Did anybody here attend the Rally For Life/repeal the 8th marches in Dublin?

martingriff

gctest50 wrote: »

martingriff wrote: »

True however my question still stands as her partner would he be happy that she just did it as it's her body he as a man should have no say

So you have a couple that are together and she wants to terminate her pregnancy and he doesn't want that to happen ? It's a hard case but hard cases make bad law

It should be illegal for every woman just because of a quarreling couple ?

My point was down as the point no 1 who can give birth should vote in this referendum and just pointing out in my way that is a stupid idea. As a man has a hand (so to speak) in the pregnancy and they are a couple he should be heard

If a woman wants an abortion guy does not it's a relationship problem which a law can not fix or should.

_Whimsical_

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How about the simple solution of you stay out of my life and I stay out of yours. If you don't want an abortion youre free to not have one. The availability of abortion will have no impact on your life unless you go out of your way to involve yourself. Just like all the things I don't involve myself with don't impact my life.

You couldn't have proved my point better if you tried there.

I didn't say I'm anti abortion in every case. I'm not.

Admitting nuance, particularly in the light of the case this week that saw a girl who sought an abortion at 6 months choose to take that baby home with her to live, is surely acceptable? To want to have a conversation about it rather than exchange insults or use it as an opportunity for some tired value signaling is too much to ask?
That's frankly the sign of complete immaturity. Not suggesting that's just you, it's pretty much the cookie cutter response id expect from most pro choice advocates. Unfortunately for you though we all have vote and the more this hackneyed response is trotted out the more less vocal, more nuanced minded people the pro choice side will lose, for better or worse.

feargale

gctest50 wrote: »

And how many of them had a uterus and were aged between say 18 and 40 ?

That's me out then. I'm over 40 so I guess I can't vote.

And there was me thinking the only thing I was ineligible for was minor football.

Guy:Incognito

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

You couldn't have proved my point better if you tried there.

I didn't say I'm anti abortion in every case. I'm not.

Admitting nuance, particularly in the light of the case this week that saw a girl who sought an abortion at 6 months choose to take that baby home with her to live, is surely acceptable? To want to have a conversation about it rather than exchange insults or use it as an opportunity for some tired value signaling is too much to ask?
That's frankly the sign of complete immaturity. Not suggesting that's just you, it's pretty much the cookie cutter response id expect from most pro choice advocates. Unfortunately for you though we all have vote and the more this hackneyed response is trotted out the more less vocal, more nuanced minded people the pro choice side will lose, for better or worse.

People's reasons for abortions are their own and just like any decision in life , it's theirs to decide and to deal with consequences. Regardless of the changes, none of them will allow for abortions at 6 months anyway, and I don't see anyone advocating that it should, outside of certain circumstances.

But either way, giving carte Blanche to have abortions up till the day of delivery on the grounds that the person doesn't want a black haired baby wouldnt have any effect on your life anyway so why get involved ?

Again , do you not think all this energy could be better spent helping people that actually want help from people who clearly have time on their hands to give it?

gctest50

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

.........the pro choice side will lose, for better or worse.

If the pro-choice side lose, women will still travel abroad like they have to do now

It's not a hurling match, there isn't winning and losing

There's travelling abroad for a medical procedure or staying here for it

It's not going to all magically disappear

I'd imagine there is a lot of money being gathered up under the banner of TeamProlife throughout the country ( how much of it makes it to the headquarters is another days work)

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I never had a doubt about the marriage referendum passing. I found during the marriage referendum everybody on Yes side was on the same page. However if you ask people in the repeal campaign what circumstances they want abortion legalised they can all give you different answers and don't agree with one another.

And? What has that got to do with the point you made?

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And? What has that got to do with the point you made?

I forgot to mention it in my opening post and thought it was an appropriate reply to your comment.

Ann_Landers

RayM wrote: »

It was a high turnout, as marches go, but probably nowhere near the 70,000 claimed by the organisers (and unquestioningly parroted by RTE).

It seemed on a par with the Repeal march last September. Both were well attended. What I found curious though was the pro-life march was one of the main headlines on the RTÉ news site the day it happened whereas the news story on the Repeal march was well hidden on RTÉ New's front page the day it happened. Surely they should be on equal footing in terms of coverage?

Both marches had counter-protesters though there seemed to be more counter-protesters this weekend than at the Repeal march.

Ann_Landers

freshpopcorn wrote: »

They got a good crowd and the one thing for certain is most of these people will vote.

Weren't many of the protesters from Northern Ireland?

freshpopcorn

Ann_Landers wrote: »

It seemed on a par with the Repeal march last September. Both were well attended. What I found curious though was the pro-life march was one of the main headlines on the RTÉ news site the day it happened whereas the news story on the Repeal march was well hidden on RTÉ New's front page the day it happened. Surely they should be on equal footing in terms of coverage?

Both marches had counter-protesters though there seemed to be more counter-protesters this weekend than at the Repeal march.

I actually didn't see the news so I don't know about these all I can think of would they have being something more important in the news. That might have over shadowed it back in September.
I know they get stricter regarding these things at the time of a referendum. Generally you hear them on about having an equal amount of time to speak. I don't honestly know tough.
If either side isn't happy their well able to make a complaint.

Ann_Landers wrote: »

Weren't many of the protesters from Northern Ireland?

Well probably yes but you could say the same about younger people attending the repeal march back in September.(Not to generalise about age) However the grew vote can be very loyal.

Ann_Landers

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well probably yes but you could say the same about younger people attending the repeal march back in September.(Not to generalise about age) However the grew vote can be very loyal.

I thought I read that one of the main groups involved in organising the pro-life march was from Northern Ireland which I thought a bit odd.

freshpopcorn

Ann_Landers wrote: »

I thought I read that one of the main groups involved in organising the pro-life march was from Northern Ireland which I thought a bit odd.

I honestly don't know. Sometimes with campaigns money/resources come from overseas. No matter what side of the fence your on.

Donal55

Ann_Landers wrote: »

I thought I read that one of the main groups involved in organising the pro-life march was from Northern Ireland which I thought a bit odd.

Can't see any problem with it. I'm sure many of our LGBT pals will go north to protest about the marriage/equality issue up there.

Uriel.

wordofwarning wrote: »

No true. Around 50-66% of abortions are due to contraceptive failures eg the pills not working for some reason or condom failure. No all contraceptives are effective. In fact condoms are quite ineffective at preventing pregnancy versus IUD

AFAIK I don't think we were once told in sex ed in school that IUDs had pretty much a zero failure rate versus condoms which have a high failure rate

Condoms are near 100% effective when used correctly and when they fail you know they fail and can get MAP.

Will I Am Not

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

People's reasons for abortions are their own and just like any decision in life , it's theirs to decide and to deal with consequences. Regardless of the changes, none of them will allow for abortions at 6 months anyway, and I don't see anyone advocating that it should, outside of certain circumstances.

But either way, giving carte Blanche to have abortions up till the day of delivery on the grounds that the person doesn't want a black haired baby wouldnt have any effect on your life anyway so why get involved ?

Again , do you not think all this energy could be better spent helping people that actually want help from people who clearly have time on their hands to give it?

That's not even a reasonable point. Apart from the fact it would have an effect if it's their wife, sister, mother... You could say that about anything really.

whisky_galore

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Why are they still going around with the "Repeal" jumpers? It has pretty much been confirmed that it won't be repealed and we will instead have the option to amend the amendment.

"Amending the amendment" won't fit on a jumper.

keano_afc

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And the mask slips.

Was it ever up in the first place?

keano_afc

gctest50 wrote: »

And how many of them had a uterus and were aged between say 18 and 40 ?

Quite a few of them actually, including my wife who was standing beside me.

If social media has taught me anything over the last couple of days, its that "pro-choice" supporters have as much respect for the validity of the elderly as they do for the pre-born.

Yourself isit

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How about the simple solution of you stay out of my life and I stay out of yours. If you don't want an abortion youre free to not have one. The availability of abortion will have no impact on your life unless you go out of your way to involve yourself. Just like all the things I don't involve myself with don't impact my life.

This argument is why I dispair of the pro choice movement. Clearly the other side - which isn't my side - believes there is a child there at all times.

And surely everybody believes that in late term.

gctest50

Ann_Landers wrote: »

I thought I read that one of the main groups involved in organising the pro-life march was from Northern Ireland which I thought a bit odd.

There could be a lot of money involved in it all - bit like Noraid etc

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-raised-12-million-in-the-united-states-1.2126033?mode=amp


Easy enough go " passing the hat around" in America etc for poor little Oirland

keano_afc

Ann_Landers wrote: »

I thought I read that one of the main groups involved in organising the pro-life march was from Northern Ireland which I thought a bit odd.

Not really. The event was called the All Ireland Rally for Life.

Grayson

Donal55 wrote: »

Can't see any problem with it. I'm sure many of our LGBT pals will go north to protest about the marriage/equality issue up there.

Precious life are a bit odd.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/prolifer-bernadette-smyth-breaches-court-order-in-just-48-hours-30851134.html


Plus, if I remember correctly, she's the one that said yoga was evil and christians shouldn't have anything to do with it.

CaoimheSquee

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Do you think a woman should be able to abort pregnancies at seven months? No, you don't, like most normal people and so therefore even YOU think a woman should not always be able to do what she wants to with "her body". People parrot that slogan because that's all they have but it has never been able to stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

ALL opinions on abortion come down to fetal development. There is no adult on Planet Earth that has an opinion on abortion that is not based solely on fetal development (excluding fta, risk to life etc etc... of course). All the other bull**** is just background noise as even the staunchest of prochoice don't believe women should be able to abort any stage of a pregnancy. Which is why women in the UK (for example) have been imprisoned for killing their unborn babies after 24 weeks gestation.

Now, you ask why should you (a man) have a say in any abortion referendum?

Well, 50% of a baby's DNA comes from it's father. In fact, human beings use use more DNA from their fathers than we do our mothers and so why shouldn't men have a say in what happens babies as they develop in the womb given that?

Besides, even if that wasn't true. All citizens of a country should have a say in something as important the rights of our offspring at gestational stage. How we treat our most vulnerable says so much about us and there are no more vulnerable human beings on this Planet than those in the womb.

So much wrong with this.
Do you really think women will turn around at 7 months and decide nah, I don't really want this baby now?
Late abortions only happen in very sad circumstances for all, and 7 months would be HIGHLY irregular and horrifying. It would be a c-section also. Not an abortion and probably a miscarriage.
It is only the later scans that show abnormalities (generally the 20 week one) so by the time a woman decides what to do and arranges to go to ANOTHER COUNTRY to have an abortion it will be late. Nobody wants that.
Any reasonable person (doctors for choice TFMR, ARC etc.) is campaigning for early as possible, late as necessary.
Allowing women to choose with their doctors, privately, is the compassionate and logical outcome here.

And it is her body. And it is her choice. Ultimately. Even my parents in their 70's know that!

If men went through pregnancy, went through labour and put their lives and livelihoods at risk then I would fully support them if the tables were turned on this.

The sky will not fall in if and when this passes. Women will not start murdering children on the streets. Remember the divorce referendum? Husbands and wives did not start leaving each other and walking out of their homes.

Grayson

Uriel. wrote: »

Condoms are near 100% effective when used correctly and when they fail you know they fail and can get MAP.

I think you need to learn a bit more about condoms.

CaoimheSquee

Uriel. wrote: »

Condoms are near 100% effective when used correctly and when they fail you know they fail and can get MAP.

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

hytrogen

martingriff wrote:

So if you partner was pregnant you be happy if she just went and had a termination. After all it's her body why should a man (you) have a say

I'd perhaps raise an eyebrow if it was my wife and our child and everything was going hunky dory until then, but until the day those bells ring why should I decide about her lifestyle choices? Especially if we committed to a sexual encounter that was mutually enjoyable and all the safeguards were used. Raising a child is a massive undertaking emotionally, physically and financially, especially for a parent. Equally why should she get involved in my affairs when we have no legal recognition of unity together?
Difference being the supportiveness of husband and wife Vs partner(s) really. I'm not saying kids raised by a lone parent are bad, far from it, but from personal observations they mostly do end up with a chip on their shoulder and psychological issues later on in life due to society's pressures portrayed upon them of "normality".

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Looked like a decent sized crowd but sure if people want to dismiss views... let them.

It is hard to "dismiss" views that are not coherently offered. I have not sat down and talked to The Anti Abortion campaigners in a long time but I can only hope that over the years they have improved their approach.

I have told the story before but I took an afternoon out, during the time I wanted to form and inform my final opinions on abortion, to go sit and talk with the Anti Abortion people at those old information tables they used to have outside Central Bank Dublin (do they still do that?)

I could not get a SINGLE coherent argument out of them. They just kept telling me in a stoner like drawl "Look at the pictures maaaaan", referring to the misleading photographs they had blown up and erected for their shock value.

And when I come on to forums like this one it is not much better. I get utter nonsense pedaled at me like playing music to the fetus to make it's tongue move. Followed by silent fish impressions when you ask what the point actually is.

In the end my pro-choice position was informed not just by the arguments I heard and learned, and the biology and science I studied and learned, but by the complete and utter lack of arguments and points being made to me by the wavers of cherry picked photographs.

I can not dismiss, what simply is not there.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Do you think a woman should be able to abort pregnancies at seven months? No, you don't, like most normal people and so therefore even YOU think a woman should not always be able to do what she wants to with "her body".

Is it safe to ask that question and answer it for them though? They MIGHT believe that. There have been three or four people on this forum who seem to genuinely believe that abortion should be allowed at ANY stage for ANY reason at all.

Though the coherence of their reasoning on that is pretty poor. One user, for example, when I queried him on the basis of that position merely claimed that Hillary Clinton agrees with him. Not only do I doubt that is entirely true or representative of her position......... an enormous "so what?" jumped into my mind at the time.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

People parrot that slogan because that's all they have but it has never been able to stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

Like many slogans, if you take it at face value and entirely literally it is not going to make much sense. You have, however, had it explained to you MULTIPLE times what lies behind the slogan, and what people generally mean by it. Like most slogans you need to engage with it, and the people using it, to unpack the meaning and intention of it. But if you contrive to refuse to do that, then I do not think conversation will ever move past the slogans.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There is no adult on Planet Earth that has an opinion on abortion that is not based solely on fetal development

I have met some people who's ENTIRE argument against abortion is that they believe some god inserts a "soul" into the zygote at the moment of conception and that abortion is wrong because it is against their god's plan and intentions.

So I would be careful of declaring what "ALL" people believe until you have taken the time to actually talk to "ALL" people. Or even ANY of them.

Eyes Down Field wrote: »

I think the referendum on the 8th should be decided by women only. As a man, Why should I have a say in what a woman choses to do with her, body, her life.

Because it involves a change to our constitution and the constitution belongs to ALL the people, not just one gender or sex.

Uriel.

Grayson wrote: »

I think you need to learn a bit more about condoms.

Go on educate me

Guy:Incognito

At the end of the day the only people being prevented from having abortions are those too poor or vulnerable to travel to the UK. I'm not sure how forcing those women to have children they don't want is some sort of victory.........


And I notice that while people are selectively answering the posts that suit, the issue of why not spend your time helping people that are currently struggling with life and actually want your help seems to be ignored. Its not like there's a shortage of good deeds that need doing.

RayM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I do get why you would focus on the male participants because of the message you hope to send, but is there any evidence for the male thing? Any of the pro-life marches I've seen (never participated in any though) have more women than men so I would be surprised if this one is any different.

Any pro-life marches I've seen in the last few years, middle-aged/elderly men were definitely the most vocal and most noticeable group. I've noticed a tendency to push younger people towards the front, particularly carrying banners, but those marches definitely seem to attract a disproportionate amount of old people.

Don't get me wrong - old men are every bit as entitled to have an opinion on women's bodily autonomy as I am.

Guy:Incognito

Well older virginal bachelors are aparently the best people to give advice to young couple's starting out married life so maybe they have all the answers........

Mutant z

I fully support womens right to be in control of their reproductive organs, why be forced to bring a child into the world you clearly don't want.

ash23

I saw a local woman on the news at the rally.
She was the same woman who showed me a rental property a few years back. She was mad keen on me when I scheduled the viewing. I was working and had great references.
When I was viewing the house she asked me who would be living there. Partner? Room mates?
I said just me and the little one.

"Oh, no partner? Just you?"
"Yes and my child"
"But how will you pay the rent? I don't take rent allowance"
"That's ok, I'm not on rent allowance. I work full time and have been renting a more expensive place for the last three years so the rent won't be a problem"
"Oh I'm not sure about renting to a single mother. The neighbours are very quiet and wouldn't want any trouble"


Anyway, conversation went on like that for a bit until I told her to stick it.

So she's all for the women keeping the tiny babies but then her and her ilk will look down their noses at the women and the babies if they're not in the perceived ideal situation.

Pro-life until the child is born in my opinion and my experience.

Or the chap I was seeing who ended it because his pro-life parents didn't approve of him seeing a single mother. So if I'd had an abortion I'd have been welcome because they'd have known no different. But the evidence of me not having an abortion meant I wasn't good enough for their son. I was well rid of him, the big girls blouse, but that stuck in my craw.

Uriel.

ash23 wrote: »

I saw a local woman on the news at the rally.
She was the same woman who showed me a rental property a few years back. She was mad keen on me when I scheduled the viewing. I was working and had great references.
When I was viewing the house she asked me who would be living there. Partner? Room mates?
I said just me and the little one.

"Oh, no partner? Just you?"
"Yes and my child"
"But how will you pay the rent? I don't take rent allowance"
"That's ok, I'm not on rent allowance. I work full time and have been renting a more expensive place for the last three years so the rent won't be a problem"
"Oh I'm not sure about renting to a single mother. The neighbours are very quiet and wouldn't want any trouble"


Anyway, conversation went on like that for a bit until I told her to stick it.

So she's all for the women keeping the tiny babies but then her and her ilk will look down their noses at the women and the babies if they're not in the perceived ideal situation.

Pro-life until the child is born in my opinion and my experience.

Or the chap I was seeing who ended it because his pro-life parents didn't approve of him seeing a single mother. So if I'd had an abortion I'd have been welcome because they'd have known no different. But the evidence of me not having an abortion meant I wasn't good enough for their son. I was well rid of him, the big girls blouse, but that stuck in my craw.

You should have performed an adult abortion on the lot of them

Will I Am Not

Everyone has an anecdote and everyone was at every meeting on both sides :rolleyes:

super_furry

For me, the whole thing can be summed up in one image.

Hector Savage

ash23 wrote: »

I saw a local woman on the news at the rally.
She was the same woman who showed me a rental property a few years back. She was mad keen on me when I scheduled the viewing. I was working and had great references.
When I was viewing the house she asked me who would be living there. Partner? Room mates?
I said just me and the little one.

"Oh, no partner? Just you?"
"Yes and my child"
"But how will you pay the rent? I don't take rent allowance"
"That's ok, I'm not on rent allowance. I work full time and have been renting a more expensive place for the last three years so the rent won't be a problem"
"Oh I'm not sure about renting to a single mother. The neighbours are very quiet and wouldn't want any trouble"


Anyway, conversation went on like that for a bit until I told her to stick it.

So she's all for the women keeping the tiny babies but then her and her ilk will look down their noses at the women and the babies if they're not in the perceived ideal situation.

Pro-life until the child is born in my opinion and my experience.

Or the chap I was seeing who ended it because his pro-life parents didn't approve of him seeing a single mother. So if I'd had an abortion I'd have been welcome because they'd have known no different. But the evidence of me not having an abortion meant I wasn't good enough for their son. I was well rid of him, the big girls blouse, but that stuck in my craw.

Spot on, once they are born they don't give a sh*t about them.

Shady shady group these anti choicers.


What were the numbers like in both rallies ?

_Kaiser_

I think it's very simple... the option should be there for those who want/need an abortion to have one legally and safely, without the additional trauma and expense of having to travel to the UK for it.

That's the most sensible option given that latter alternative isn't going away, no matter what is decided here. It's also not going to lead to a flood of abortions. Such a decision is something that I doubt anyone in that position makes lightly or doesn't agonize over afterwards (maybe for the rest of their lives).

Anything else is agenda-driven emotional blackmail by those who have no business interfering in that individual's choice and who certainly won't be living with the consequences (either way).

The_Valeyard

After reading the comments from most of the pro abortion side, I'll probably be voting to keep the 8th. Decision made.

_Kaiser_

The_Valeyard wrote: »

After reading the comments from most of the pro abortion side, I'll probably be voting to keep the 8th. Decision made.

Yea, because social media ranting (from both sides) is always the way to decide important issues.

Ask yourself this... what's the better outcome for a woman who finds herself in the position? Because THAT is what matters here, not the agenda of those (again on both sides) who won't have to live with the decision either way.

Hector Savage

The_Valeyard wrote: »

After reading the comments from most of the pro abortion side, I'll probably be voting to keep the 8th. Decision made.

It's not PRO abortion, it's PRO CHOICE !!!

The_Valeyard

Hector Savage wrote: »

It's not PRO abortion, it's PRO CHOICE !!!

same thing. Decision made. Thanks.

The_Valeyard

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Yea, because social media ranting (from both sides) is always the way to decide important issues.

Ask yourself this... what's the better outcome for a woman who finds herself in the position? Because THAT is what matters here, not the agenda of those (again on both sides) who won't have to live with the decision either way.

Thanks for your input, myself and partner and most friends already decided to keep 8th. Unless it's a strict inclusion of medical reasons. Any opening of a British style system, we'd all be voting no.

Guy:Incognito

Where is abortion allowed outside of special circumstances at 7 months and why do you think it will be allowed here?

It's almost as if people won't debate the actual issues.........

gctest50

The_Valeyard wrote: »

After reading the comments from most of the pro abortion side, I'll probably be voting to keep the 8th. Decision made.

So you're basing your decision not on what will make it safer for women but "comments"

Then you announce your big decision looking for attention

Pathetic post


If the 8th stays all it means is they keep travelling outside Ireland

Sweeping it under the rug

Time for the country to get the training wheels off

.

_Kaiser_

I refuse to get drawn into the emotionally charged "argument" made by those who should have absolutely no say in what is a deeply individual and personal matter, influenced by a number of factors beyond such emotive blackmailing.

I've stated my position above. There is already an alternative that won't be going away but puts more pressure and stress on people facing such a decision. There's no reason to put them through that when they should be able to safely and legally have the abortion here IF that's ultimately their decision.

Uriel.

Did a load of comments get deleted in here or am I imagining things.?

The_Valeyard

gctest50 wrote: »

So you're basing your decision not on what will make it safer for women but "comments"

Then you announce your big decision looking for attention

Pathetic

Personal attack? Thanks.

This is a comment boards where people can post their opinions. Just because you disagree with me on abortion you dont get to shout me down with insults.

Guy:Incognito

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Thanks for your input, myself and partner and most friends already decided to keep 8th. Unless it's a strict inclusion of medical reasons. Any opening of a British style system, we'd all be voting no.

Why? Again, what is your life gaining by forcing women to travel to the UK for the procesure when it would be much safer physically and mentally to not have to travel?


The only difference it makes is to put hardship on women. Women are having abortions, people need to face up to this and stop sticking their head in the sand.

A simple case of looking at the numbers will show that plenty of people on the pro life side know people that have had abortions, be it friends or family members. They might not know the women have had them tho. Out of sight out of mind.......

_Kaiser_

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why? Again, what is your life gaining by forcing women to travel to the UK for the procesure when it would be much safer physically and mentally to not have to travel?


The only difference it makes is to put hardship on women. Women are having abortions, people need to face up to this and stop sticking their head in the sand.

And that sums up the entire debate really.