This afternoon.

Barrow Street, Dublin 2

Jan Quadrant Vincent writes:

Something weird going on, this (above) is being laid out and an auld fella is cutting down “warning graphic abortion images ahead” signs that were put on poles around the immediate area…


118 thoughts on “No Warning

  1. well

    A bunch of people that claim to love and respect the unborn are using posed displays of body parts and images of miscarriages to provoke people.

    Because that’s what you do when you love someone, you cut off their arm and put it next to euro, and inflated it to 20x for a poster.

    1. ReproBertie

      Such images can apparently be reported to the Gardaí under the public order act. Saw some forced birthers complaining on twitter about being ordered to remove them in Galway.

      1. Just Sayin

        Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994

        7.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to distribute or display any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

        (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both.

          1. Pat Harding


            I think the key wording is this “intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.”

            Very hard to satisfy unless you can prove (1) There is an intent to provoke a breach of the peace. (2) They are consciously aware they are running the risk of causing a breach of the peace, even if it is not their desire.

  2. HV

    Regardless of which side of the repeal argument you’re on, images like these should not be allowed to be displayed in public places.

    1. Bort

      Reported it to the Gardai over the phone at the back of Leinster house, they told me there was nothing they could do, as did the Gardai stationed to look after them. Wether I’m for or against or both, I don’t need to see these images on my lunch break. It is upsetting

      1. Just Sayin

        They’re not likely be arrested unless there is ” intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned”

        I think your phone call would need convey impending breach of the peace for it to generate any action

        1. Killian G

          So I phoned and said “I am looking at this now and I am about to go fupping ballistic”, it woulod then become highly illegal?

          1. Gabby

            They’d arrive hotfoot and arrest you for going fupping ballistic in a public place. Better do it in the privacy of your padded bedroom.

    1. Janet, I ate my Avatar

      not adults
      innocent children
      You know the ones you don’t care about once they get here

      1. Tony

        Yeah. Just to be clear, I’m not a SaveThe8th nutter being smarmy – I’m having a go at Broadsheet here for publishing the very image that was being removed on account of its graphic content. They could have blurred it but they didn’t.

        1. scottser

          we’re all adults here tony. those posters in public places can be seen by anyone including children and someone who may have had to experience a termination. not the same at all imo.

  3. mildred st. meadowlark

    Again with the child abuse angle.

    It’s not a good argument to go with though really.

    1. well

      it’s a great cop out for the church in the future.

      “Hey you abused those kids”

      “well you abort them now so we’re even.”

  4. Cian

    At 10 weeks a human foetus is about 3.2 cm (1.25 inches) long. the head is about 1cm – or about the size of a finger nail.
    So that picture on the right zoomed in about 20 times more than the left…

    1. newsjustin

      Well yeah. Obviously. I don’t think anyone is under the illusion that the foetus has the same size head as a 4 year old.

      1. Daisy Chainsaw

        Either the foetus fetish gore is as faked as the bruised child, or they’ve gotten pictures of battered children to go with the “aborted” ones.

  5. Jan Quadrant Vincent

    They were two girls – in their early 20’s who were “unfurling” the banner. There was an older man, probably in his 50/early 60’s who was taking down the “warning” posters that had been hung on poles in the vicinity. I returned to the area about 20mins later and no sign of them.

    1. Cian

      “I returned to the area about 20mins later and no sign of them.”

      no sign of the 3 people? or
      no sign of the banner? or
      no sign of the 3 people nor the banner?

      1. Jan Quadrant Vincent

        no sign of the people
        no sign of the banner
        no sign of the signs

        Hope that clears things up :)

  6. newsjustin

    It’s cringeworthy reading pro-choice people who are comfortable advocating for abortion but get uncomfortable and start clutching-pearls when an aborted (or miscarried foetus) is displayed.

    1. Paul

      the biological reality of abortion is one thing, publicly displaying images of a sensitive nature to threaten, bully and shock people is another. Especially if those people are children. Private hrs public.

      alternatively, I can substitute a few of your words and get; ‘It’s cringeworthy reading pro-pornography people who are comfortable advocating for pornography but get uncomfortable and start clutching-pearls when a vagina (or erect penis) is displayed.’ Are you happy about that being waggled in front of your face?

      1. newsjustin

        But an abortion is just a (fairly straightforward) medical procedure. Often just a few pills. And the outcome is just some blood and a non-descript bunch of cells.

        How could that possibly be offensive or akin to pornography?

        I mean, sure, if we all agreed abortion was the killing of an unborn child, it’d be a bit much. But it’s just a few cells. Why are pro-choice people so upset about a few cells?

        1. Paul

          nothing to do with the act or the outcome, it’s the public display of such. Medical procedures, life changing decisions and pornography are all private things.

        2. ReproBertie

          FFS, there’s a picture of a blood covered miscarriage being used to campaign against abortion. Whatever about the blatant lie in the poster, if you had small children you’d understand the upset that could cause.

          So much for love them both.

          1. newsjustin

            I have have several small children.

            As long as some people are seriously campaigning to legislate to remove protection for the life of the unborn and for abortion, I’m totally fine with other people showing the potential reality of those decisions.

            Any serious debate about abortion (Or most other things) requires us to admit what it is we’re talking about. As long as the “just a clump of cells” guff is liberally thrown around, again I’m content that these images contest that.

          2. ReproBertie

            That is not “the potential reality” of abortion. It’s a miscarriage.

            Would you sit your small children down and show them that picture? Would you be happy to be out shopping with them and have that picture predominantly displayed in the street?

          3. newsjustin

            Repro. How do you know it’s a miscarriage, as you claim?

            And how does an aborted foetus at 10 weeks look different to a miscarried foetus at 10 weeks?

          4. ReproBertie

            I’m basing it on a) it’s not a picture of a foetus at 10 weeks and b) the forced birthers consistently mislabel pictures of miscarriages as abortions of foetuses at an earlier stage of pregnancy to further their narrative.

            Will you be showing that picture to your small children?

          5. newsjustin

            So in summary….”because I think so”

            I wouldn’t show it. But would not be troubled for them to see it on the street.

          6. ReproBertie

            Your answer is every bit as much “because I think so” as mine was. The key difference being that that particular side of the argument have a history of lying about their images.

            I think it’s a much later than 10 weeks miscarriage.

        3. Cian

          Perhaps we should also show pictures of new-born babies? I mean for balance.
          Anyone seen the state of a newborn? all covered in blood, and various other bodily fluids. It’s gross.

          1. Daisy Chainsaw

            Let’s show pictures of a tumour being removed from the brain, or breast, or stomach blown up to 50X their actual size. When people see the gore and blood involved, they’ll start calling for cancer surgery to be banned because it’s icky and gross.

    2. ReproBertie

      There are unwritten rules around using shared space and throwing misleading pictures up to frighten people and upset children is, as far as I’m concerned, a breach of those rules.

      I voted yes in the marriage equality referendum and I would be just as annoyed to see photos of people having sex on Grafton St.

        1. ReproBertie

          You mean aside from it being labelled “10 week aborted fetus” when it clearly isn’t a foetus at 10 weeks?

    3. edalicious

      I’m comfortable advocating for surgery but would probably be pretty uncomfortable if some eedjits decided to erect a massive poster with graphic pictures of surgical procedures in the middle of town.

      Would you be totally cool with it if your kids were shown, against their will, a video of someone getting their ribcage sawn open for open-heart surgery?

    4. Daisy Chainsaw

      Are you uncomfortable with them using pictures of children covered in bruises? Whose abused children are these and did the foetus fetishists have permission to show images of these brutalised kids?

        1. Daisy Chainsaw

          Oh… So the bloody images of dead children are real and the bloody images of live children are faked.

          If one set is fake, why isn’t the other?

          1. Daisy Chainsaw

            Why not? If one set of images are faked and manipulated, stands to reason the others are. Antichoice regularly lie and I’ve no reason to believe this shower are being anything but dishonest.

          2. newsjustin

            Fine. Continue to believe that an abortion doesn’t produce a bloodied foetus. And believe that the UK doesn’t see most foetuses with Down Syndrome aborted. Continue to ignore the reality of what you’re actually campaigning for.

            And all the while the Repeal campaign looks sillier and sillier. Next they’ll tell us abortion is actually good for foetuses.

          3. Daisy Chainsaw

            I know exactly the reality of what I’m campaigning for. I know what abortion is and what it entails. Your childish snit not withstanding, Repeal is concerned with the sentient woman or girl and the choice they’re denied once theyre pregnant, over the zygote with potential to become a sentient being. You wouldn’t accept your rights being reduced to a zygote’s, would you?

          4. newsjustin

            Zygotes exist for about a day after conception Daisy. The proposed legislation will likely allow for abortion up to 12 weeks, much further under certain circumstances.

            You need to tighten up on your terminology. A foetus isn’t a zygote. Nor is an embryo.

            It’s no wonder you’re ok with abortion if you believe a zygote lives in a woman’s uterus for 9 months.

    5. Frill the 8th

      Prochoicers are advocating for the Right To Choose
      That’s all

      Your Crowd painting the country with these posters, pasting this board and all the others with yere intolerant terrorism, and clouding the MMS with yere crying about the good oul’ days of Church control and abusive unequal doctrines is only tell the electorate one thing.

      Ye’re arguments are weak

      They are not based on facts. And using gratuitous imagery, minors and a minority group who share chromosomal disorder to strengthen your case or to draw attention to yere campaigns is pathetic.

      That’s what you are
      That’s what ye anti choicer Ronan Mullen-ites are

      1. newsjustin

        Frill, the right to choose taking the life of a human is one that I don’t support. I’m surprised you do.

        What’s interesting is how statements of simple facts – that pro-choice laws have facilitated the wholesale abortion of foetuses with Down Syndrome in other countries, that 1 in 5 UK pregnancies end in abortion, and that abortion involves the bloody destruction of a foetus, has some pro-choice campaigners here in a tizzy.

        Just be big enough to accept these facts and move on. Make the case for abortion, but don’t try to deny verifiable and verified facts.

  7. some old queen

    Whether it is a fetus or not, or whether it is an abortion or not, is irrelevant. The issue here is what is acceptable to display in a public space.

    Personally I think this sort of shock tactic will backfire because people resent have such imagery forced upon them. It may actually have the opposite effect to what is intended.

    1. martco

      I agree. It’s either very misguided or panic.
      & I say let them at it…buckets of guts, deleted scenes from The Human Centipede, whatever tf they want…big A0 posters down Grafton St..go for it.
      I’m confident that most people are not stupid enough to accept this kind of utter drivel.

      1. some old queen

        In the early 90’s a similar tactic was employed. People had such pictures forced into their hands across towns and cities. People took offence, and they will again. It’s very old school which should be no surprise given that most anti choice are well beyond reproductive age.

        Female age of course as men can go forth and multiply at anytime, unless gay in which case this .?.

  8. Junkface

    Religions have no place in State laws in the 21st Century. No religions should block womens choice on matters of their own bodies.

    1. some old queen

      I view anti choice people a bit like anti smokers myself.

      The same zealotry.

      Mind your own friggen business.

        1. italia'90

          Would you like me to call Trump, or can you handle that one yourself?
          Let me know when you want me to show up at the embassy for the protest. Thanks

        2. mildred st. meadowlark

          Human life may be everybody’s business, however contents of my (or any woman’s) uterus, and what it does and does not expel, is nobody’s business but mine. You don’t have a right to that information and I have no obligation to share it with anybody, except perhaps my GP.

          It doesn’t, and likely never will, affect you in any meaningful way. The Eighth affects women directly every day.

          1. mildred st. meadowlark

            Well then you ought to care about MY rights to choose what happens to my body without interference equally. However you seem to prefer to assign more importance to the rights of a twelve week foetus. I can’t understand that.

          2. Sentient Won

            Actually the 8th Amendment assigns equal right to life to both the mother and the unborn.

            “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

          3. realPolithicks

            Don’t waste your time Mildred you’re not one of the “humans” that newsjustin reveres, you’re merely a potential vessel for the sacred foetus.

          4. realPolithicks

            Those are just words that people like you mouth in discussions like this. They are meaningless, you see women as incubators to be forced to conform to your views. It’s about power and control over women and always has been and it’s time for it to end.

          5. Sentient Won

            These Abortionistas deny science, deny truth.

            They are obsessed with their ‘Choice’ to destroy human life in the womb.

            All human life begins with one fertilized cell. This cell will not grow into anything else but a human; not a dog, not a shark, not a tree. Even the life of the most hard-core Abortionista begins this way.

            The fertilized egg is a distinct human with the same rights to life, love and potential as the parents who created it including the mother who nurtures it. Calling it the woman’s choice (to destroy this life) ignores the right to life of the unborn for the sake of political expediency. There is no real advantage to the individual to Abortion.

            On an individual level Abortion not only destroys a human life, it destroys a mother.

            Abortionistas don’t care about that. They don’t even care about having a real debate. Look how triggered they get when someone points out the truth of things (like an image depicting the act of abortion). They just want to FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT to be RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT!!! It’s a self-serving, social-media-driven, dopamine nexus.

            From the evidence on these pages the Abortionistas inhabit a vicious anti-compassion; all their own insecurities are projected onto those who disagree with them. They denigrate those who would oppose the agenda because they have no argument. They have only HATE.

            Abortion destroys lives: The first thing you should do if you want to argue for the right to Abortion is to admit the truth of this.

        3. Frill the 8th

          I’ve told you this before
          My life is non’ah your business
          Nor is my body
          Likewise with my family

          Keep your glaumers off me and mine

          1. newsjustin

            I will. Unless you advocate ending the life of one of them. Therein, society has a duty to say (as it does now) that unborn human’s have the right to life.

          2. Frill the 8th

            What has that got to do with the choices I need to make in my or anyone elses best interest

            I’m advocating Nathin’

            Just politely asking for right to choose what’s right for Me
            As a law abiding tax compliant, reasonably sane, Adult.

            I’m not the one demanding a law that frames what options you are only allowed have for your own wellbeing

          3. mildred st. meadowlark

            Will you be doing a ‘bit’ on this Frilly? I’d be very interested in reading your take on this. It’s never ever what I expect.

          4. Nigel

            ‘I will. Unless’

            You see, if you’re a woman, you don’t have a right to look after your own health and well-being and have control of your own body.

          5. Frill the 8th

            Ah shur’ I probably will closer to the time Millie
            I didn’t really get stuck in till this thread developed anyway
            I was always more inclined to wait until a date is called

            The way things are about here lately
            I’d have to wait until all the bhoys were given their say first

            What d’ya make of last week’s Frill-Bit anyway Millie

          6. realPolithicks

            “I will. Unless’

            You see, if you’re a woman, you don’t have a right to look after your own health and well-being and have control of your own body.”

            You’ve hit the nail on the head there Nigel.

  9. Dublin Bus Smoker

    The face of the campaign is far more subtle. Brendan O’Connor and Sarah Caden in the Sunday Independent for example.

  10. Jimmey_russell

    displaying the consequences of peoples actions is dangerously offensive, women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies and people who say that choices impact more than the person making them are just bigoted & backward christian idiots who hate women and want to bring them back to subservience. Now excuse me while I sign a petition calling for the end of the death penalty.

  11. Frill the 8th

    If I saw those posters laid out on the ground I get the dog out

    And put her on’ them till she went

  12. Enn

    They need rhetorically to remove women from this debate and place all emphasis on the foetus, because that makes it look like abortion is a random, disconnected act of violence, and not something which actually takes place in a complex web of social and personal contexts, and involves real thinking, suffering, loved, women. It’s piss easy to get het up in the name of an abstract idea (hypothetical person, which is to say foetus) but less so if human complexity is involved. This is why most pro-lifers are emotionally immature – teenagers, traumatized kool-aid drinkers, misogynists, conservative reactionaries, alt-right men’s rights nuts, neckbeards, and members of the Mathuna cartel. Incomplete and pathological personalities. And I don’t give a rat’s ass whose feelings are hurt by that.

    And by the way, I say that as someone who has had an abortion and feels regretful and hurt by it. It happened because the relationship was abusive and I had to escape. My options were desperately narrow. I never wanted to be in that position, but life happens. You can judge me, but you don’t know anything about me, and until society doesn’t function to corner women through reproductive politics, I don’t want to hear your opinion.

  13. stephen lane

    It’s all a bit moot. There isn’t going to be a referendum any time soon. Despite all the hoo-haa, “citizens assemblies”, promises to set a date for a referendum etc etc, there isnt going to be a referendum in the duration of this government.

    The Dail will simply NOT be able to agree the proposed legislation to replace the 8th Amendment. Nor will the Dail be prepared to sell “a pig in a poke” ie: a referendum without agreed replacements laws.

    Finally, the latest opinion polls, although apparently showing a majority in favour of repealing the 8th Amendment, is not showing a strong enough majority at this point. EVERY referendum has a shift towards the “status quo” as the voting date closes in. The “abolish the senate” referendum was at 90% “yes” a year before the referendum and still the damn thing failed !! As it stands, the Govt needs to have a clear 70% in favour otherwise the referendum may end up with a “no” vote.

    A “NO” vote would kill off the topic for at least 20 years and would damage EVERY political party. It would also invite the formation of a more conservative new political movement.

    The referendum aint happening folks.

Comments are closed.