Youth Defense Run In...Man Steals Poster

A_Sober_Paddy

Was in town today on my break and saw some lad having a few words with some youth defence protester/supportor...

The lad was very unhappy with their poster so decided to take and walk away with it...It was outside burger king, I had seen the poster earlier and if it was the same one, it was horrid to see, absolutely horrid...Anyone know what happened for a finish?

Mr. TTime

Delighted to hear this. Those posters are absolutely disgusting (and photoshopped / misleading) and have no place being displayed in public - great to hear somebody confronted them about it. YD really are the lowest of the low...would like to know how this ended up also.

Itsdacraic

I too would be interested to know if they chased him or if they aborted the pursuit?

krudler

Horray, the more grief YD get the better, haven't seen any posters of theirs around my area yet but if there then they'll be taken down.

Whatever your opinions on abortion, I have a close friend who suffered a number of miscarriages. She finds those posters especially upsetting and I see no justifiable reason for (*cough*) "good Christians" to stick one under her nose every time she needs to walk down the street.

OldNotWIse

Itsdacraic wrote: »

I too would be interested to know if they chased him or if they aborted the pursuit?

I think it was their choice whether or not ot chase

Gumbi

To which posters of YD are we referring?

thirteentwenty

These posters the show reality of abortion. But in the name of so called sexual freedom, it's suppressed.

R P McMurphy

Why are they putting up posters anyway. Is not a referendum so is pointless. They must have had to obtain permission or else would be fined for each one

seachto7

I saw a guy put one up opposite the Centra in Raheen a few weeks back. It's gone since I think, but would he have had permission to do so?

iguana

thirteentwenty wrote: »

These posters the show reality of abortion. But in the name of so called sexual freedom, it's suppressed.

No they don't. If there is any reality to those posters, it is the reality of late term miscarriage and stillbirth. But in the name of lying to make a point (which they can't believe so strongly in if they have to falsify their 'evidence') they torment any grieving former expectant parents who are trying to get on with their lives. How dare they make one of the worst experiences of someone's life even sh!tter. And even those who haven't experienced the grief of pregnancy loss have the right to walk through town without having to see graphic images of dismembered dead foetuses so if some man took their disgusting poster away I'd like to shake his hand. I would have done it myself but I had my 8 month old son with me and I know from experience that those YD people rarely give a crap about actual babies and I would have been nervous for his safety if any altercation had happened.

panda100

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Why are they putting up posters anyway. Is not a referendum so is pointless. They must have had to obtain permission or else would be fined for each one

+1 to Iguana's post. The pictures that YD use are mainly of miscarriage's and still births. It shows what litle respect they have for human life really.

I complained to the manger in Brown Thomas last year about the YD stall, as it was always right outside their main door. I'm glad to see the YD stall has been moved now so I can do my shopping in peace and quiet away from their craziness.

thirteentwenty

iguana wrote: »

No they don't. If there is any reality to those posters, it is the reality of late term miscarriage and stillbirth. But in the name of lying to make a point (which they can't believe so strongly in if they have to falsify their 'evidence') they torment any grieving former expectant parents who are trying to get on with their lives. How dare they make one of the worst experiences of someone's life even sh!tter. And even those who haven't experienced the grief of pregnancy loss have the right to walk through town without having to see graphic images of dismembered dead foetuses so if some man took their disgusting poster away I'd like to shake his hand. I would have done it myself but I had my 8 month old son with me and I know from experience that those YD people rarely give a crap about actual babies and I would have been nervous for his safety if any altercation had happened.

Their objective is not to make people upset - that's a necessary consequence of revealing the horrors of this practice. If nobody said anything it would continue unabated. Although I disagree with their methods (it just makes people hate them more) I agree with their intentions: To expose the lie that it's not a baby. And to protect life. Upsetting people is not a crime compared to taking lives of healthy babies.

irishproduce

thirteentwenty wrote: »

These posters the show reality of abortion. But in the name of so called sexual freedom, it's suppressed.

That's a good way of looking at it actually!

Insect Overlord

irishproduce wrote: »

That's a good way of looking at it actually!

It's not, really. He's advocating one agenda (Pro-Life) by suggesting that abortion is a natural result of more liberal attitudes to sex ("in the name of so called sexual freedom")
It's a deliberate blurring of the lines between two connected but very different issues.

thirteentwenty

thirteentwenty wrote: »

Their objective is not to make people upset - that's a necessary consequence of revealing the horrors of this practice. If nobody said anything it would continue unabated. Although I disagree with their methods (it just makes people hate them more) I agree with their intentions: To expose the lie that it's not a baby. And to protect life. Upsetting people is not a crime compared to taking lives of healthy babies.

A foetus is NOT a baby.

A baby can survive outside the womb.

A foetus cannot survive outside the womb.

Do you see the difference?

One is potential, the other is potential realised.

I never understand how you anti-choicers can't understand that.

We pro-choicers don't kill babies. We want women to have the choice to abort a group of cells that has the potential to be a baby.

Call me Al

thirteentwenty wrote: »

Their objective is not to make people upset - that's a necessary consequence of revealing the horrors of this practice. If nobody said anything it would continue unabated. Although I disagree with their methods (it just makes people hate them more) I agree with their intentions: To expose the lie that it's not a baby. And to protect life. Upsetting people is not a crime compared to taking lives of healthy babies.

In case you weren't aware abortion isn't a common practice in this country so the idea that it is to try to stop it continuing unabated is nonsense! If they are so concerned with this aspect they would get themselves over to Liverpool or Manchester or one of the other thousands of the clinics there are in Europe with their posters, but they won't because, quite rightly, they wouldn't be allowed to stick them anywhere.

thirteentwenty

Deleted User wrote: »

A foetus is NOT a baby.

A baby can survive outside the womb.

A foetus cannot survive outside the womb.

Do you see the difference?

One is potential, the other is potential realised.

I never understand how you anti-choicers can't understand that.

We pro-choicers don't kill babies. We want women to have the choice to abort a group of cells that has the potential to be a baby.

How very unscientific. Because even doctors admit life starts at conception. You need to rationalize to hide from the obvious, that's what intellectuals are very good at. Like yourself.

You see, you and many other young people know, that if you were to accept that this is a crime, you'd have to give up sex outside marriage - that's the REAL reason why you defend it. Otherwise you'd have to start having kids with people you don't know. Why else do you think nearly *all* pro-choicers that exist just happen to see sex outside committed relationships as morally acceptable? It's obvious.

The fact that their was no public protests and marches to any degree before the sexual revolution re-inforces my point.

Now, let me say that you are anti-choice. Do you really feel women in a lot of cases, who are vulnerable and alone, that they feel they have a choice to raise a kid? Do you know why she doesn't and feels compelled to go abroad? Because her so called partner and even family didn't support her. That's because you don't work at changing this Peter pan culture so that wouldn't have to happen. You're so focused on sweeping the problem under the carpet, you neglect actually dealing with the real problem.

But you can never be at peace holding your position, not really. As long as you are grateful for your opportunity to experience life, you can never truly be at peace with that being taken away from others.

*That* will always eat at away you.

Insect Overlord

thirteentwenty wrote: »

You see, you and many other young people know, that if you were to accept that this is a crime, you'd have to give up sex outside marriage - that's the REAL reason why you defend it. Otherwise you'd have to start having kids with people you don't know. Why else do you think nearly *all* pro-choicers that exist just happen to see sex outside committed relationships as morally acceptable? It's obvious.

Ah, the legacy of Míne Bean Uí Chribín and Úna Bean Mhic Mhathúna lives on. That sort of attitude can feck off back to the 1950s. Take the Westboro Baptist Church with you too.

Call me Al

thirteentwenty wrote: »

How very unscientific. Because even doctors admit life starts at conception. You need to rationalize to hide from the obvious, that's what intellectuals are very good at. Like yourself.

You see, you and many other young people know, that if you were to accept that this is a crime, you'd have to give up sex outside marriage - that's the REAL reason why you defend it. Otherwise you'd have to start having kids with people you don't know. Why else do you think nearly *all* pro-choicers that exist just happen to see sex outside committed relationships as morally acceptable? It's obvious.

The fact that their was no public protests and marches to any degree before the sexual revolution re-inforces my point.

Now, let me say that you are anti-choice. Do you really feel women in a lot of cases, who are vulnerable and alone, that they feel they have a choice to raise a kid? Do you know why she doesn't and feels compelled to go abroad? Because her so called partner and even family didn't support her. That's because you don't work at changing this Peter pan culture so that wouldn't have to happen. You're so focused on sweeping the problem under the carpet, you neglect actually dealing with the real problem.

But you can never be at peace holding your position, not really. As long as you are grateful for your opportunity to experience life, you can never truly be at peace with that being taken away from others.

*That* will always eat at away you.

WOW

In light of all these bizarre sweeping generalisations I see in this post, I think I will make one of my own.... That you and those who think like you are very much against contraception as well as abortion.


Btw there have always been abortions, for hundreds of years, sexual revolutions or not.

Some of your other paragraphs makes no sense to me.

Insect Overlord

Call me Al wrote: »

Some of your other paragraphs makes no sense to me.

They've been banned already! That didn't take long!

Now if only we could ban their posters from the streets and lanes of the city...

seachto7

If life begins at inception, why not baptise "babies" once women find out they are pregnant..............

Why not give people the choice? If people believe abortion goes against their beliefs, then they don't have to do it. If people want to have an abortion, then that's their choice.

If some hospitals don't want to carry out abortions, fine. Some other hospital will.

krudler

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Ah, the legacy of Míne Bean Uí Chribín and Úna Bean Mhic Mhathúna lives on. That sort of attitude can feck off back to the 1950s. Take the Westboro Baptist Church with you too.

gway ye wife swapping sodomites!

Insect Overlord

krudler wrote: »

gway ye wife swapping sodomites!

SarahBeep!

Was planning on ripping down the ones at the top of William st after a night out but when I was coming back through town someone had beaten me too it!

irishproduce

Call me Al wrote: »

In case you weren't aware abortion isn't a common practice in this country so the idea that it is to try to stop it continuing unabated is nonsense! If they are so concerned with this aspect they would get themselves over to Liverpool or Manchester or one of the other thousands of the clinics there are in Europe with their posters, but they won't because, quite rightly, they wouldn't be allowed to stick them anywhere.

I suspect that you are speculating there Al.
How do you know they are not allowed to mount posters in any other state, including UK?
Perhaps because there is potential to stop this act before it is legislated for here, they are focusing their resources on the Irish cause as the UKs is a much bigger challenge and has already made it through?

Call me Al

irishproduce wrote: »

I suspect that you are speculating there Al.
How do you know they are not allowed to mount posters in any other state, including UK?
Perhaps because there is potential to stop this act before it is legislated for here, they are focusing their resources on the Irish cause as the UKs is a much bigger challenge and has already made it through?

I don't know.

I lived there long enough though and never witnessed anything like the carry-on of the groups here in good old Ireland. People wouldn't tolerate it.

iguana

The Limerick bye-laws for putting up posters is that they have to be about something specific. So it's ok to put them up during a referendum or election or to advertise a particular event. And 7 days after the event/polling stations close, they have to be taken down or the organisation who put them up gets a €150 fine per poster. If you looked very carefully at the YD posters that were all over the city a couple of weeks ago you would have seen that at the bottom in teeny-tiny writing they advertised a meeting that was supposed to have been happening in the Clarion. Though I'm not sure if the meeting was real as the same posters were in Dublin with a teeny reference to a meeting in Wynns Hotel which according to Wynns never happened and was never intended to happen as YD never booked a room there, it was just a lie to justify the putting the posters up. If anyone sees these posters, go right up close and see if it's advertising a meeting. If it is, and the meeting was more than 7 days ago, report it to the council and try to get the feckers fined.

iguana

Oh and by the way any Youth Defence people who are reading this. Well done on your demo on Monday, it inspired this thread and as a result I've just seen Panda100's sig and emailed the Campaign for Choice to see if I can be of any practical help. Excellent work in getting people off their bums to fight ye!

pappyodaniel

I strongly disagree with these posters. There were 6 of them up in my village last week. I just waited until around midnight and took them down.

Insect Overlord

Could someone PM me a picture of what these posters look like?