Pro-life/Anti-choice protestors outside Leinster House on Kildare Street, Dublin, within the last 20 minutes.

Ahead of tomorrow’s pro-life vigil.

Cannot wait.




135 thoughts on “Murder, They Wrote

    1. Pauly

      Eh, yeah. It kinda is though… Making something that is alive become dead, on purpose. Hence killing it. ie murdering it. Simple stuff really. I’m not sure about which side I’m on but it is murder, no doubt about it. The question is: in what circumstances is murder justifiable imo.

        1. Pauly

          Well, let’s say we’re in a sci-fi flick and I’ve got a time machine. I don’t like you and I want you to ‘stop living’. Is it totally cool for me to go back and abort your life? Should Hitler have been strangled as a child if people could see into the future, or is it best to have him educated in empathy……. imo it always boils down to selfishness in these abortion debates. The baby is a completely innocent victim.

          1. Sidewinder

            Sorry, how selfish is it for a woman to decide she doesn’t want to be pregnant?

            Maybe you could give us a sliding scale depending on her circumstances.

            How selfish for the following possible situations
            – already has 3 kids, unemployed partner, depressed herself
            – fatal foetal abnormality
            – currently has cancer
            – has history of pre-eclampsia in pregnancy
            – was raped
            – is 12

          2. Sido

            @ Pauly – Why don’t you go to England and protest about their Murder Machine / Baby Belsen then?
            Is it because deep down Pauly, you don’t care about the British slaughter of innocents?

          3. Peadar

            It’s not a baby, it’s a foetus. Babies have been born, have fully-functioning nervous systems and can survive outside their mother’s body. Foetuses are no more people than kidneys or tumours until the second trimester.

          4. Chucky R. Law

            Surely, Pauly, by extension of that logic, simply not having sex is denying someone the right to life.

          5. Kim V

            Pauly, in your scenario, though, Wafflewaitress (I LOVE your Broadsheet name!!) is an independent person, not relying on you and your body and your health and your life for sustenance. That’s a big difference! In pregnancy, one life is essentially in pure scientific terms subservient to the other. Ending a pregnancy just means the fully formed, conscious human life ALREADY IN PROGRESS gets priority over the unformed, dependent POTENTIAL human life. Whereas you’d just be assassinating Wafflewaitress in advance.

      1. woesinger

        Or your definition of personhood.

        Or, in the cases being actually discussed for legislation, whether it would in fact be justifiable homicide, due to the necessity of saving a woman’s life.

        So no – it’s not murder really.

      2. wafflewaitress

        No, murder is not ‘making something alive become dead’, it is killing another person.
        If I kill a plant that’s not murder is it?
        If I swat a fly would you say I’d murdered it? That’s the simple stuff. IMO.

      3. wafflewaitress

        No, murder is not ‘making something alive become dead’, it is killing another person.
        If I kill a plant that’s not murder is it?
        If I swat a fly would you say I’d murdered it? That’s the simple stuff. IMO.

        1. Pauly

          Yes, killing a fly is murdering it. It’s just legal. Try to think outside of societies box for a moment. The word murder has become a legal term, but it originally meant ‘to kill’. If you and your family were sat at the dinner table talking when a bomb blew up your home and killed all inside, were you not murdered? This happens in war all the time and yet it’s not ‘murder’ because it was meant for the house next door. It’s chalked off as casualties of war, yet that family were not engaged in any war. Murder is about taking an action which ends a life. End of.

          1. His Royal Sporkness

            If it’s legal, it’s not murder. Murder is one of them technical and legal definitions.

          2. droid

            So, by your simpleminded definition, sparaing weedkiller on plants is murder, and that being the case, why arent you protesting outside garden centres?

          3. wafflewaitress

            Putting ‘end of’ at the end of your ‘argument’ immediately nulifies anything you have to say.

          4. cluster

            Pauly, take a look an an online dictionary before spouting your silly definitions.

            ‘Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human’

            There are a number of reasons why abortion should not be included within that definition, for example see Peadar’s response above.

        2. Continuity Jay-Z

          Is murder not the deliberate killing of a person?. It requires a guilty act and a guilty mind for it to be murder. The old ‘malice aforethought’ from back in the day.

          1. Pauly

            Yes, that’s the legal terminology. That’s why it can be murder if you’re planning to punch somebody and they die from the punch, and manslaughter if you’re drunk and just do it on a whim. These laws were created in the time of hangings and executions etc (think of Irish freedom fighters or American Indians as ‘enemies of the crown’). If being legal makes everything ok we are all fooked. Look back on some of the things that have been done ‘legally’ in the past. When something is wrong, it’s wrong. You don’t need to look to law for guidance.

          2. Sidewinder

            Is it murder if you move a person from one place to another and they are killed in their new environment? Say someone moves into your house, you evict them and they die of hypothermia outside. Is that murder?

            If it’s not, then taking misoprostol to remove a foetus from your uterus is not murder either. If you have no obligation to maintain a born life then you have no obligation to maintain an unborn life.

      4. jmo

        Murder is the killing of a person unlawfully where the person intended to kill or a cause serious injury to the person killed. If legislation makes abortion legal in certain circumstances, then the killing is not murder because it is lawful.

        The Commandment can be translated as “you shall not kill” or “you shall not murder”. The difference is that killing is a ending the life of another human being regardless of circumstances or intent, whereas murder is unlawful killing with intent. Abortion cannot be murder if the law authorises it.

          1. jmo

            It doesn’t have the same outcome. The unborn child might be dead whether it’s murder or killing, but the person who killed the unborn child is not liable for prosecution if abortion is lawful; whereas they are if it isn’t. That is not just rhetoric.

          2. cluster

            It isn’t just rhetoric. The Church has long justified killing carried out by soldiers in wartime as not being murder.

      5. DAN

        So what you’re saying is that manslaughter is murder? Lol.
        “Hence” doesn’t mean what you think either.

  1. Liz

    is there a counter demonstration organised for the ‘pro-life’ vigil this Saturday? If so, what time, where?

    1. Sido

      Crikey, As well as protecting Ireland from the Culture of Death he’s into protecting Ireland from the Culture of F**s.

      Maybe they are both related …… he’s clearly a patriot!

    1. missred

      I think this demo is something so utterly ludicrous even the KKK would put out a statement distancing themselves from these headcases

    1. Rompsky

      Well Leviticus 21 says any man with a defect in sight (this chap wearing glasses) cannot take communion. Maybe this one?

      1. H

        It also says that priests should marry virgins….

        PS they didn’t have communion in the old testament

    1. Spaghetti Hoop

      No campaign should be taken seriously if they can’t even spell the words on their placards and they use Comic Sans / any other comic font.

      1. Aaaaaaaa

        I cannot believe that you just made me inspect the ‘Ds’ in both fonts – deffo comic sans. Of course I was right, I comment on blog-posts – I’m always right. Although, I suspected you were comedic-pedant when you implied that an illiterate anti-choicer, like those photographed above, would have the capacity to install extra fonts onto their operating system. My point is: you win this round, Sockjap. Touché.

    1. Sidewinder

      There aren’t that many young women involved in this. They just trot them out for every picture they can.

    2. Jockstrap

      “It somehow makes me sad that so many young women are involved in this.”

      Well it is abortion.

      1. Scared Vagina

        Huh? I meant that it makes me sad that so many young women are involved in the anti-choice movement.

  2. Ki

    This legislation is only for cases where “the woman’s life is at risk”, or have these campaigners forgotten that? I understand why people campaign against abortion on demand – I disagree with them, but I understand. However, the fact that anyone could campaign against abortion in such incredibly limited circumstances, where the objective is to save women’s lives, is just beyond me. Absolute fanatics.

    1. Sido

      It’s not really about preserving the life of the unborn (whatever your views on the subject are).
      When the major impedance to obtaining an abortion, in Ireland, is getting on a Ryanair plane to Liverpool.
      It is about who gets to boss around who in Ireland. Traditionally Roman Catholics have held the whip hand here. They seem keen to maintain their grip. It’s to do with Catholic Entitlement.
      Like not paying the compo back to the taxpayer.

      1. SiriusBrowne

        “Traditionally Roman Catholics have held the whip hand here. They seem keen to maintain their grip. It’s to do with Catholic Entitlement.”

        What is your OBSESSION with the catholic church- it is quite truely bizarre.

        This may come as a shock to you but the catholic church is hated in this country and has very little power nowadays. In fact the one way to discredit something in this country is to try and tie it to the catholic church. Which is what the prochoice side (including Broadsheet) do very effectively on a daily basis.

        The fact of the matter is that a large section/majority of this country are moderately prolife and do not want abortion on demand as has been shown by referendum after poll. There is not an extremist catholic agenda get off this rant all it serves is to show how completely out of touch you are. Clearly a suburbanite dublin liberal.

        1. paul

          actually that’s not the fact at all. A tiny percentage are anti-choice and that lobby is funded by American nutters and native child abusers.

          I’m not from Dublin.

        2. Sido

          I call it like I see it Sirius.
          The Right to inflict the Religious views of the Roman Catholic church is Catholic Entitlement.

          You can deny this. And this seems to be today’s tactic.
          But I think you will find if you look at the entirety (with the exception of the American Right Wing Christian stuff) of your material/effluent output – you will find that the people who have put it together are Roman Catholics.

          Hence Roman Catholic Entitlement.

          Can you see what I did there?

          1. Peadar

            ABM, this is my first encounter with you, and can I just say, you’re utterly pathetic. Did the gay kids bully you at school? Is that it? Were you not cool enough to hang out with them?

        3. Sido

          @ Sirius Browne
          As a matter of interest Sirius – I was wondering do you not tire of typing out the same crap and vile propaganda every day?
          A) Do you see it as The Lords Work,
          B )Is someone paying you because they think you, a subtle Troll. Whereas ABM is a clumsy homophobic tosser.
          Or C) is it a women – Romance if you will?

          1. ABM

            Tossing, like bum sex, is a futile, self-gratuitous exercise. It involves using the sexual organs contrary to their design. An illness. Bulimia is also an illness involving the use of organs contrary to their design. It’s also a futile, self-gratuitous exercise.

            Anyway, I’d say you’re rather ill yourself and like both bumming and tossing. Your ma is real proud of you — every day on the interweb defending the world against “homophobia”, common sense and reason (I can only imagine what you have open in the other tabs…). As much as you like to think it, you can’t forcibly engineer normal behaviour to include every perversion under the sun (except of course for paedophilia — one wonders how long it will be before you will attempt to justify that).

          2. Sido

            Spilling your seed on dusty ground again ABM.

            I’d leave justifying paedophilia to your religious betters – If I were you.

            They have a proven track record in the field. And are considerably more eloquent.

          3. Professor Arsetornowtovitch

            Thing about paedophilia is that the person the paedophile is interested in is too young to either defend themselves or to give consent. So the active paedophile takes away the victim’s power over their own body. Paedophiles thus have much more in common with those who would force a woman to have a baby, i.e. The Church, pro-lifers, ABM, than with someone who masturbates or has a consensual adult relationship. If you want to go down that road like.

      2. Kim V

        Brilliantly put! I’ve always said, the one thing that would very quickly make this debate VERY DIFFERENT is if this island suddenly floated further away from Britain.

    2. Pauly

      Yes, I agree with you, however it’s a slippery slope kinda deal. Instead of paying to go abroad many may get abortions done here for free by claiming psychological strain etc which is unquantifiable really. If the person is going to have the abortion anyway I think it’s better to stay here, close to family etc, but some will take advantage too. It’s a toughy.

      1. Sidewinder

        Have you ever thought about what level of desperation would drive a person to faking psychological distress to the point that they can actually convince a mental health worker that they’re suicidal?

      2. GarPrivate

        but the ‘slippery slope’ argument is a weak one, to be fair.

        it’s like saying that 99 women (each one with dangerous and life-threatening suicidal tendencies) should be denied an abortion here, just because there *might* be 1 woman who’s chancing her arm.

        and in any event, surely it would be quite easy to put a system in place to prevent said chancer? e.g. getting 2 psychiatrists (who are specially-trained professionals and thus far from thick and gullible) to agree on each case before giving the go-ahead?


        1. Pauly

          Psychiatrists prescribe medications to mask psychological difficulties, it’s probably a psychologist that would diagnose the person and they’ll always lean toward the individual telling the truth as it is to them. I think if the person is going to do it, it’s better for them to have it done at home. “The slippery slope argument is a weak one” and I’m not arguing for pro-life as they call it, it’s just that I can see this law being abused. There should be no question of abortion where the mothers life is at risk, but there’ll be many instances outside of that imo.

        2. Peadar

          The slippery slope argument works both ways:

          If we ban abortion even when there’s a risk to the mother’s life, it will open to door to banning all sorts of avoidance of being pregnant. Soon it will be illegal to use contraception, then it will be illegal not to have sex with every non-pregnant person you see! [/argument with just as much validity as the “Graaah! abortion on demand!” crowd. I hope it’s fecking freezing for their vigil]

        3. Kim V

          I love your handle, GarPrivate.
          I feel it’s insulting to put women in a position where, at their point of maximum vulnerability, doctors are poking and prodding her psychologically to see if she’s devastated ‘enough’ to be given the medical treatment she’s asking for. I’m sorry but that’s medieval. ‘Are you suicidal? Or are you merely more upset, scared and horrified than you’ve ever been in your life?’

    1. Rompsky

      In fairness, its all getting very confusing…

      “Abortions for some; miniature american flags for others”

    2. Bangalore

      Hey your sign says No rights for the unborn.

      Aw they got this all screwed up.

      ‘Direct killings is murder no? Rights for the unborn!’

    3. Captain Horatio McCallister

      Our slogan is “We are the people,” and “are” is underlined. These new buttons have “we” underlined. That reads “We are the people.” There’s a difference.

  3. Peadar

    I agree, God’s law supersedes all law. So they’ll be wanting to take off those mixed fibre coats, grow those beards, and remember they’re not allowed to attend church within 33 days of giving birth (66 if they’re unlucky enough to give birth to a girl.

    1. sickofallthisbs

      Why does everyone who is pro-abortion have to make smarmy comments about people’s faith and/or religion?

      1. Blobster

        Because it’s seen as an achiles heel of the pro-life “side” by some in both pro-life and pro choice groups. You can be pretty much for or against anything you fancy in Irish society but if someone gets a sniff that you’re position might be informed by the faith you hold then, in the eyes of the grown-ups, you may as well pack up and go home now because only mentalers believe in any religion, ever.

        I’d like to think that I’d be against the abortion of human pregnancies even if I was raised in a vacumn. From a humanist point of view it just doesn’t add up or seem fair. But I can’t honestly say for sure.

        1. Sidewinder

          Such positions are not informed by faith, they are informed by doctrine. Faith and religion are, in my opinion, different things. Both my parents are people of faith and both are pro-choice (though this is a recently arrived at position).

      2. Sidewinder

        That iss a generalisation, I do not make “smarmy” comments about people’s religion.

        My problem with many pro-life people is that they have formed that stance as a result of religious doctrine. Many then go on to pretend that it is nothing to do with their religion e.g. Caroline Simons, David Quinn and will either lie or misrepresent the facts to achieve their anti-choice aim. But the fact is that freedom of religion is a constitutional right, much like abortion when a woman’s life is in danger. Much of their religious doctrine is hand picked or inconsistent, those things that have become outmoded (such as the gross oppression of women) are ignored but things like homophobia are continued in the most self righteous manner imaginable. This does not apply to all pro-life people. But it does apply to most of the prominent pro-life organisations in Ireland.

      3. Scared Vagina

        ‘Smarmy’ or not, whilst half the pro-life lobby are trying to assert that their stance is based on reason and not religion, the rest of them are holding signs about ‘God’s Law’.

        I’m sick of people claiming the anti-choice movement has nothing to do with religion.

        1. Sido

          So it’s smarmy to make a criticism of the religious motivation of the so called Pro Life movement is it.

          Why is it smarmy? – That’s the question you need to answer. Given that it is implicitly tied up with your position.

      4. Sido

        In truth the absolutist position of the so called Pro-Life movement leaves them open to argument on many levels.
        1) Religion is just one of them
        2) Non of your business is another
        3) Exporting the problem to Britain is a third.

        I could go on.
        But there’s no need – Because there’s nothing the so called Pro Life movement wishes to debate.

    2. Peadar

      I am not pro-abortion, I am pro choice. I would love it if nobody had an abortion, but I believe it should be their choice to get one in certain circumstances if they so wish. Calling people “pro-abortion” makes you look silly.

      Now that’s out of the way, I don’t make “smarmy” remarks at people because they are religious, I make these remarks at people when they say stupid things, like “God’s law supersedes all law”, when clearly being completely unaware of what “God’s law” actually says. Or else conflating their own opinion/dogma with the inerrant word of the creator of the universe, I’m not sure which is worse.

      And finally, you don’t get to force your religion on other people, that’s not the way it works, and you have no right to do it. You think your God hates abortion/divorce/gay marriage/contraception? Good for you, maybe you shouldn’t divorce your wife to marry another man, who you then proceed to shag while wearing a condom. If you’re going to stop everyone else from doing it, though, you’d better have an actual, rational, secular argument instead of unsupported, unverified, illogical religious bullshit

  4. Mydogbitjesus

    Proverbs 14:34 you say? Don’t forget Proverbs 23:13-14, we want to be sure those children that we save can be beaten with rods, safe in the knowledge that it won’t kill them.

    I know some evil progressive liberal Satan worshippers will be against this move, but they forget that not beating them with rods would show we hate them (Proverbs 13:24), and that unbeaten children turn out to be disgraces to their mothers (Proverbs 29:15).

  5. The Dude

    ‘Boy, I’ve never seen an issue so divisive. It’s like a civil war, isn’t it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent; they’re totally divided on abortion. It’s unbelievable. Some of my friends, for instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people … are evil f*cks. How are we going to come to a consensus? You ought to hear the arguments around my house: ‘They’re annoying, they’re idiots.’ ‘They’re evil, they’re f**ks!’ Brothers, sisters, come together! Can’t we once just join hands and think of them as evil-annoying-idiot-f*cks? I beseech you’
    Bill Hicks

  6. Blobster

    I’d have never known that this little protest had taken place if it wasn’t for Broadsheet….so, in a way, BS are doing their work for them.

    As a genuine matter of interest (as the photos aren’t credited) – who’s out in the cold (albeit fine) weather photographing this?

  7. Mark Dennehy

    One of these days, we ought to wander up to crowds like this and offer them all a baby to snack down on. It’s got to be terribly cold out there, so a nice hot baby with some fruit and some powdered sugar ought to go down a treat.

    Mmmm. Tasty, tasty murder…

  8. ferg

    Why are both extremes in this debate such wankers?
    I fully support the proposed legislation. It gives legal certainty for doctors. It means women in the defined circumstances will not have to board a plane to England to get a termination they need.
    I also know that I looked at an ultrasound scan today of my 12 weeks old “foetal” child, and I know I was looking at a child. A life which could beinterrupted before it reaches viability outside the womb, but a life none the less. To terminate this pregnancy is to take a life, and some of the comments above are cold and uneducated.

    1. Sidewinder

      Ferg that’s your opinion. I’ll be sticking with my bodily autonomy thanks. But next time someone rapes you then surgically attaches an unconscious foetus to you I’ll be sure to support you in proceeding with the surgery necessary to remove it.

  9. Jockstrap

    Pity people didn’t put so much energy into the banking crisis and get onto streets and organise persistent and mass protests against the bank guarantee and the resulting IMF and EU loans.

    Weird little place run by religious freaks and corrupt financial institutions.

  10. Kolmo

    Anyone who quotes the Bible/Koran/Torah/Dianetics as an argument, loses any credibility in the debate, in my humble view.

  11. John Rutledge

    Well, Dianetics, anyway. Seriously, I am past being sick of this “debate”. I am pretty “old in winters”, and have been putting up with this reproductive health/abartion (sic) “conversation” for close to half a century. And, youngsters among us, do not think that at the time at which we were still arguing about those brown paper packages containing “little rubber objects” (briefly classified as “adult clothing” for purposes of convenience by the Revenue) coming in through the post, we were not also grappling with Abartion; because of the ridiculous position taken by the Catholic Church at the time, to the effect that Contraception and Abartion were more or less the same thing, at least morally. For myself, this was the point at which the 13-year old me stopped taking the Church seriously; try as I might, I could not accept such nonsense, even then.

    One point that should, I think, be borne in mind about the present outbreak of the Abartion Rash – people’s views on this subject tend to be formed early in life and, even since the last referendum on the subject, many new young voters have come onto the register, while many of the old Crucifix-wavers and Bill Binchy fans have passed over the Waters of Lethe. I do believe that there is a strong moderate/centre on this matter at the moment – but the tone of debate is still determined by the extremes, who also hold our political “leaders” in terror of their seats. Up to a point, I actually agree with William Binchy – we probably do need a new referendum to sort out the proble, if not once and for all, at least satisfactorily for the foreseeable future. Only … what would the question be ? That would be a matter for the gutless politicians, the majority of whom either remain in thrall to the reactionary “Pro-Life” faction or (in the case of Fianna Fáil) are happy (in their traditional manner) to pretend such allegiance. In these circumstances, any referendum proposal likely to pass through the Oireachtas would (like the last one) go down to defeat at the hands of a combination of the “Pro-Choice” extremists and the Moderates, neither of whom would be likely to find any such proposal palatable. Either we raise ourselves to some new thinking on this problem – or a future peppered with renewed outbreaks of this destructive argument and/or worse, littered with the corpses of unfortunate female citizens and visitors, can confidently be expected. Oh well, I suppose that in reality, there will not be too many corpses; thank God (!) for the Hollyhead Boat … JR.

Comments are closed.