal of a pavement pizza after a night on the lash, which will last six months tops. Toibin would fit right in. It is a sad state of affairs where your candidate selection runs from least worst to totally abhorrent.

I'm lucky - I have 2 candidates who I would vote for anyway.
Mind you - only one of them has even the slightest chance of being elected it would be frankly amazing if they ended up within an asses roar of being in govt.
But I can write 1 and 2 with a clear conscience.

uptherebels · 07-02-2020 9:36pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"I have had people from the pro-choice side say they are giving me their vote simply because in Irish politics so many people stick their finger in the air to see what way the wind is blowing, and people see politicians as flip-floppy and careerists and doing what they need to do to keep their seats,” Mr Tóibín said.

yeah right, if he told me it was going to rain tomorrow I wouldn't believe him...

As for being an opportunist on abortion, surely that applies to him, it was his chance to make a name for himself, Lucinda tried the same thing and it worked out great for her :pac:

He's a good man for the unsubstantiated/false claims alright.

Igotadose · 08-02-2020 2:21pm

Detailed analysis of the state of abortion legislation and the various party's positions. Plenty of work needs to be done, and plenty of opportunity for mischief from the anti-abortion side, especially Fianna Fail. https://villagemagazine.ie/the-elections-unspoken-issue/

smacl · 08-02-2020 2:34pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm lucky - I have 2 candidates who I would vote for anyway.
Mind you - only one of them has even the slightest chance of being elected it would be frankly amazing if they ended up within an asses roar of being in govt.
But I can write 1 and 2 with a clear conscience.

A friend of mine's voting technique is to select your candidates from 1 to 9 in order of number of slaps you'd like to give them. Works for me

Peregrinus · 10-02-2020 4:44am

smacl wrote: »

A friend of mine's voting technique is to select your candidates from 1 to 9 in order of number of slaps you'd like to give them. Works for me

But what if there is no candidate with whom you feel you could confine yourself to just the one slap?

Bannasidhe · 10-02-2020 12:23pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

But what if there is no candidate with whom you feel you could confine yourself to just the one slap?

That's why you bring a fish.
A large fish.

aloyisious · 10-02-2020 12:37pm

Now's the time to strike, when new TD's are feeling generous, get in with your requests for changes in law on maternity etc medical premises protection from harassment when the iron is hot... https://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-ard-fheis-5-4074582-Jun2018/

Cabaal · 17-02-2020 3:06pm

smacl wrote: »

A friend of mine's voting technique is to select your candidates from 1 to 9 in order of number of slaps you'd like to give them. Works for me

Not the best technique to be fair,
Why would you want to give Irish freedom party any vote...even if it was 9th on the list? :eek:

Bannasidhe · 18-02-2020 11:06am

Opened my mail this morning to find a letter from Rónán Mullen asking me to vote for him the the Seanad elections.
Once I stopped empty retching at the thought I was grateful for the reminder to vote for Someone Else.

Hotblack Desiato · 21-02-2020 11:22pm

From the Abortion Support Network's recent newsletter:

A couple in Ireland who had a serious foetal diagnosis but – and you know this is coming – not serious enough for Ireland to perform the abortion. What struck us about this case was something we’ve seen happen with two other clients. They are given a foetal diagnosis, told the diagnosis is bad but not bad enough to get treatment in Ireland, and that there is nothing the hospital can do other than advise them to travel to England for a termination. All that is frustrating, but understandable given Ireland’s law. But. But. What we’ve been hearing about are doctors who make the process more difficult and shaming by telling these parents that they “need to wait” before travelling to England until more tests are done. The phrase used is “You will feel better about the termination if you know everything that is wrong with the baby.” In this and the two other cases, the doctors have been clear that the test results have no chance of either showing no abnormality or showing that the issue will be serious enough to enable termination in Ireland. They are simply trying to make people in this situation delay travelling, and trying to use guilt and shame to do so.

Absolutely scummy, unethical and unprofessional behaviour. Of course the later an abortion happens, the more traumatic and expensive it is, the fewer places which can perform it, and even in the UK there are term limits.

aloyisious · 22-02-2020 1:02am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

From the Abortion Support Network's recent newsletter:

Absolutely scummy, unethical and unprofessional behaviour. Of course the later an abortion happens, the more traumatic and expensive it is, the fewer places which can perform it, and even in the UK there are term limits.

A variation of the "we will have to wait until there is no foetal heartbeat" ploy.

Igotadose · 22-02-2020 10:42am

Abortion Access Campaign West (galway) is screening Abandoned, a documentary about the impact of 'conscientious objectors' on women's health and well being, on 11 March. Here is the film: https://abandoned.film/

Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/AACWest/

Igotadose · 18-03-2020 10:07am

New Zealand has legalized abortion. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/120389800/new-zealands-fourdecade-old-abortion-laws-have-changed-after-law-passes-final-reading

Hotblack Desiato · 19-03-2020 1:08am

There was a safe areas measure in the bill, but they removed it

Peregrinus · 19-03-2020 5:14am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There was a safe areas measure in the bill, but they removed it

The removal of the safe zones provisions was engineered by a minor party, ACT New Zealand, who are classical liberal/libertarian in outlook. Presumably they felt that the safe zones provisions represented an unwarranted intrusion on the rights of assembly and free speech, although I haven't seen any news coverage of their reasons.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-03-2020 1:35am

I don't give a toss about them or their reasons, people have a right to access healthcare facilities without being harassed.

end of the road · 20-03-2020 1:53am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I don't give a toss about them or their reasons, people have a right to access healthcare facilities without being harassed.

harassment is already illegal. already covered and dealt with by existing law.
protesting is perfectly legal, and if anyone does go over board the law is already perfectly capable of dealing with it.
so you have no complaint, apart from the fact people have a different view to you, for which i'm afraid you are going to just have to deal with as the rest of us do on a daily basis.

Bannasidhe · 20-03-2020 2:02am

end of the road wrote: »

harassment is already illegal. already covered and dealt with by existing law.
protesting is perfectly legal, and if anyone does go over board the law is already perfectly capable of dealing with it.
so you have no complaint, apart from the fact people have a different view to you, for which i'm afraid you are going to just have to deal with as the rest of us do on a daily basis.

Tell me, do you think it is reasonable for people to 'protest' outside a politicians home?

Peregrinus · 20-03-2020 2:23am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I don't give a toss about them or their reasons, people have a right to access healthcare facilities without being harassed.

There's obviously a tension between my right not to be harrassed and your right to free speech and/or assembly. I agree with you that, when I'm seeking medical treatment, my right probably trumps yours. But it does raise wider questions; is this particular context the only one in which my right trumps yours? If so, why? If not, in what other contexts or situations are your rights of free speech and assembly to be denied in order for me not to feel harassed?

Bannasidhe · 20-03-2020 2:32am

end of the road wrote: »

in certain circumstances as long as it is non-violent, i think i likely would think it may be a proportionate responce, but it should be done after all other protest mechanisms have been tried with no result.
a private home is not comparable to a building however in my view.

But why should a politician's neighbours, children etc be subject to the disruption of a protest outside their private residence?
Do people not have the right to go about their private lives in peace - especially had no input into/influence over whatever is being protested?

end of the road · 20-03-2020 2:47am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Tell me, do you think it is reasonable for people to 'protest' outside a politicians home?

for the most part no, however there probably would be the odd case where i specifically wouldn't condemn it as long as it was peaceful. but ideally people shouldn't protest there given it is a private home and is not part of the job for which a politician is involved in doing.
for me private homes are not comparable to public buildings or even business buildings.

end of the road · 20-03-2020 2:57am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But why should a politician's neighbours, children etc be subject to the disruption of a protest outside their private residence?
Do people not have the right to go about their private lives in peace - especially had no input into/influence over whatever is being protested?

why should anyone be subject to the disruption of any protest anywhere?
my answer is because disruption to someone is unavoidable.
disruption is mitagated against at every protest, whether it be traffic or other divertions, but ultimately someone will be put off track.
also to mention i have given an updated answer to your original question in post 180.

aloyisious · 20-03-2020 3:57am

end of the road wrote: »

harassment is already illegal. already covered and dealt with by existing law.
protesting is perfectly legal, and if anyone does go over board the law is already perfectly capable of dealing with it.
so you have no complaint, apart from the fact people have a different view to you, for which i'm afraid you are going to just have to deal with as the rest of us do on a daily basis.

Would you, therefor, have no problem with protestors carrying posters with deliberately upsetting faked images outside or in the vicinity of hospitals or GP's clinics being prosecuted for using the posters with provocative intent, given that the protestors would have put some thought into the images they chose to use at the protest, knowing the effect the posters would be liable to have on people attending at said premises? Protestors carry an obligation to obey the law at all times, and that includes not behaving in a manner intended to provoke a disturbance of the peace.

In connection with your answer and presumed point of view about anti-abortion protests outside homes: quote, why should anyone be subject to the disruption of any protest anywhere? my answer is because disruption to someone is unavoidable. unquote.... If people who claim to be pro-life can protest outside the homes of others, then you can see that the same rule could disquietingly apply to their homes as well by people with the opposing point of view. Not that I would imagine Pro-choice people would stoop so low as to do so.

uptherebels · 20-03-2020 8:40am

end of the road wrote: »

for the most part no, however there probably would be the odd case where i specifically wouldn't condemn it as long as it was peaceful. but ideally people shouldn't protest there given it is a private home and is not part of the job for which a politician is involved in doing.
for me private homes are not comparable to public buildings or even business buildings.

You were very careful in choosing your words there. Politicians do work at home, so it is part of their job. There is no reason to "protest" at hospitals other than to try and impede access. If they were serious about getting the legislation changed they would be outside the dail, but they arent. Now ask yourself why they aren't? Because it's not about the legislation it's about the people accessing healthcare and trying to impede it.

Salary Negotiator · 20-03-2020 11:37am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Tell me, do you think it is reasonable for people to 'protest' outside a politicians home?

That depends on whether eotr agrees with the protestors or the politician.

Bannasidhe · 20-03-2020 12:53pm

uptherebels wrote: »

You were very careful in choosing your words there. Politicians do work at home, so it is part of their job. There is no reason to "protest" at hospitals other than to try and impede access. If they were serious about getting the legislation changed they would be outside the dail, but they arent. Now ask yourself why they aren't? Because it's not about the legislation it's about the people accessing healthcare and trying to impede it.

Exactly.
It isn't 'protest' as the places they are 'protesting' are not responsible for the legislation they are protesting.
It is harassment as they are trying to directly dissuade people from accessing a legal service they (the placard wavers) disagree with.

end of the road · 20-03-2020 3:25pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you, therefor, have no problem with protestors carrying posters with deliberately upsetting faked images outside or in the vicinity of hospitals or GP's clinics being prosecuted for using the posters with provocative intent, given that the protestors would have put some thought into the images they chose to use at the protest, knowing the effect the posters would be liable to have on people attending at said premises? Protestors carry an obligation to obey the law at all times, and that includes not behaving in a manner intended to provoke a disturbance of the peace.

In connection with your answer and presumed point of view about anti-abortion protests outside homes: quote, why should anyone be subject to the disruption of any protest anywhere? my answer is because disruption to someone is unavoidable. unquote.... If people who claim to be pro-life can protest outside the homes of others, then you can see that the same rule could disquietingly apply to their homes as well by people with the opposing point of view. Not that I would imagine Pro-choice people would stoop so low as to do so.

i would not support such prosecutions no, as protests are generally designed to provoke a reaction, as in bring about change in relation to the issue being protested about.
i am satisfied that the things that would need to be prosecuted are already so and existing laws work perfectly in that regard in my view, as all competing rights co-exist.
i would not support prosecutions for simply showing an immage whether it be fake or not, if it is fake then that will be found out quite easily i would think which would achieve more then any prosecution ever could.
in relation to your second point, most people are unlikely to be protesting outside someone's home regardless of their persuasion on any issue.
i do not believe we can say with certainty that no person of any specific persuasion on an issue would ever protest outside a home, or even do any specific thing, as every individual is different, and being of a persuasion on an issue is not a specific key to the type of individual someone is as a whole.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Exactly.
It isn't 'protest' as the places they are 'protesting' are not responsible for the legislation they are protesting.
It is harassment as they are trying to directly dissuade people from accessing a legal service they (the placard wavers) disagree with.

the places are responsible for carrying out the issue that the protesters have an issue with however, so i would argue it can still be legitimately classed as protest.
simply trying to get someone to change their mind and not do something is not harassment of itself, it would be impossible for it to be so as doing the same in relation to any other issue would be harassment if that was the case, which i would expect would create all sorts of problems.
any possible forceful method carried out in relation to achieveing the aim is already illegal to the best of my knowledge, and if there is actual harassment going on at any protest anywhere then the law deals with it and it is covered under existing law, to the best of my knowledge.
as i see it, the ability to access abortion and the right to protest, co-exist perfectly in ireland, not that there are any protests in ireland really, and what ones there have been since the legislation was introduced have been so tiny as to be insignifficant.

ohnonotgmail · 20-03-2020 3:29pm

end of the road wrote: »

the places are responsible for carrying out the issue that the protesters have an issue with however, so i would argue it can still be legitimately classed as protest.
simply trying to get someone to change their mind and not do something is not harassment of itself, it would be impossible for it to be so as doing the same in relation to any other issue would be harassment if that was the case, which i would expect would create all sorts of problems.
any possible forceful method carried out in relation to achieveing the aim is already illegal to the best of my knowledge, and if there is actual harassment going on at any protest anywhere then the law deals with it and it is covered under existing law, to the best of my knowledge.
as i see it, the ability to access abortion and the right to protest, co-exist perfectly in ireland, not that there are any protests in ireland really, and what ones there have been since the legislation was introduced have been so tiny as to be insignifficant.

the protests against abortion at hospitals and doctors surgerys is targeted at the women seeking abortion. why else would they hold up fake pictures of foetuses. A nurse or a doctor wouldn't be bothered by it, they know it is a fake. A woman in crisis might not and be swayed by it. that is the intention of those images. to deceive pregnant woment who might seek an abortion. The pro-life crowd are completely dishonest.

20-03-2020 3:34pm

end of the road wrote: »

why should anyone be subject to the disruption of any protest anywhere?

they shouldn't

the right to protest being somehow accepted as a right to disrupt needs a good long look

Bannasidhe · 20-03-2020 4:41pm

end of the road wrote: »

the places are responsible for carrying out the issue that the protesters have an issue with however, so i would argue it can still be legitimately classed as protest.
.

Firstly, as medical matters are strictly confidential between patient and medical staff they are places the protestors assume practices they disagree with are being carried out - if they know for sure then someone within that place needs to be fired immediately.

So these guardians of public morality are 'protesting' that a legal medical service may possibly might be being provided at a given location at a given time.
They are also places that carry out a myriad of medical services - and each and every personal availing of these services should be allowed to do so without being subjected to the assumptions of self appointed moral guardians.

They are harassing people who are going to see a doctor for reasons that are no bodies business but their own. They are targeting one particular demographic.

If they want to protest feck off to the gates of whomever writes the legislation.

smacl · 20-03-2020 5:03pm

Protesting in such as way as to intentionally upset vulnerable people seeking medical attention is morally reprehensible and in my opinion should be both banned and prosecuted where the ban in breached. It is trying to bully others into accepting an anachronistic minority moral position that runs contrary to the clearly stated position of a large majority in this country. I'd also have serious concerns about external foreign influences and financing in all of this.

end of the road · 20-03-2020 6:22pm

smacl wrote: »

Protesting in such as way as to intentionally upset vulnerable people seeking medical attention is morally reprehensible and in my opinion should be both banned and prosecuted where the ban in breached. It is trying to bully others into accepting an anachronistic minority moral position that runs contrary to the clearly stated position of a large majority in this country. I'd also have serious concerns about external foreign influences and financing in all of this.

and how far would this go, would we start prosecuting everyone for upsetting someone/hurting their feelings because they are deemed to be vunnerable?
or is it just for abortion, and why just abortion? what makes abortion so special?
and any sort of protest could be argued by those who disagree with it is attempting to bully people to accept a position that may or may not be a minority position. so therefore surely we must just bann protests altogether and prosecute people who take part in them?

uptherebels · 20-03-2020 7:42pm

end of the road wrote: »

and how far would this go, would we start prosecuting everyone for upsetting someone/hurting their feelings because they are deemed to be vunnerable?
or is it just for abortion, and why just abortion? what makes abortion so special?
and any sort of protest could be argued by those who disagree with it is attempting to bully people to accept a position that may or may not be a minority position. so therefore surely we must just bann protests altogether and prosecute people who take part in them?

wrong as usual. Its not about abortion. it's about access to healthcare and access to healthcare is special. those "protests" don't just affect people who are going to have an abortion. A protest almost anywhere else doesn't impede other peoples rights.
So no, not every protest can be argued as bullying people as not all protests are equal. There are legitimate protests and then there are "protests" that are designed to do nothing else other than try and impede other peoples rights, in this case access to healthcare.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-03-2020 9:25pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's obviously a tension between my right not to be harrassed and your right to free speech and/or assembly. I agree with you that, when I'm seeking medical treatment, my right probably trumps yours. But it does raise wider questions; is this particular context the only one in which my right trumps yours? If so, why? If not, in what other contexts or situations are your rights of free speech and assembly to be denied in order for me not to feel harassed?

Notice I said accessing healthcare facilities - not seeking treatment - because the staff also have the right to go to work without being harassed by lunatics.

The real question is why do they feel the need to exercise their speech in that particular place - hospitals and GPs surgeries do not determine what our laws are. The appropriate venue for protest is the Dail.

aloyisious · 20-03-2020 10:10pm

end of the road wrote: »

i would not support such prosecutions no, as protests are generally designed to provoke a reaction, as in bring about change in relation to the issue being protested about.
i am satisfied that the things that would need to be prosecuted are already so and existing laws work perfectly in that regard in my view, as all competing rights co-exist.
i would not support prosecutions for simply showing an immage whether it be fake or not, if it is fake then that will be found out quite easily i would think which would achieve more then any prosecution ever could.
in relation to your second point, most people are unlikely to be protesting outside someone's home regardless of their persuasion on any issue.
i do not believe we can say with certainty that no person of any specific persuasion on an issue would ever protest outside a home, or even do any specific thing, as every individual is different, and being of a persuasion on an issue is not a specific key to the type of individual someone is as a whole

In so far as it's all done in the cause of saving babies and against women's legal choices, it's plain what the protests outside hospitals and clinics are really about, pushing Irish women back into the fold of collective mind control. I see your response to my point of the protestors choosing to use fake images designed to provoke a reaction leading to a breach of the peace is that it's OK with you. That's malicious aforethought in my book.

end of the road · 21-03-2020 1:04am

uptherebels wrote: »

wrong as usual. Its not about abortion. it's about access to healthcare and access to healthcare is special. those "protests" don't just affect people who are going to have an abortion. A protest almost anywhere else doesn't impede other peoples rights.
So no, not every protest can be argued as bullying people as not all protests are equal. There are legitimate protests and then there are "protests" that are designed to do nothing else other than try and impede other peoples rights, in this case access to healthcare.

i would suggest that it does seem to be specifically about abortion, because i have not heard of anyone suggesting any laws preventing protests at various places before the discussions began surrounding the referendum to repeal the 8th.
a protest somewhere else actually does impeed someone's rights if they cause disruption, the ability to get around, so therefore i would suggest that actually health care is not special, and if you want to bann protests around certain facilities involved in it because it disrupts people, you should surely be looking to bann all or most protests, because they do cause some bit of disruption to somebody.
peaceful protests are legitimate to the protesters, who believe the issue they are protesting against should be highlighted, disagreement with a protest doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong or illegitimate.

aloyisious wrote: »

In so far as it's all done in the cause of saving babies and against women's legal choices, it's plain what the protests outside hospitals and clinics are really about, pushing Irish women back into the fold of collective mind control. I see your response to my point of the protestors choosing to use fake images designed to provoke a reaction leading to a breach of the peace is that it's OK with you. That's malicious aforethought in my book.

i do not support prosecutions for simply showing an image which may or may not be fake, or which may simply upset someone, as anyone can be upset by any image.
if an image has text on it threatening violence or suggest someone should commit violence then they are already prosecuted and i am fine with that.
essentially, not liking an image is not enough for me to be using the courts, and someone engaging in a breach of the peace over an image they dislike is the one in the greatest wrong.
i support one's right to be able to show images in public which highlight an issue they have disagreement with, however it does not mean i will always agree with them doing it in certain cases.

uptherebels · 21-03-2020 8:51am

end of the road wrote: »

i would suggest that it does seem to be specifically about abortion, because i have not heard of anyone suggesting any laws preventing protests at various places before the discussions began surrounding the referendum to repeal the 8th.
a protest somewhere else actually does impeed someone's rights if they cause disruption, the ability to get around, so therefore i would suggest that actually health care is not special, and if you want to bann protests around certain facilities involved in it because it disrupts people, you should surely be looking to bann all or most protests, because they do cause some bit of disruption to somebody.
peaceful protests are legitimate to the protesters, who believe the issue they are protesting against should be highlighted, disagreement with a protest doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong or illegitimate.

How many other protests have you seen which attempt to impede access to healthcare? Abortion is the reason they "protesting" it is not the reason why people take an issue with it.
Nobody has a right to have unfettered access down a street or to not hear the chants of a passing protest while they are having a coffee. That you would consider it an example to argue for attempting to impede access to healthcare is bewildering.
If it was about highlighting the issue they would be outside the dail. Like I have already said, it's not about highlighting any issue it's about impeding access.

end of the road · 21-03-2020 3:57pm

uptherebels wrote: »

How many other protests have you seen which attempt to impede access to healthcare? Abortion is the reason they "protesting" it is not the reason why people take an issue with it.
Nobody has a right to have unfettered access down a street or to not hear the chants of a passing protest while they are having a coffee. That you would consider it an example to argue for attempting to impede access to healthcare is bewildering.
If it was about highlighting the issue they would be outside the dail. Like I have already said, it's not about highlighting any issue it's about impeding access.

one does not need to specifically go to the dail to highlight an issue. going there may certainly help, but it's not obligatory or even specifically necessary.
only protesters themselves know why they protest where they protest unless they specifically tell us why, and if they are protesting against say, abortion, then one of the places they are going to protest outside is where they take place, generally dedicated abortion clinics, hence ireland's lack of such protests or at least signifficant ones due to the lack of them here.
the 1 or 2 protests here in ireland against abortion since the legislation was introduced, have been so tiny that it's not surprising it seems to be a non-issue outside a tiny amount of people, mainly on the internet, at least from what i can see.

21-03-2020 5:20pm

end of the road wrote: »

one does not need to specifically go to the dail to highlight an issue. going there may certainly help, but it's not obligatory or even specifically necessary.
only protesters themselves know why they protest where they protest unless they specifically tell us why, and if they are protesting against say, abortion, then one of the places they are going to protest outside is where they take place, generally dedicated abortion clinics, hence ireland's lack of such protests or at least signifficant ones due to the lack of them here.
the 1 or 2 protests here in ireland against abortion since the legislation was introduced, have been so tiny that it's not surprising it seems to be a non-issue outside a tiny amount of people, mainly on the internet, at least from what i can see.

A gathering of 100 or so people outside the national maternity hospital isn't small.

it is however less than the number that marched looking for exclusion zones to be put in place, so it's not just a tiny amount of people on the internet who want exclusion zones in place.

Igotadose · 21-03-2020 5:21pm

Know anyone with Coronavirus? Tell them to join a protest. Problem solved!

end of the road · 21-03-2020 5:58pm

DubInMeath wrote: »

A gathering of 100 or so people outside the national maternity hospital isn't small.

it is however less than the number that marched looking for exclusion zones to be put in place, so it's not just a tiny amount of people on the internet who want exclusion zones in place.

they were both still small in the great scheme of protests.

21-03-2020 7:03pm

end of the road wrote: »

they were both still small in the great scheme of protests.

Again not just a tiny amount of people on the internet looking for exclusion zones as your claiming.

The numbers are larger for exclusion zones, the protesters outside hospitals appear to be shipped in, similar to the members of protest against those marching for exclusion zones.

Also going by your logic of hospitals and doctor surgeries being the correct place to protest, perhaps churches, fake pregnancy advice centres and the iona offices should be places to protest for the introduction of exclusion zones.

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Comments