Woman denied abortion dies in Galway.

[jebus]

jebus, Macy, please point to the part of my post that sez "voting" or "forcing" should be involved. I phrased it very carefully ("some say", "a say"), so I'm pretty, pretty sure it's not there.

It's not an election, it's a judgement call.

So in essence what you're saying is, to quote myself; "He has a say but ultimately it's up to the woman as it is still her body"? Which, if so, is basically what everyone pro-choice I know thinks.

Anyone advocating anything else is, I presume, asking for the courts to intervene and wants a level of control on that woman's choice, so I stand by my comment on womb control.

[osarusan]

I think that the problem is what exactly constitutes 'a say'. If the woman is ultimately entitled to do what she wants, even if it is the direct opposite of what the would-be father wanted, what's the actual value of him having a say at all.

[dahamsta]

So in essence what you're saying is, to quote myself; "He has a say but ultimately it's up to the woman as it is still her body"? Which, if so, is basically what everyone pro-choice I know thinks.

Anyone advocating anything else is, I presume, asking for the courts to intervene and wants a level of control on that woman's choice, so I stand by my comment on womb control.

I'm not sure whether it should be the courts or some kind of panel (doc, psych, lay perhaps), but yes, I absolutely think that the father should have a say. Hence my use of the phrase, repeatedly, "the father should have a say".

Except in cases of rape, the woman gave up "control of her womb" (seriously, again with the emotive language? can we not be more mature about this?) when she consented to sex with the father. She can't have it one way and not the other.

[osarusan]

I'm not sure whether it should be the courts or some kind of panel (doc, psych, lay perhaps), but yes, I absolutely think that the father should have a say. Hence my use of the phrase, repeatedly, "the father should have a say".


Do you mean that the woman should be made to listen to what the man has to say - as in, actually be brought to the same room as him and be silent while he gives his opinion? Or, when you mention a court or some kind of panel, do you mean that the man makes his feelings known to them, and they pass this information on to the woman?

Either way, after being made aware of his feelings/opinion, she is free to make her own decision?

[dahamsta]

Do you mean that the woman should be made to listen to what the man has to say

Seriously, are you picturing me in a full-length leather jacket? I'm not Herr Flick of the Geshtapo. I think that if a father has a legitimate objection to an abortion and he and the mother can't come to an agreement, then an accelerated form of dispute resolution should be available to them. I'm not sure there are any circumstances whereby a woman can be /forced/ into carrying a child to term, but I do think that something should be in place to allow a father to, again, have his say.

I realise it's a difficult situation, but let's be completely honest here, there are actually some men out there who don't force themselves on women, and women out there who regard babies as nothings. I'm actually pro-abortion, but I don't think women should be allowed to discard babies willy-nilly.

[osarusan]

Not at all mein fuhrer.

I know what you're saying about the father's feelings having legitimacy, but I think it comes down to two scenarios:

The woman, after being made aware of the opinions of the father (perhaps during some kind of counselling session, maybe with a balanced panel of childcare/medical/other professionals?), is free to make whatever decision she wants (and perhaps input from these people will influence her decision)

or

The opinions of the father, if not the same as those of the mother, have influence in a process that may see a woman /forced/ into carrying a child to term.


If it's the former, then I'm not sure of the merit of the father getting to have his say. If it's the latter, that's one scary process and who designs implements, and monitors it?

Is there a third (or more) scenario I'm missing?

[Macy]

Not at all mein fuhrer.

I know what you're saying about the father's feelings having legitimacy, but I think it comes down to two scenarios:

The woman, after being made aware of the opinions of the father (perhaps during some kind of counselling session, maybe with a balanced panel of childcare/medical/other professionals?), is free to make whatever decision she wants (and perhaps input from these people will influence her decision)

or

The opinions of the father, if not the same as those of the mother, have influence in a process that may see a woman /forced/ into carrying a child to term.


If it's the former, then I'm not sure of the merit of the father getting to have his say. If it's the latter, that's one scary process and who designs implements, and monitors it?

Is there a third (or more) scenario I'm missing?
And if either had legal standing, wouldn't it be more likely that a woman would get on the first plane to the Britain after having a pregnancy test so she doesn't have to go through either scenario? It'd be completely unenforceable.

Men also have the power to chose where they dip their unprotected wick - if they do so with a woman they can't trust to be open with them, have an adult conversation with, or have respect her decision as to what she does with her body, well that's back on them imo.

[dahamsta]

osarusan, no, there's no 3rd solution; and what Macy said in para 1 above. However all situations are different, and I'm talking more about situations that might be resolved in some way. Not all abortions are carried out by bitches that don't care about fathers, not all babies are kept because daddies say so. There's (probably, I'm not expert) an awful lot of middle ground that could be resolved with the right processes.

Macy, yes, in that case it's back on the fathers. AND the mothers. You're going out of your way to make everything binary, and I don't quite understand why.

[jebus]

Seriously, are you picturing me in a full-length leather jacket? I'm not Herr Flick of the Geshtapo. I think that if a father has a legitimate objection to an abortion and he and the mother can't come to an agreement, then an accelerated form of dispute resolution should be available to them. I'm not sure there are any circumstances whereby a woman can be /forced/ into carrying a child to term, but I do think that something should be in place to allow a father to, again, have his say.

I realise it's a difficult situation, but let's be completely honest here, there are actually some men out there who don't force themselves on women, and women out there who regard babies as nothings. I'm actually pro-abortion, but I don't think women should be allowed to discard babies willy-nilly.

I'm not even sure what you're advocating here, some kind of tribunal labour court where the man sets out his case to a woman against her having an abortion perhaps? Is that it? Is it a mediator? How workable in the real world do you think that is, honestly?

What happens if the accelerated form of dispute resolution is set for, say, two weeks from when a woman informs a man she’s terminating the pregnancy and she decides ‘actually I think I’ll just have it this week’? Is she facing jail time?

Sorry if I’m just not grasping this but your concept doesn’t seem thought out to me

[dahamsta]

I'm not an abortion specialist and I'm not laying out a white paper. I'm saying that taking the attitude that a foetus/baby is a womans and a womans alone is wrong, and a mans opinion/want needs to be taken into account. Again, if men are to be required to pay maintenance or have a part in a child's upbringing, they should have a part to play in the decision as to whether or not a child is to be kept. Women can't have it one and not the other.

[jebus]

So you do advocate legal rights for the male on the foetus? Or is this still just you trying to find another way of saying what I said but in a way that might not annoy the pro-lifers?

[dahamsta]

Absolutely. There are very strong laws requiring men to take responsibility for children after they're born, and again - again, again, do I really need to keep repeating myself - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I might add that I don't agree with the automatic default to custody to women either.

I should also add that while I understand that this is a hot button topic for some people, and some people love debating it, I don't appreciate the adversarial attitude. If you want to get hardcore with someone on the subject, you'll need to find someone else to discuss it with. I simply have an opinion, I'm not writing legislation.

[jebus]

Not adversarial, although I do find your belief pretty reprehensible as you, whether you find this term sensationalist or not, are advocating for a level of control on a woman's womb. Thankfully your idea is completely unworkable in reality so I guess there's no point in debating it any further.

[DannyInvincible]

I think you're unfairly misrepresenting dahamsta. He's not advocating that a man ought to be able to dictate the actions of a pregnant woman or possess some sort of "veto" over her wishes. At least, I think not anyway. He's suggesting that some framework be established to ensure that a woman might consider the man's opinion in making her final decision. Whether that's practical is another matter, but it's not as reprehensible as what you've accused him of advocating.

[SkStu]

Agree totally with Danny and Dahamsta here. I have had more experience than anyone would want in this issue of abortion and this particular part of the debate and like to think I'm coming from a very informed place.

In terms of being "unworkable" and taking Danny's post into a practical situation, engagement of interested parties in decision making is fundamental in terms of success of the action and, in the case of the mother here, would assist in combatting/dealing with the feelings of guilt that follow these procedures.

In my work, I have to deal with multiple unions daily and in a very prescribed way. An example relevant to the point here is when we are considering organizational change. In these cases we are required to communicate the change, sit down and listen to union concerns and hear and consider alternative suggestions. Following this consultative process we make a fully informed decision. More often than not we go with our initial plan. But I know that the unions, although not always happy with or supportive of the outcome, appreciate the process.

Although they're worlds apart really, I think this illustrates that input is not control and does have value to both sides.

[dahamsta]

What DI said. I'm rarely surprised by the lengths people will go to to be offended; in this case I am surprised by the people doing it.

I'm not engaging on this subject any further, I'm a bit stressed at home with the newbie at the moment and I'm not going to allow myself to get annoyed by this.

[jebus]

I think you're unfairly misrepresenting dahamsta. He's not advocating that a man ought to be able to dictate the actions of a pregnant woman or possess some sort of "veto" over her wishes. At least, I think not anyway. He's suggesting that some framework be established to ensure that a woman might consider the man's opinion in making her final decision. Whether that's practical is another matter, but it's not as reprehensible as what you've accused him of advocating.

Honestly I asked repeatedly for the stance to be made clearer and when he replied to the question of whether he's advocating legal rights for the male with

"Absolutely. There are very strong laws requiring men to take responsibility for children after they're born, and again - again, again, do I really need to keep repeating myself - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I might add that I don't agree with the automatic default to custody to women either."

I took it to mean he did want a system in place where a man could take a woman to court to block a woman from having an abortion, or leaving the country to have one at present. If that's not the case I'll withdraw the reprehensible part of what I said, but I think I was right to draw that conclusion from what was said above.

It's still completely unworkable however and would basically draw out a very difficult time in a woman's life to ensure that a man is allowed have an opinion, something I've never seen anyone advocate against

[DannyInvincible]

There are different degrees of legal rights. A legal right to be heard wouldn't be the same as a legal right to a veto.

[osarusan]

I was thinking about this during the day, and I came upon this question:

In the event that a would-be father wanted an abortion, but the pregnant woman didn't, would there still be a case for a process to ensure the man can have his say?

[DannyInvincible]

I thought of that apparent corollary the other day and was going to post the very same question, but the notion of forcing an abortion upon an unwilling other is preposterous. Surely...

[osarusan]

I thought of that apparent corollary the other day and was going to post the very same question, but the notion of forcing an abortion upon an unwilling other is preposterous. Surely...
Nobody is talking about that are they? But if we are talking about the man's right to have his opinions heard on the subject of the fate of a foetus, should it not apply in all cases?

And after the process, the mother is free to do as she chooses, of course.

[DannyInvincible]

Logically, it would seem to flow naturally, but it would surely be much more problematic than even the original proposal in practice.

[DannyInvincible]

Meanwhile, north of the border: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21601908


Two Northern Ireland assembly members are attempting to change the law to make it illegal to perform an abortion outside the NHS.

The DUP's Paul Givan and the SDLP's Alban Maginness have unveiled a joint amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill.

They said they were confident it would win sufficient support to pass into law in Northern Ireland this year.

They added they were closing a loophole in the law that appeared with the opening of private clinic Marie Stopes.

The plan to amend the law, revealed to the BBC, comes after the opening of a private abortion and family planning clinic in Belfast last autumn.

Marie Stopes International has said it operates within the current law in Northern Ireland, which is different from the rest of the UK as it only allows for abortion when the mother's physical or mental health is in danger.

Mr Givan, who chairs the assembly's justice committee, said there are concerns it is not sufficiently regulated and the amendment would ensure that only the NHS could carry out abortions in Northern Ireland

"We're responding to the challenge that was presented when the Marie Stopes clinic opened in Northern Ireland and that revealed a loophole that private clinics are wholly unregulated, there's no form of accountability, no transparency," he said.

"Obviously on something as important as abortion, which is a criminal offence in Northern Ireland, we need to be satisfied that that issue is subject to the highest level of scrutiny.

"We believe the National Health Service is best placed to do that."

Mr Maginness said that if the amendment passed into law anyone carrying out an abortion outside the NHS could face a new sentence of up to 10 years in prison or a fine.

Another committee member, Ulster Unionist Tom Elliott, has also signed the amendment.

The amendment was tabled with the assembly's bills office on Wednesday morning.

The Criminal Justice Bill is due for its "further consideration" stage on Tuesday when the amendment will be debated.

In a joint statement they said they had grave concerns about the ability of a private clinic such as Marie Stopes to carry out abortion procedures without "any form of transparency, oversight or accountability".

Is this necessary? Private clinics are still subject to the same rigours of the law as NHS clinics, no?

Also, it is interesting that Sinn Féin appears to take a more liberal/progressive stance on abortion south of the border, but favours the conservative approach of greater and tighter regulation in the north: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20522474

[DannyInvincible]

Actually, just seeing the following story relating to Sinn Féin's stance: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21611096


Sinn Fein says it opposes a plan to amend Northern Ireland's law and stop abortions performed outside the NHS.

Caitriona Ruane said the move by the DUP's Paul Givan and the SDLP's Alban Maginness was an attempt to restrict a woman's right to obtain a termination in life-threatening circumstances.

The amendment to the criminal justice bill will be debated and voted on in the NI Assembly next Tuesday.

But Sinn Fein has not said if it will attempt to block the change.

[DannyInvincible]

Did anyone catch Miriam O'Callaghan's cringeworthy Prime Time interview with Praveen Halappanavar the other night? Talk about an obvious and repetitious string of questions. Not to mention:

"...And, do you still love us as a nation?" (With puppy-dog eyes crying insecurity and begging, "Please, Praveen, say 'yes'!...")

(Thankfully, he does still love us. International reputation not in tatters. Phew!)

[DannyInvincible]

Given talk up-thread of possible rights of the father-to-be, as well as the "protection of life" tack of the proposed Irish legislation, I thought this an interesting perspective on matters: http://judecollinsjournalist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/can-father-to-be-have-suicidal-thoughts.html


The thing is, what would happen if the unborn child’s father was a suicide risk? If the mother of the unborn child can have suicidal thoughts, isn’t it possible the father of the unborn child could equally have thoughts of suicide? With the only way of resolving these thoughts being the abortion of the foetus? Or can a man only think in positive terms of his unborn child, so there’s no need to make provision for any male who might have suicidal thoughts at the prospect of becoming a father?

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't really see why that's interesting. Perinatal depression is specifically related to the bodily changes a woman undergoes during pregnancy, so in theory the end of the pregnancy could be the 'solution.' Those bodily changes don't exist in men - if he's depressed he's depressed, and that might be exacerbated by anxiety over an incoming child, etc., but it's much more easily treatable by conventional psychiatry.

I'm not really surprised that there are men who are determined to make this issue more about themselves though. I await John Waters' musings on the subject in the coming months.

[nigel-harps1954]

This is certainly interesting, at the recent pro-life rally in Dublin. I'd be interested to hear the excuse of the Garda that arrested this young fella.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yebku-JIIVY&feature=youtu.be

[Charlie Darwin]

Rumours, no idea how credible, that he was subsequently pepper-sprayed in custody.

[nigel-harps1954]

I've heard that too. Sprayed in the mouth and in the eyes when they put him into the van.

[Spudulika]

Could I be wrong in thinking the lad was a bit drunk or stoned? Also what was he doing there?

Just a little on the suicide issue, I don't believe it's going to be some sort of open door for wholscale abortion, though I have tried to understand it and failed, one part of it anyway. Now someone can correct me, but if a woman speaks about suicide or is deemed mentally deficit, an abortion can be sanctioned. I think I'm totally wrong, but I have also tried to research it via commentary.

On the issue of men's rights regarding their children, they don't exist. Zero.

[bennocelt]

Could I be wrong in thinking the lad was a bit drunk or stoned? Also what was he doing there?


On the issue of men's rights regarding their children, they don't exist. Zero.

So what?

[dahamsta]

I love the way half the country turns up for an abortion rally, but they all stay in their beds when it comes to the pillaging of the country. This country is trully forked in the head.

[RonnieB]

This is certainly interesting, at the recent pro-life rally in Dublin. I'd be interested to hear the excuse of the Garda that arrested this young fella.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yebku-JIIVY&feature=youtu.be

They don't like Bathory I'd say.

[peadar1987]

I love the way half the country turns up for an abortion rally, but they all stay in their beds when it comes to the pillaging of the country. This country is trully forked in the head.

It's because the church is silent on the pillaging of the country. They don't whip up the morons into a frenzy about it, and so nobody counterprotests the morons, and it all gets generally swept under the carpet.

Also, anti-bank-bailout movements aren't generally known for the obscene amounts of funding arriving from the US. Although I'm actually fairly happy that the money of christian fundamentalists in the States is flowing out of their pockets and into the pockets of Irish advertisers and bus companies, stimulating our economy. Every cloud and all that.

[dahamsta]

I'm just surprised there are that many people still taking part in organised religion in this country. "Worshipping" at home or perhaps even with friends I can accept (despite thinking the whole thing is just mad latter-day L. Ron Hubbard uggah-boogah nonsense), but to continue to align themselves with the likes of the catholic church with the sea of evidence against them is way out beyond mad, and into funny jacket territory. Do these people get all their news from the pulpit? Don't they open a newspaper, watch the news, or listen to the radio? Do they all just go to mass, listen to Colm & Jim Jim (vomit) and watch reality TV, is that the limit of their existence?

[nigel-harps1954]

I find that most people seem to believe that if a priest says something, then it has to be true.

This is especially apparent in this whole abortion legislation craic.

I was at a counter demonstration in Donegal. (Take into account, Donegal is practically still in the stone age here) There was a pro-life march in Letterkenny, led by what we were told was the bishop here, but what actually turned out to be about 30 priests (I kid you not), from all over Donegal. There was (supposedly) over 1,000 people there, even though we reckoned it was in around 300-400. There were 30 of us standing there with pro choice flyers, posters, placards, what have you.

The dirty looks we got from priests, the names we were called, the vile abuse we got, from these people who are supposedly 'Gods messengers', it was disgraceful and disgusting. The people duly obliged and followed with similar crap.

We stayed and listened to a few of the things they had to say, and a lot of it was sickening lies that they were passing off as facts.

The group I was with had leaflets and flyers printed out with the truths and studies done on abortion legislation in the UK, and were handing them out to the pro-life people. They glanced at them, and then threw strops about the 'lies' on them.

Never in my life have I been so disappointed in humanity as a whole. The catholic church still has a massive hold on this country whether we like it or not.


Besides, there was one thing well worth laughing about, my 7 month pregnant girlfriend, leading chants, when one guy comes up and accuses her of being a baby killer, and 'pro suicide'. This was about 5 minutes after a young girl joined in our protest and chants, while holding a pro-life banner. When quizzed about it, she simply said "what's pro-choice?"

Overall, it was a fruitful day, a learning experience. Something I don't think I'll forget in a hurry.

[Sean South]

So you went to counter a pro life demo, got called names and a few dirty looks then went home for a cry on foot.ie.

I don't see the point of what you did as those going to a pro life demo would have very strong views on it and won't change their mind because of a few leaflets and chants. To me it seems you went to provoke them so what did you expect? There's nothing to be disappointed about people having conservative catholic views as a liberal you should respect their views surley?

[DannyInvincible]

I don't really see why that's interesting. Perinatal depression is specifically related to the bodily changes a woman undergoes during pregnancy, so in theory the end of the pregnancy could be the 'solution.' Those bodily changes don't exist in men - if he's depressed he's depressed, and that might be exacerbated by anxiety over an incoming child, etc., but it's much more easily treatable by conventional psychiatry.

Just to be clear, I don't mean to turn this into a "male issue" at the expense of the concerns of the mother-to-be at all; I just thought the possibility or threat of male suicide an interesting facet worth considering. The aim of the proposed legislation (http://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/protection-life-pregnancy.pdf) is to "protect human life during pregnancy" and it goes on to state:


Risk of loss of life from suicide

9. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where—


(a) the medical procedure is carried out by an obstetrician at an appropriate institution, and
(b) subject to section 19, three medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, have jointly certified in good faith that—

(i) there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide, and
(ii) in their reasonable opinion, that risk can only be averted by carrying out that medical procedure.

The risk to life is not dependent on perinatal depression or any specific condition or disorder other than the threat of suicide. Whilst resulting male depression, anxiety or suicidal ideation may theoretically be much more easily treatable by conventional psychiatry, that doesn't necessarily mean it will always be practically treatable by such. Suicide remains a real issue in spite of the existence of theoretical "solutions" or treatment there to assist those feeling suicidal. In theory, if the risk to the life of a father-to-be is real and substantial, should it matter that it's not as a result of bodily changes experienced or undergone during a pregnancy?

Personally, I still am of the belief that the mother-to-be should possess full bodily autonomy, but I feel the language and purported aim of the proposed legislation raises interesting logical questions in so far as the emphasis is on the protection of human life rather than any right to full bodily autonomy of the mother-to-be.


Could I be wrong in thinking the lad was a bit drunk or stoned? Also what was he doing there?

Surely he had a right to be there (and challenge the prevailing spirit of the demo) just like any other law-abiding citizen in the vicinity? It's not apparent that he broke any law by being there. Rather, it appears he was the victim of (unlawful?) aggression.


I'm just surprised there are that many people still taking part in organised religion in this country. "Worshipping" at home or perhaps even with friends I can accept (despite thinking the whole thing is just mad latter-day L. Ron Hubbard uggah-boogah nonsense), but to continue to align themselves with the likes of the catholic church with the sea of evidence against them is way out beyond mad, and into funny jacket territory. Do these people get all their news from the pulpit? Don't they open a newspaper, watch the news, or listen to the radio? Do they all just go to mass, listen to Colm & Jim Jim (vomit) and watch reality TV, is that the limit of their existence?

Not to defend the behaviour of the Church and its agents, but that's a bit of a characterisation; I'm sure there are at least some people out there who are well-learned and can think for themselves but might have the audacity to possess outlooks on life that differ from your own... :p

[peadar1987]

So you went to counter a pro life demo, got called names and a few dirty looks then went home for a cry on foot.ie.

I don't see the point of what you did as those going to a pro life demo would have very strong views on it and won't change their mind because of a few leaflets and chants. To me it seems you went to provoke them so what did you expect? There's nothing to be disappointed about people having conservative catholic views as a liberal you should respect their views surley?

Because you're famously thick-skinned and don't mind being called names at all, I'm sure. You saint, you.

There is everything to be disappointed about people having conservative catholic views, because conservative catholic views are profoundly idiotic. Just because liberals accept the right of people to hold these views doesn't mean we have to be happy about it.

[Sean South]

Because you're famously thick-skinned and don't mind being called names at all, I'm sure. You saint, you.

There is everything to be disappointed about people having conservative catholic views, because conservative catholic views are profoundly idiotic. Just because liberals accept the right of people to hold these views doesn't mean we have to be happy about it.

If I go out of my way to provoke someone then it's to be expected so having a cry on a forum is the last thing I'd do. On conservative catholic views been idiotic well I'm not an arrogant arsehole so just because I don't agree with someone it dosen't mean I think they are idiots. But each to their own on that one.

[dahamsta]

Not to defend the behaviour of the Church and its agents, but that's a bit of a characterisation; I'm sure there are at least some people out there who are well-learned and can think for themselves but might have the audacity to possess outlooks on life that differ from your own... :p

I'm sure there are plenty of people who believe in god and jesus and all that (imho) nonsense, and they're welcome to do it as long as it doesn't impact upon me. But I'm not talking about them, as should be clear from my post. I'm talking about the kind of idiot that continues to go to mass in light of the criminal acts of the catholic church, and continue to believe every work out of their mouth. I have very little respect for these sheeple.

Sean South, knock the "crying on Foot.ie" stuff on the head please, it's (rather ironically) infantile.

[peadar1987]

If I go out of my way to provoke someone then it's to be expected so having a cry on a forum is the last thing I'd do. On conservative catholic views been idiotic well I'm not an arrogant arsehole so just because I don't agree with someone it dosen't mean I think they are idiots. But each to their own on that one.

Ah, I see where you might have gotten confused there. I don't think conservative catholic views are idiotic because I don't agree with them, I think they are idiotic because they fly in the face of logic, reason, and often common decency and compassion.

As for Nigel "having a cry", I think you're just projecting. He was merely pointing out the hypocrisy and irony of hatred and bile coming from those claiming to be representatives of a loving and benevolent deity. And a counter-protest isn't necessarily deliberately provoking people, unless you're the sort of thin-skinned insecure person who is provoked by being reminded that an alternative point of view to your own exists.

[Sean South]

Ah, I see where you might have gotten confused there. I don't think conservative catholic views are idiotic because I don't agree with them, I think they are idiotic because they fly in the face of logic, reason, and often common decency and compassion.hypocrisy and irony of hatred and bile coming from those claiming to be representatives of a loving and benevolent deity. And a counter-protest isn't necessarily deliberately provoking people, unless you're the sort of thin-skinned insecure person who is provoked by being reminded that an alternative point of view to your own exists.
What ever they proclaim to be I see why they would have hatred for those at a counter demo it goes against something they have really strong views on and they see their core values been eroded from society.


On the counter demo, of course it's to provoke even though those at the counter demo won't want to admit it. I'm sure the ones at the pro life demo are aware of the pro choice side and alternative views but it won't change their views. Like I said these people are hardcore in their views so what would you expect them to do when they read a flyer and hear a chant? "You know what Paddy, I think these pro choice guys are right there is no god" of course not, because thats what it boils down to for most of them. Say if you were in favour of paying off the bond holders in the banks and if you went to counter a protest against paying bond holders and paying your house hold charge what do you think the reaction would be? What do you think you would achieve? It would only provoke and create a more devicive society.

[DannyInvincible]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who believe in god and jesus and all that (imho) nonsense, and they're welcome to do it as long as it doesn't impact upon me. But I'm not talking about them, as should be clear from my post. I'm talking about the kind of idiot that continues to go to mass in light of the criminal acts of the catholic church, and continue to believe every work out of their mouth. I have very little respect for these sheeple.

Do such people exist in reality though or are you painting a caricature? I suspect the truth is rather more complex and, if such people do exist, they'd be more rare than commonplace.

I'm not sure what the Mass-attending habits of my God-believing parents are these days - I have a feeling they may attend rarely, if not only on major feast days - but, to use them as an example, I know they still have faith in what they perceive as the more virtuous side of the Church and the goodness of individual clergymen. They may listen to such spokesmen and take their thoughts and opinions into respectful consideration, but they're not zombie idiots who can't think of an alternative opinion for themselves and who are blindly unaware of or stubbornly unwilling to acknowledge the darker side of an institution that, due to the circumstances of their generation, socio-culturally groomed them from birth and was always viewed as not just a moral beacon but the moral beacon. I would imagine that most Irish people who profess to be Catholics nowadays are in a similar boat.

[dahamsta]

I would have thought that the thousands of ignorant fecktards attending that rally would be a perfect example of those people. Battling and fighting against legislation designed to save lives in a naive attempt to protect the lives of tadpoles, perpetuating lies and deceit about late term abortions and the like because their priests - there with them - told them so. Those people are a waste of air. Those priests, if what was said above was true and I really don't doubt it is, deserve to have their underpants pulled up over their heads, stuck in stocks, and pelted with rotten fruit and veg. They're disgusting creatures.

[osarusan]

I'm not sure what the Mass-attending habits of my God-believing parents are these days - I have a feeling they may attend rarely, if not only on major feast days - but, to use them as an example, I know they still have faith in what they perceive as the more virtuous side of the Church and the goodness of individual clergymen. They may listen to such spokesmen and take their thoughts and opinions into respectful consideration, but they're not zombie idiots who can't think of an alternative opinion for themselves and who are blindly unaware of or stubbornly unwilling to acknowledge the darker side of an institution that, due to the circumstances of their generation, socio-culturally groomed them from birth and was always viewed as not just a moral beacon but the moral beacon. I would imagine that most Irish people who profess to be Catholics nowadays are in a similar boat.

But I would imagine that most of the people spouting lies and nonsense at 'pro-life' rallies are just the kind of zombie idiots you mentioned.

[peadar1987]

What ever they proclaim to be I see why they would have hatred for those at a counter demo it goes against something they have really strong views on and they see their core values been eroded from society.


And I can see why people mightn't be too happy when people call them scum, and tell them their mothers should have killed them.



On the counter demo, of course it's to provoke even though those at the counter demo won't want to admit it. I'm sure the ones at the pro life demo are aware of the pro choice side and alternative views but it won't change their views. Like I said these people are hardcore in their views so what would you expect them to do when they read a flyer and hear a chant? "You know what Paddy, I think these pro choice guys are right there is no god" of course not, because thats what it boils down to for most of them. Say if you were in favour of paying off the bond holders in the banks and if you went to counter a protest against paying bond holders and paying your house hold charge what do you think the reaction would be? What do you think you would achieve? It would only provoke and create a more devicive society.

1: As I said, it's not necessarily to provoke. The main reason I've seen for pro-choice counter-demonstrations is to show the public and the government that there are many people out there who have a particular opinion. So pretty much the same reason as the original demonstration. The main aim is not to convince the Youth Defence people of anything.

2: Pro Choice and atheism aren't the same thing. You can believe in any deity you want, or none, and hold any position on abortion.

3: With any contentious issue, I'd expect there to be demonstrations and counter-demonstrations. Better a divided society where people can express their opinions than one where dissent is cracked down upon, either by the police, or by society at large, as was preferred by Catholic Ireland.

[Sean South]

I'm with you on calling people scum etc and on a counter demos too but doing a counter demo no mater what the issue is will always provoke when done in someone's face. To me it's just looking to create confrontation.

Your other point about a divided society, I wasn't very clear in making my point. I meant like in America where it's liberals and conservatives with no middle ground and a with us or against us attitude. That serves no purpose and just alienates certain sections of society creating bigger problems.

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't see how a counter-demo is any more provocative than a demonstration. I wouldn't be the protesting type myself but there's a certain amount of utility in making your voice heard even if it appears futile.