Rally for life march keep Ireland abortion free

by Richard Whelan Sun Jul 05, 2009 16:39

rally for life more images
Copy right 2009

by lulu Sun Jul 05, 2009 16:40

Ireland is only technically 'abortion-free', ie, abortion is illegal here, while women have to resort to illegal chemical & surgical methods to terminate their pregnancies if they cannot travel abroad to do so.

by Richard Whelan Sun Jul 05, 2009 16:55

rally for life more images
copyright 2009

boisterous as the main rally passed them at the GPO

boisterous as the main rally passed them at the GPO

boisterous as the main rally passed them at the GPO

by Richard Whelan Sun Jul 05, 2009 17:02

Rally for life more images
Images copyright 2009

by pro-choice Sun Jul 05, 2009 18:38

Even when Ireland was called the Island of Saints and Scholars, there is clear evidence that abortion was widely used by women to control their fertility. In the earlier part of the 20th century, it used to be provided by midwives in the homes of women who already had a dozen or so kids - or by struck-off doctors in the backstreets for young women "in trouble", now it's in England....or Netherlands, or Belgium.

But 'keeping' Ireland 'free of abortion'...? It's one of those anti-choice myths. Fair play to the counter-protesters for getting out there. Really liked that slogan the SWP were using "pro-life that's a lie: they don't care if women die". It is SO true. They only organise where abortion is legal. You never see them organising in countries where women are dying of backstreet abortions - or more precisely, they only start organising when there is a proposal to legalise abortion in order to save women's lives.

by Used2bSnowWhite - Choice Irela Sun Jul 05, 2009 19:11

I'm really surprise at the number of young women involved in the rally for life, pro-lifers campaign. I would hate these women as my acquaintance. They openly endorse the legislation that a women who has an abortion in Ireland should face life imprisonment. It's another example of women not supporting other women in tough situations and want to brush abortion and contraceptive needs under the carpet. Hats off to RAG, Lash Back, Seomra Spraoi, SWP and especially all the realistic people who joined the pro-choice campaign on the day. Ladies with the prams, we salute you for seeing both sides of the campaign!

by RightToChoose Sun Jul 05, 2009 19:23

Nice one pro-choicers! Love the pic of the condom versus the rosary beads! Really important action.

by pat c Sun Jul 05, 2009 20:05

" Hats off to RAG, Lash Back, Seomra Spraoi, SWP and especially all the realistic people who joined the pro-choice campaign on the day. Ladies with the prams, we salute you for seeing both sides of the campaign!"

Lets not forget to mention the WSM, SP, SF, CYM and LP members who were present along with Councillor Joan Collins.

Its also to remember who was behind the "Pro Life" rally. These people: Youth Defence/COIR/Mother&Child are also opposed to contraception, sex-education, Civil Partnership, LGBT Rights, Divorce.THey oppose anything which is in anyway progressive. They want to drag us back to the 50s/60s when the RCC was supreme and could abuse children with imp[unity.

The Ryan Report means nothing to them. They don't believe it.

I fully realise that there those who oppose abortion but do not share the views of the YD gang. Don't associate yourselves with them.

by Yourself Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:23

"I think they show nicely how much of a minority viewpoint the pro-choice side is in this country - could probably have done with a few more pics to show how agressive they are too - at the garden of remembrance before the march pulling placards off old people, throwing things at the young performers on stage, throwing condoms at young children - . Had to be moved on by the Gardai."

I suppose it is very hard to get pictures of things that never happened, isn't it - "pulling placards off old people" ha! What a con artist you are - making a false claim from behind a pseudonym on the Internet to try and rake some mud in the direction of people who dare to disagree with you. The only people involved in the debate around abortion who have a track record of aggressive, bully-boy tactics are Youth Defence, the organisers of Saturday's march - and they've done a lot more than throw condoms at people. Take your lies somewhere else where there might be a small chance of somebody believing them you conman.

by krossie - none at the moment Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:25

Actually the "pro-life" (was there ever such a deeply pathetic abuse of the English language?) march was considerably smaller then the last 2 years - not more then about 5000 I would say.

This is despite a huge organising/mobilising drive nationally which on for months, busing people up, using the church networks etc...

As far as the country as a whole is concerned I would say that their position represnts a rapidly declining one.
Well done to the courageous people who attened the rally for actual real life
and had delightful experiences like having childern sent up them to ask "do you want to kill babies"

kp

Themes of the counter rally made a hell of a lot of sense too

PROPER SEX EDUCATION
FREE CONTRACEPTION
FREE QUALITY CHILDCARE
IMPROVEMENT IN MATERNITY SERVICES
BETTER SUPPORT FOR SINGLE MOTHERS
SUPPORT FOR LOW-INCOME PARENTS (RE-INTRODUCTION OF EARLY CHILDCARE ALLOWANCE ETC)
NO TAX ON CHILD BENEFIT
FREE IMPARTIAL CRISIS-PREGNANCY COUNSELLING
PROPER REGULATION OF CRISIS PREGNANCY AGENCIES
CLOSE THE WRC
FEMINISM (FEM SYMBOLS)
REAL LIFE
SUPPORT THE LIVING

by Emily - RAG Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:50

In response to the last comment.

The numbers of pro-choicers verses the numbers of pro-lifers does not define the debate. It has yet to be commented upon that many of the people attending the rally on the pro-life side were bused in for the event, supported by money from religious groups in America, fancy placards and all. I think we need a variety of sincere and honest public and political conversations between the VARIOUS groups which are involved on both sides. At the same time, as the pro-lifer above points out, there are so many different reactions and opinions, some of which you just could not talk to sincerely about the complexity of sexuality and sexual health, including way we NEED abortion in Ireland. It is a huge issue that needs honest addressing. As someone rightly pointed out, Ireland is not abortion free and pro-life groups neglect what I would think of as the messier sides of reproduction and death - hhmmmm... maybe pro-choicers can get their hands on some photos of dead young (and lets face it, often poor or under privileged) women with hangers sticking out of their vaginas... could be a new direction for us. To reflect on the stated 'variety of voices and opinions' - as I was passed by on Saturday, standing very happily and proud, I was told, in no particular order that I was Satan, evil, a murderer, that God loved me, to go fuck myself, fuck you, fuck off, Jesus loves me, to go home and take my pill, an old woman of about 80 years old, in a very surreal manner passed me by and told me to 'close my legs'. Talk about warn out discourses! And sorry, but Ireland is still recovering from the policies employed to 'deal' with women who were sexually active or pregnant outside marriage in her day. No abortions, lets just ship the babies of poor Mother's off to rich families in America. Or even better, institutionalize them to be reared by abusers!

It's bizarre how obviously so many of the pro-lifers view sexuality as something that is disgusting, debased or to be denied. Jeeze, when are we going to learn that shame and self-disgust and repressed desire only ends in disaster? Mental problems and unwanted pregnancies for all! We need open and practical conversations about sexuality and sexual activity, proper sexual health education and sexual health services. Defining the debate based on the turn-out on Saturday, does not solve problems which still need to be addressed. Ireland is not abortion free, we have to stop exporting our problems and start supporting Irish women.

by alph Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:52

My firstborn was disabled, and we all loved him but his needs tore our family to pieces, I din't have time for my other childern. He had 20 years of pain and 17 years hospitals and institutions, most of our free time and money went visiting all though he knew he was loved and his care was of high standard, he had times sick of life. Now I wold have abortion whatever people say, his life was happy some times, some times terrible, but my other children lost out, they can't be helped.

by Stephanie - Choice Ireland Mon Jul 06, 2009 13:35 sindikatua at yahoo dot com

Just wanted to say that it was great to see the Pro-Choicers out on Satruday. I read Emily's comment and the things that were shouted at the pro-choice group by some of the anti-choice marchers were absolutely disgusting. They should realise arming themselves with rosary beads and a crucifix doesn't mean they have the right to control other people's reproductive health. All this talk of pro-choicers throwing condoms at children is, quite frankly, bullsh*t. It's quite sad that the anti-choice lobby have to resort to being fantasists to try and gain some legitimacy for their anti-woman, anti-child policies.

by lulu Mon Jul 06, 2009 17:54

Many thanks to all who showed up to support women's rights to choice and reproductive health.

by Diarmuid - Personal capacity Tue Jul 07, 2009 03:46

Great to see those there for choice and for the living, glad to have been a part of it (as one of the many people there in individual capacity). True that numbers aren't everything, but comrades, sisters and brothers, let's make sure that next time, there's a lot more of us!

by Nan Tue Jul 07, 2009 04:02

The Guardian today interviews and profiles Norma McCorvey, who was Jane Roe in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case that legalised abortion in the USA in 1973.

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/07/norm...erica

by Gaz B - (A)- Tue Jul 07, 2009 06:35

The leaflet for this stated that is is supported by Youth Defence, Coir, Ultrasound, Family First, the Life Institute and Precious Life...which funnily enough are all based in the same office - The 'Life House' at 60a Capel Street, with the exception of the Northern based 'Precious Life', who recieved 70 grand from Youth Defence to get themselves up and running.

It was also the same address used for the Mother and Child campaign, the No to Nice campaign, and the Pro-life Alliance (& people thought the SWP were bad for fronts)

Then you've got former YD leader Justin Barretts links to dodgy European fascists. For some reason he's gone quiet since he was 'welcomed' at a UCD debate.

These fronts aren't just against abortion, at one point or another they've campaign against the right to information on abortions, the right to travel for abortions, artificial contraception, divorce, homosexuality, civil partnership and stem cell research. If they had it their way the magdalene laundries would still be tossing the bodies of unmarried mothers into mass graves.

Youth Defence-Coir spent 60,00 grand on putting up billboards around Munster campaigning against stem cell research last year, and God knows how much on the Lisbon Treaty. Perhaps they'd be better off using the cash to defend the rights of real children who were systematically abused by the RC church for decades.

Jesus wept - John 11:35

The only church that illuminates is a burning one - Durruti

by lulu Tue Jul 07, 2009 08:58

Don't be thinking that the 'pro-lifers' on this demo represent all Catholics, as they'd have you believe; there are groups for Catholics whose conscience puts women's rights first, eg:
www.catholicsforchoice.org
The more vociferous 'pro-lifers' only serve to estrange more people from the Church, or spark actual hostility not only to the Church, but to those who still go to Mass - I'd advise that people don't show prejudice to any faith group if they are doing no harm.
As for the quote about 'a burning church', that is about as desirable as a burning abortion clinic....

by pat c Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:46

>The more vociferous 'pro-lifers' only serve to estrange more people from >the Church, or spark actual hostility not only to the Church, but to those >who still go to Mass - I'd advise that people don't show prejudice to any >faith group if they are doing no harm.

Indeed. YD and those who organised Saturdays march are not just opposed to abortion. They also oppose contraception, sex-education, divorce, LGBTQ rights, civil partnership. Tere are many who who would take an anti-abortion stance but would not share YDs views on other matters.

>As for the quote about 'a burning church', that is about as desirable as a >burning abortion clinic....

This should be put in its historical context. Durutti was writing in 1936 when the Roman Catholic Church in Spain was supporting Francos coup. The RCC was generally seen as part of the oppressive state apparatus. Things were dufferent in the Basque country though. When the Francoites took Bilbao the first thing they did was to murder 50 priests who had stood by the people.

The quote really is a bit out of context here.

by pat c Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:16

I'd say there was approx 2,500 on the YD march. About 50% of the march participants looked as if they were of pensonable age. There were about 200 teenagers on the demo.

I can't comment on speechs, i wasnt at the start or end of the march.

Some carried anti-Lisbon placards. COIR was on the march.

Speaking of placards: some very elderly people were carrying Youth Defence placards.

by Nolan Tue Jul 07, 2009 13:36

Well, pat c, I am interested in your observation that "T[h]ere are many who who would take an anti-abortion stance but would not share YDs views on other matters." You are referring to people who would consider themselves to be left of the center where economics and social policy are concerned, are you not?

I vaguely recall that many years ago the first Green elected to the Dail was one Roger Garland, and he'd been a councillor before that. Didn't he, sometime after losing his seat, dissent from GP policy on abortion and actually resign? I recall he issued a statement dissenting from a widespread ecological view that considered human beings to be polluters of the planet and therefore needing severe curtailment by various state-enforced eugenic and birth control means.

I am not aware of any other Irish left of center individuals who have drawn a line at abortion, and nor have I seen any indication that individuals will draw a line at the issues of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
In Britain there is a small group of Labour Party supporters who campaign quietly within the party for a reversal of party policies on such matters. I've no idea what effect their activities have on the party faithful.
Are you a straw in the wind, pat c?

by Dave Tue Jul 07, 2009 14:19

If a woman becomes pregnant after consensual sex with her husband/boyfriend/partner or becomes pregnant due to rape and wants to proceed with the pregnancy to full term that is her choice. If giving birth risks her own life and health and she still wants to proceed with the pregnancy then that is her choice too. It's purely her business and her business alone.
A husband/boyfriend/partner cannot force her to have an abortion against her will and neither should the state.
If it is convenient for the woman to proceed, then good for her.

If a woman becomes pregnant in the same circumstances - she had consensual sex with her partner - whether her husband or a random guy she had a one-night stand with and she does not want to have the child, it is her choice to have an abortion. It is ultimately up to her whether her womb becomes the foetus' residence for nine months or not.
If a woman is raped and the result is an unwanted pregnancy, she should be allowed to have an abortion no questions asked.
If a woman is iin danger for her life and health if she continues a pregnancy then she is entitled to an abortion no questions asked.
Her sexual partner and the state have no say in the matter.
Only her.

If you don't want an abortion don't have one.
You have no right to dictate what choice someone else makes.

It couldn't be any simpler.

by pat c Tue Jul 07, 2009 14:20

For all of my adult life I have been an active supporter of pro choice groups. I am currently a member of Choice Ireland.

Its obvious to any rational person that there are many people who would oppose abortion but who would not share YDs atavistic views on LGBT rights, contraception etc.

Mary McAleese in the past campaigned against abortion. This led the likes of YD to believe that she was one of them. They were quickly suprised when Mary McAleese open Outhouse the LGBT community centre.

Even William Binchy has always supported LGBT rights. While in the past he even opposed divorce, he now supports civil partnership.

As for those on the left, I believe you can be a revolutionary socialist and be opposed to abortion. But you cant be a revolutionary socialist and oppose a womans right to choose.

by Stephen Tue Jul 07, 2009 15:43

Everyone is anti-abortion.
The doctors who perform abortions would prefer they did not have to do it.
They provide a service to women who would prefer they did not have to go through with it.
There is nobody who wants any pregnancies to be aborted and nobody celebrates the fact that thousands of Irish pregnancies end in clinics in England and elsewhere.
But it is a simple fact of life, that women are becoming pregnant and they are not in a position to care for their child and they are in no position to endure the trauma of carrying their child for nine months only to give it away to a stranger.
Better to terminate the foetus when it is a clump of cells or when it is still only developing in the womb.
If a woman does not want to continue with the pregnancy and become a mother that is her choice.
The Pro-Life Movement for whatever reason will not or cannot deal with that fact of life for Irish women of all ages who have to make a terrible decision every day to abort their baby.
There are married housewives who already have kids and go to Catholic mass everyday and would have considered themselves uncompromisingly pro-life who never would have thought they would have an abortion, but have done so because they needed one or helped their daughter get an abortion because they knew having a child would destroy their daughter's life.
It is not as simple as saying that better services should be provided for single mothers or to families struggling in povertry or that adoption is an option.
These are often not options to women who are simply not in a position to face the challenge of becoming a mother.

It is just incredibly small minded and juvenile for grown adults to think they can impose their ridiculous concept of morality on the private lives of complete strangers.

by lulu Tue Jul 07, 2009 16:49

You've said it well, Stephen: 'no-one is pro-abortion'.
Although the 'pro-life' people would continue to deny a woman's right to choose, does anyone have the right to bring an unlimited number of children into an already overpopulated world with shrinking resources?

by Pro-lifer Tue Jul 07, 2009 20:14

Neither pro-lifers, nor the Church (as far as I know) nor many others have an ethical / moral problem with abortion when it is the result of intervention carried out to save the life of the mother. No one who is pro-life is trying to suggest - as far as I know - that the right to life of the child is greater than the right to life of the mother. What they ARE saying, is that both rights-to-life are equal. On the contrary the 'pro-choice' (I add the commas, because of course the choice of the child doesn't come into it, and rarely the choice of the woman's partner either) lobby DO elevate not only the right to life of the mother, but also the right to quality of life. The latter can only be second in importance to the former, as 'quality of life' means nothing if you are not alive.

So, I can't say I agree with you Dave.

"If you don't want an abortion don't have one.
You have no right to dictate what choice someone else makes.
It couldn't be any simpler"

If we were talking about having an ingrown toenail removed, or some other kind of surgery, then no, it couldn't be any simpler.

But abortion is not just any kind of operation. It involves the intentional killing of a human being. That alone is what makes it not a matter of 'private choice'. No one has the right to privately decide who they wish to kill.

You also write that abortion is a woman's private personal choice etc., not her partner's or that States.

It is the State's concern, because as I said abortion involves the intentional killing of a human being - that makes it a matter to fall under State law, as generally it claims for itself that right alone (through acts of war, armed Garda response etc., - and don't forget we voted to abolish the death penalty a few years ago).

It is the woman's partner's concern if the child she is carrying is also his: is he to have no say whatsoever in the life and death of his own child?

What you are suggesting is that the choice of women is to be elevated over everyone else's - the State, her partner, the child whose life hangs in the balance. Does that seem remotely fair to you?

And Steve, can't say I agree with you either, sorry.

"Better to terminate the foetus when it is a clump of cells or when it is still only developing in the womb"

Well, I have some news for you. I too am a clump of cells. I am a bit further along the continuum of ageing than an unborn child, but nonetheless I am a collection of billions of cells.

"It is just incredibly small minded and juvenile for grown adults to think they can impose their ridiculous concept of morality on the private lives of complete strangers"

Well, remember that the next time you're chatting to someone about the latest gangland killing and express your hopes that whoever did the shooting gets caught. After all, who are you to impose your private morality over the rest of us?

by Pro-lifer Tue Jul 07, 2009 21:18

"Although the 'pro-life' people would continue to deny a woman's right to choose, does anyone have the right to bring an unlimited number of children into an already overpopulated world with shrinking resources?"

Much better we should get women in Third World countries to get rid of their unwanted and burdensome offspring rather than sharing the world's resources out more evenly, eh, lulu? I think there's a natural limit to the number of children anyone can bring into the world in any case - both age and natural fertility levels see to that. If you consider from the medical / scientific point of view how finely-balanced and exact a thing the human reproductive system is, you'd wonder how any children even get as far as birth to begin with. I speak from experience, having lost two children.

Europe's birthrate is falling steadily as its population ages. In some countries like Italy and France there is a near-zero birth rate. That is, almost as many people are dying (old age, disease, accidents etc.,) as are being born every year. Socially and economically this is unsustainable. The ageing population today will probably live longer, thanks to better sanitation, medical care etc.,

Without a young population to sustain them, many western European countries will go further into economic and cultural decline. You can get a taste of this already if you travel to Italy where you simply do not see as many young people as you do here. You do notice many more pensioners.

The French government actually hands out medals - and cheques - to mothers who have more than the national average number of children. One of my relatives has been in receipt of both.

One of the 'problems' with the pro-abortion lobby is that it attempts to elevate the individual's rights over all else. It can be a very persuasive argument. Who after all, wants to be seen as 'repressive' and 'totalitarian' in opposing such individual freedoms when the concept of freedom is so very attractive?

The problem is that many people think 'freedom' and 'choice' in themselves are a good thing.

They are not. 'Freedom' is not a virtue in itself, and neither is 'choice'.

It depends on what kind of freedom you are talking about. 'Freedom' to do what? To 'choose' what? Is the freedom to destroy my neighbour's property really a freedom? Is the freedom not to make any financial contribution to the society in which we live to support the weaker in that society a freedom?

'Freedom' in such cases in not really freedom at all, but the worst kind of anarchy, where everyone suits themselves, the Rule of Might, and everyone loses out.

The pro-life lobby does not agree with the view that private individuals have the freedom to choose whose lives they take. Indeed some pro-choice people go further and disagree with all taking of human life, whether privately or by the State.

The pro-abortion lobby seeks to elevate individual freedom over the welfare of the whole of society. This is not freedom, it is sociopathic. Freedom must be balanced against the good of the whole society. That is the only way any society can survive. When the individual becomes more important than the whole society, you no longer have a society but a collection of individuals each of whom is free to make their own rules. Not everything societies do is good, true, but a whole collection of individuals following their own desires is unlikely to accomplish much good either. Sooner or later they will need to make compromises and deals with one another, even for purely narcissistic reasons. Thus once again, a society emerges.

by Gaz B - (A)- Tue Jul 07, 2009 21:31

YD-Coir represent one wing of the pro-life movement which was previously represented by a variety of John OReilly/Knighths of Columbanus instigated groups.. The aim of that wing is the control of Irish society, through the control of Irish women in order to retain (sic) a catholic state for a catholic people. The Durruti quote was apt - there is only one instance in which the RC church can enlighten anything (and it's not on the role of women in society, based on an archaic book).

The one thing any authoritarian & hierarchal instituiton hates is the ability of people to make their own decisions about their own lives. The zealots have already lost on contraception, divorce, the right to travel and the right of clinics to offer refferals. The march is a sting of a dying wasp.

by Pro-lifer Wed Jul 08, 2009 00:09

""Although the 'pro-life' people would continue to deny a woman's right to choose, does anyone have the right to bring an unlimited number of children into an already overpopulated world with shrinking resources"

Something else struck me about this remark as being rather curious and inherently contradictory. So, on the one hand, we must not try and limit a woman's right to kill her unborn offspring, because no one has the right to tell her what she should do with her body / choices. Yet in the same breath we should question the right of a woman to HAVE children.

by Pro-lifer Wed Jul 08, 2009 17:29

I have heard differing accounts of the pro-abortion lobby throwing condoms at children etc., some saying it happened, others denying it. It sounds a bit far-fetched, to be honest.

But the photos in the photo-essay above clearly show pro-abortion lobbyists attempting to hand out condoms to the pro-life rally marchers, as well as holding blown-up condoms. I guess if there were children on the march, they would at least have seen this, and it does look as if the 'condomeers' were trying to be rather provocative towards the adults as well.

Can anybody explain the thinking behind this? What point were they trying to make?

by catlady Fri Jul 10, 2009 01:17

We should all be banned from breeding! Makes sense folks. World overpopulated as it is!
That'd pretty much solve this whole debate now wouldn't it?

Seriously, I am pro-life. I am also pro-choice. Yes, the choice of those who can make a choice! A cluster of human cells cannot make a choice. End of.

How do you know that partially developed mammal would want the life it is destined for if born? Can it choose?
My point is choices are made by those who can make them.

I certainly have an issue where the father wants the kid and is willing to raise alone. Other than that, it is the woman's choice. Not the "choice" of a cell cluster. My bloomin slugs would be more capable of making a choice than an unborn mass of cells! This is nothing more than a bad bad hangover from State Catholicism. I offer water as it really is the best cure! (Obviously not suggesting we drown our legislators..... of course not)

by Just another bunch of cells Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:25

"A cluster of human cells cannot make a choice. End of."

Pro choice or pro life, can we just not call it by its biologial name, a foetus.

As someone rightly pointed out earlier, we are all just a bunch of cells at the end of the day. When is a human being more than 'just a bunch of cells'? When they can speak? When they can walk and fend for themselves? What of those who are deaf,dumb,disabled with severe physical limitations, are these still just 'a cluster of human cells'?

Im pro choice myself but I think it demeans our point when we constantly refer to a foetus as a 'bunch of cells'.
Though I think its more important to focus on living people rather then the unborn,and thats why im pro choice.

by Blanca S - Choice Ireland (Personal Capacity) Fri Jul 10, 2009 16:25

Dear pro lifer:

The point of handing out condoms was seeing the disgust in many of the 'Rally for Life' participants or, as the great photo above shows, how they'd hold a rosary as if a condom is some malefic tool of Satan himself.

This was done to highlight the retrograde attitudes by those participating in the rally, which is not only against abortion but also against reproductive rights and the sexual and reproductive rights of women. These are the people that would ban condoms if they could. And I mean, Irish society may still be debating abortion, but we all know condoms are good and useful.

We were trying to highlight how behind the times the march was in its very essence.

by Pete. Fri Jul 10, 2009 16:59

"We were trying to highlight how behind the times the march was in its very essence."

Ireland "behind the times"?...........NEVER surely.

At this very moment there are people in Limerick worshipping at a tree trunk:

http://www.paddybloggit.com/tree-stump-worship-in-limerick/

They will probably STILL be worshiping it tomorrow night even as the Space Shuttle passes over them in the...REAL Heavens:

http://www.biker.ie/forum/showthread.php?p=1344450

In this era of instant planet-wide travel, when thousands of Irish females just "hop on a plane", that march sure is MYOPIC and silly.
.