Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Timberrrrrrrr

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I am not here for attention. So get that idea out of your head.

This is a free country and a website where free speech is allowed. I make no apologies to you for saying what I want to say. So get used to it.

This is not actually true.

spookwoman

Graces7 wrote: »

It is not, ever OK to abort a healthy foetus ( and all are innocent so stop with the emotionally overloaded terminology please). But at some point the suffering of the victim of rape becomes paramount, something that you of all people claim to understand? With huge reluctance.

We are asking because you keep contradicting yourselves.
"It is not, ever OK to abort a healthy foetus "then "But at some point the suffering of the victim of rape becomes paramount".

Graces7 wrote: »

Odd that you pick on that as you did on that we who abbhor abortion have no compassion, or maybe not... You won nothing and seemingly know that.

This coming from the same person who likes a post that wanted women who had abortions to have their wombs removed.

Graces7 wrote: »

Sooner this thread dies the better. It is feeding wrong.
Goodnight! Try to ..

If you don't like the thread don't read it. It's called choice you know that thing where people decide for themselves whether or not the want to do something. Bit like having an abortion no one is being forced to have one.

Timberrrrrrrr

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Excuse me? We were told we need the 12 week provision by Yes siders to deal with rape cases.

And we do, what's the issue?

I should clarify, abortion should be an option to raped women who want an abortion rather than forced on them. You knew that already though.

I would love you to link to a single post where anyone has advocated a woman being forced to have a termination if a pregnancy.

Don't see why this post was thanked by so many Yes siders by the way! Seems they are thanking a post that goes against their own views. Guess they will thank anything that's different to my view, even when it also differs to their own! Sad really.

People thanked it because it points out the hypocrisy of the NO sides stance.

Ineedaname

eviltwin wrote: »

According to one of her posts Jesus came to her in a vision and told her the referendum was rigged.

She's really not all there and I think she should be left alone.

Definitely. She got some serious abuse on social media. I'm all for calling people out but when someone isn't fully there it's best just leave them be.

Shurimgreat

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Not true. Many have come a cropper with that belief. The dispute resolution and prison forums are testament. Sometimes quite entertaining to read too

The free country....it is getting freer with thanks to the referendum last week :pac:

You know perfectly well what free speech means. It comes with certain responsibilities. The Mods are fair on here and allow everyone to make their point as long as its not offensive or attacking another poster personally.

If you want to discuss Free Speech we can but somewhere else. This thread is about the abortion referendum.

_Dara_

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Read again what I said. I am in favour of giving rape victims the OPTION of having an abortion.
I am against the easy availability of abortion in this country for non hard case scenarios.
Sorry if I sound repetitive, no doubt someone will be along in a while to say that. But I am only answering the point you made.

I think that poster’s point is, why are fortuses created in rape deemed to be of less value to you, if they’re healthy? The position of supporting abortion across the board in early pregnancy is more consistent.

Shurimgreat

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm genuinely interested in why people who are anti abortion will accept that it is OK in cases of rape?
I just wonder how they sort that out in their head?
Like, you, for example, how is it OK to abort an innocent healthy fetus which was conceived in rape, if you don't believe in aborting innocent healthy fetuses?

I don't think I could put it any better than Grace did to be fair.
Only the most hardened of people would oppose giving rape victims the option of abortion if they wanted it.
I'm trying to think of a better way of putting it. Maybe another way I can put it is that rape involves non consent.
Every other pregnancy involves consent.

So the rape victim did not consent to be raped and did not consent to being pregnant or the possibility of becoming pregnant. The lack of consent is crucial. This is why in my view and many others, rape victims should be entitled to abortion if they choose.

Fighting Tao

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I don't think I could put it any better than Grace did to be fair.
Only the most hardened of people would oppose giving rape victims the option of abortion if they wanted it.
I'm trying to think of a better way of putting it. Maybe another way I can put it is that rape involves non consent.
Every other pregnancy involves consent.

So the rape victim did not consent to be raped and did not consent to being pregnant or the possibility of becoming pregnant. The lack of consent is crucial. This is why in my view and many others, rape victims should be entitled to abortion if they choose.

There are two different types at play. Consent for sex and consent for pregnancy.

Rape is no consent to either.

Sex for fun is usually consent only for the first.

Sex for procreation is consent for both.

Crea

How does one give a rape victim the option of having an abortion?
How do we prove the person was raped?

Please note that rape is one of the most under reported crimes in this country.

dudara

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I don't think I could put it any better than Grace did to be fair.
Only the most hardened of people would oppose giving rape victims the option of abortion if they wanted it.
I'm trying to think of a better way of putting it. Maybe another way I can put it is that rape involves non consent.
Every other pregnancy involves consent.

So the rape victim did not consent to be raped and did not consent to being pregnant or the possibility of becoming pregnant. The lack of consent is crucial. This is why in my view and many others, rape victims should be entitled to abortion if they choose.

It is a fundamentally inconsistent position though. In the case of rape, you are allowing for the possibility of abortion, even though the foetus is healthy and normal.

Women have sex all the time without planning to get pregnant, often taking precautions to prevent it. Yet they get pregnant. That is also a case where they did not consent to getting pregnant.

I can understand being against abortion in all circumstances. But once you open that Pandora’s box in your thought experiments, and start to allow shades of gray, there is only one logical conclusion. Abortion is allowable in all circumstances. It’s not a very pleasant conclusion granted.

FingerDeKat

Have to admit I'm really enjoying watching the misogynists and zombie worshippers crying(crocodile tears). Its a beautiful sight to behold!!

Never thought people could get so upset over losing control over other peoples bodies that they have never met or interacted with.Guess some just don't like minding their own fukking business.

Shurimgreat

Crea wrote: »

How does one give a rape victim the option of having an abortion?
How do we prove the person was raped?

Please note that rape is one of the most under reported crimes in this country.

I'd answer but would be accused of repetition by certain posters. I believe it was discussed at the start of the thread and I gave my input then.

Shurimgreat

FingerDeKat wrote: »

Have to admit I'm really enjoying watching the misogynists and zombie worshippers crying(crocodile tears). Its a beautiful sight to behold!!

Never thought people could get so upset over losing control over other peoples bodies that they have never met or interacted with.Guess some just don't like minding their own fukking business.

Ah the misogynist card. Was wondering when it would be played.
It was attempted before and refuted.
Oddly enough many No siders stand up for female rights more than many Yes siders.

Female foeticide is a significant problem in countries like India for example.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/medical/selective_1.shtml

While its unlikely to happen in Ireland, its still a major negative side to abortion in some countries.

Guess however I will be accused of being a zombie worshipper with crocodile tears for talking about female foeticide. Some Yes siders really do let themselves and their cause down with language like that.

Shurimgreat

dudara wrote: »

It is a fundamentally inconsistent position though. In the case of rape, you are allowing for the possibility of abortion, even though the foetus is healthy and normal.

Women have sex all the time without planning to get pregnant, often taking precautions to prevent it. Yet they get pregnant. That is also a case where they did not consent to getting pregnant.

I can understand being against abortion in all circumstances. But once you open that Pandora’s box in your thought experiments, and start to allow shades of gray, there is only one logical conclusion. Abortion is allowable in all circumstances. It’s not a very pleasant conclusion granted.

Not inconsistent at all.
I and most other No siders have been consistent all along. They oppose freely available abortion in this country in all but the most extenuating of circumstances. Extenuating includes lack of consent in the pregnancy, FFA, serious risk to mothers life, and extreme mental distress.
Healthy fetuses are a possibility when it comes to extreme mental distress, rape and often with a serious risk to the mothers life.
So yes, consistent re extenuating cases.
(That's probably my last post for the evening btw).

ohnonotgmail

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Ah the misogynist card. Was wondering when it would be played.
It was attempted before and refuted.
Oddly enough many No siders stand up for female rights more than many Yes siders.

Female foeticide is a significant problem in countries like India for example.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/medical/selective_1.shtml

While its unlikely to happen in , its still a major negative side to abortion in some countries.

Guess however I will be accused of being a zombie worshipper with crocodile tears for talking about female foeticide. Some Yes siders really do let themselves and their cause down with language like that.

But not this one so it is irrelevant to any discussion on abortion in Ireland. Not that that stopped the No side constantly bringing it up.

Overheal

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Not inconsistent at all.
I and most other No siders have been consistent all along. They oppose freely available abortion in this country in all but the most extenuating of circumstances. Extenuating includes lack of consent in the pregnancy, FFA, serious risk to mothers life, and extreme mental distress.
Healthy fetuses are a possibility when it comes to extreme mental distress, rape and often with a serious risk to the mothers life.
So yes, consistent re extenuating cases.
(That's probably my last post for the evening btw).

When you come back could you suggest any ways that the legal system would be able to validate rape has actually occurred before a woman gets an abortion? How does the justice system determine which women are raped and which arent, especially when there is a time limit involved.

This is something both sides could agree on if the right solution is found. It is obstructed by the nature of rape granted; and some solutions suggested (rape panels etc) are cumbersome and impractical as well as undue burden to a victim imo. I know people aren’t all lawyers but we can brainstorm.

end of the road

FingerDeKat wrote: »

Have to admit I'm really enjoying watching the misogynists and zombie worshippers crying(crocodile tears). Its a beautiful sight to behold!!

Never thought people could get so upset over losing control over other peoples bodies that they have never met or interacted with.Guess some just don't like minding their own fukking business.

for people to be able to be upset over losing control of other people's bodies, they would have had to have control of them in the first place.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

for people to be able to be upset over losing control of other people's bodies, they would have had to have control of them in the first place.

The state did. Do you understand the concept of a proxy?

Overheal

end of the road wrote: »

for people to be able to be upset over losing control of other people's bodies, they would have had to have control of them in the first place.

They did.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The state did. Do you understand the concept of a proxy?

okay, lets say they did have control of them because they didn't allow for abortion on demand, then it's surely no more control then they have via the rest of the laws.

Fighting Tao

end of the road wrote: »

okay, lets say they did have control of them because they didn't allow for abortion on demand, then it's surely no more control then they have via the rest of the laws.

Which laws are those? Are you comparing enforced pregnancy to not being allowed purchase alcohol from an offie after 10pm?

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

okay, lets say they did have control of them because they didn't allow for abortion on demand, then it's surely no more control then they have via the rest of the laws.

what other level of control is comparable with forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will?

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what other level of control is comparable with forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will?

the laws that prevent anyone from ending a life.

Fighting Tao

end of the road wrote: »

the laws that prevent anyone from ending a life.

You can take your own life if you wish. It is not illegal.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

the laws that prevent anyone from ending a life.

Laws on murder have no effect on what i can do with my body. You are talking nonsense again.

FingerDeKat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Oddly enough many No siders stand up for female rights more than many Yes siders.

yeah right...imposing your fukked up beliefs on women is not standing up for them , it's trampling them.


Was it you that mouthed off about rape commitee's ?

Pherekydes

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Were you married in a church?
Are your kids babtised?
Did they make their communion?
Are they confirmed?
Do you regularly attend church occasions such as for taking these sacraments?
Or do you stay true to your church hating principles and stay well clear of the church?

Once in a church and once in a registry office.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. (See, I was once a good little catholic, just like you)

Only go to church for funerals, weddings and eh baptisms.

Yes, exceptions noted above.

Even though my kids were all good little catholics leaving school they are all good little atheists now. Education, huh?

There's a reason they called the beginning of the end of the RCC "The Enlightenment".

end of the road

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You can take your own life if you wish. It is not illegal.

correct. i can't take someone else's life though.

FingerDeKat wrote: »

yeah right...imposing your fukked up beliefs on women is not standing up for them , it's trampling them.

completely agree. however no voters were not imposing ****ed up beliefs on women from what i can see.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

correct. i can't take someone else's life though.



completely agree. however no voters were not imposing ****ed up beliefs on women from what i can see.

hmmm, you deleted your reply to me pretty quickly. Did you realise how rubbish it was?

Overheal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

hmmm, you deleted your reply to me pretty quickly. Did you realise how rubbish it was?

.