Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

BBFAN

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think Harris said a law on exclusion zones will be introduced next year. In the meantime, any demonstrations/protests will be subject to the current public order laws.

And I don't think GDPR can be used to stop taking photos in public places. However, I think it can prevent the distribution or publication of those photos without the express consent of those who are identifiable in the photos. Not a GDPR expert though, so don't quote me on that.

You're correct, anyone sharing photos without the people in those photos permission will be in trouble.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Sooo, three days in and Love Both are picketing family planning clinics, and someone has set up a deliberately misleading website, mimicking the government one, to try and target women seeking abortion and pressure them out of it.

Pro life movement maintains its established level of class and integrity, even in defeat :rolleyes:

Exclusion zones are needed, repealing the amendment and getting legislation through were monumental achievements but the battle isn't over. Global events show us that it essentially never is, sadly, there will always be people who want to drag us backwards. Keep reaching out to your representatives lads.

SusieBlue

Their self righteousness and arrogance knows no bounds.
Every time I think they can't stoop any lower, they manage to outdo themselves.

ELM327

I just saw the post in the "in her shoes" page about the fake my options page.
What an absolute shower of disgusting lowlifes.

eagle eye

Are there laws in place yet about who can have an abortion?
I voted for abortion because the law was archaic and unfair to women.
I'm against abortion for somebody who is just plain irresponsible. We have lots of drugs and other contraceptives to prevent against accidental pregnancies.

I'm fully in favour of abortion for medical reasons or if it's clear that the child will have an awful life if it's born. There are many other reasons why a woman may want to abort but irresponsibility doesn't wash with me as a good enough reason.
Also those picketers are only as affective as you let them be. Hold your head up high and walk by them without a glance.

ELM327

eagle eye wrote: »

Are there laws in place yet about who can have an abortion?
I voted for abortion because the law was archaic and unfair to women.
I'm against abortion for somebody who is just plain irresponsible. We have lots of drugs and other contraceptives to prevent against accidental pregnancies.

I'm fully in favour of abortion for medical reasons or if it's clear that the child will have an awful life if it's born. There are many other reasons why a woman may want to abort but irresponsibility doesn't wash with me as a good enough reason.
Also those picketers are only as affective as you let them be. Hold your head up high and walk by them without a glance.

The legislation was published before the referendum which was for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
Therefore anyone that is pregnant up to 12 weeks gestation can have an abortion on request for whatever reason they want.

It's not for you (or me, or anyone) to decide whether a woman is "allowed" have an abortion. That is what we removed with the abortion referendum



You can object but you do not have the right to tell her what she can do.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

Are there laws in place yet about who can have an abortion?
I voted for abortion because the law was archaic and unfair to women.
I'm against abortion for somebody who is just plain irresponsible. We have lots of drugs and other contraceptives to prevent against accidental pregnancies.

I'm fully in favour of abortion for medical reasons or if it's clear that the child will have an awful life if it's born. There are many other reasons why a woman may want to abort but irresponsibility doesn't wash with me as a good enough reason.
Also those picketers are only as affective as you let them be. Hold your head up high and walk by them without a glance.

Somebody? Or the two people it took to conceive the child?
The best person to decide if she is in a position to gestate a pregnancy and look after the subsequent child for 18+ years is the woman herself, and the law now allows her to do that.
She will have her reasons, and that is more than good enough.
It doesn't have to be good enough for you or me because we won't be the ones responsible for rearing the child.

This legislation was proposed before the referendum and all this information has been available for months.

eagle eye

ELM327 wrote:

It's not for you (or me, or anyone) to decide whether a woman is "allowed" have an abortion. That is what we removed with the abortion referendum

Well I wasn't aware of that. I'm against abortion because you made a mistake. We have pills for both before and after, and other types of contraceptives too.
Nobody should be allowed an abortion just because they made a mistake and then didn't bother their arse to make sure to prevent it.
It should be against the law imo.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Without restriction up to 12 weeks, sickened for you but unfortunately your disapproval of the sex lives of women you've never met isn't (currently) determining their access to abortion.

Women having crisis pregnancies, miscarriages, fertility treatment, FFA pregnancies, and people who for all sorts of reasons might want privacy enter family planning clinics. They're a clear attempt to intimidate and shame people who are going through a very difficult and emotional (not to mention hormonal) time, and for whom "Just ignore them" is deeply stupid, glib advice. Regardless of their effectiveness, they're despicable in intent.

ELM327

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I wasn't aware of that. I'm against abortion because you made a mistake. We have pills for both before and after, and other types of contraceptives too.
Nobody should be allowed an abortion just because they made a mistake and then didn't bother their arse to make sure to prevent it.
It should be against the law imo.

Too bad as that's what the people voted for.


I don't agree with you having the right to smoke, but my disagreement is not enough to impinge on your autonomy in your own home.
Same here. You don't get to control women. It's not 1940 anymore bud.

eagle eye

Elisabeth Wrong Stork wrote:

Women having crisis pregnancies, miscarriages, fertility treatment, FFA pregnancies, and people who for all sorts of reasons might want privacy enter family planning clinics. They're a clear attempt to intimidate and shame people who are going through a very difficult and emotional (not to mention hormonal) time, and for whom "Just ignore them" is deeply stupid, glib advice. Regardless of their effectiveness, they're despicable in intent.

I'm fully with you on this. If they get no reaction you'll see their numbers fall though.
I know it's a difficult time for lots of women too. If you can do what I'm saying you'll feel proud of yourself afterwards. As I said head up and don't make eye contact with any of them which is telling them they are beneath you.

eagle eye

ELM327 wrote:

Too bad as that's what the people voted for.

Unfortunately I voted for it without knowing.

ELM327 wrote:

I don't agree with you having the right to smoke, but my disagreement is not enough to impinge on your autonomy in your own home. Same here. You don't get to control women. It's not 1940 anymore bud.

I don't smoke.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm fully with you on this. If they get no reaction you'll see their numbers fall though.
I know it's a difficult time for lots of women too. If you can do what I'm saying you'll feel proud of yourself afterwards. As I said head up and don't make eye contact with any of them which is telling them they are beneath you.

The only way to facilitate and adequately care for women in the above scenarios is to allow the 12 week limit.
Making vulnerable, distressed women jump through hoops to prove their case is in no ones best interest and actually causes abortions to happen at later gestations.

Skylinehead

eagle eye wrote: »

Unfortunately I voted for it without knowing.

Well that's your problem, it was fairly clearly laid out.

It's done now.

ELM327

eagle eye wrote: »

Unfortunately I voted for it without knowing.


I don't smoke.

You should have informed yourself before voting.
It's not as if the government published the legislation before the referendum.... oh wait..






PS: Whether you smoke or not is irrelevant, the analogy holds. You have the right to do so, regardless of my opinion.

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

Unfortunately I voted for it without knowing.

Plenty of ways for you to have kept yourself informed, there were leaflets, banners websites, literature etc. Nobody who couldn't bother their arse to read up on the issue should be allowed vote.

Or, you know, it's none of my business why you voted the way you did.

eagle eye

amcalester wrote:

Plenty of ways for you to have kept yourself informed, there were leaflets, banners websites, literature etc. Nobody who couldn't bother their arse to read up on the issue should be allowed vote.

I thought it was just a vote to repeal the law that was in place. I didn't need to read anything to know that it had to go.

amcalester wrote:

Or, you know, it's none of my business why you voted the way you did.

I want a responsible society. Getting an abortion just because a person was irresponsible is just wrong imo.
What would you say if the girl wanted to keep the child and the father said he was just irresponsible that night get and wanted no part in paying for the upbringing of the child?

ELM327

eagle eye wrote: »

I thought it was just a vote to repeal the law that was in place. I didn't need to read anything to know that it had to go.


I want a responsible society. Getting an abortion just because a person was irresponsible is just wrong imo.
What would you say if the girl wanted to keep the child and the father said he was just irresponsible that night get and wanted no part in paying for the upbringing of the child?

I'd say he should be allowed a legal opt out, but that's a different issue.
(As a male)

eagle eye

ELM327 wrote:

I'd say he should be allowed a legal opt out, but that's a different issue. (As a male)

I'm sure you'll find that many who are pro irresponsible people getting an abortion are against the father getting away without child support.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

I thought it was just a vote to repeal the law that was in place. I didn't need to read anything to know that it had to go.


I want a responsible society. Getting an abortion just because a person was irresponsible is just wrong imo.
What would you say if the girl wanted to keep the child and the father said he was just irresponsible that night get and wanted no part in paying for the upbringing of the child?

The alternative is forcing parenthood on (as you said) "irresponsible" people who can't even be trusted to take a pill.
Do you believe this to be in the best interests of an innocent child? Do you believe someone that irresponsible, and who also does not want a child, would make a good parent?
Is that fair on the baby? Or do we only want to punish the irresponsible parent mother?

Honestly all this was done to death several times over before May 25th.

eagle eye

SusieBlue wrote:

The alternative is forcing parenthood on (as you said) "irresponsible" people who can't even be trusted to take a pill. Do you believe this to be in the best interests of an innocent child? Do you believe someone that irresponsible, and who also does not want a child, would make a good parent? Is that fair on the baby? Or do we only want to punish the irresponsible parent mother?

There are lots of people out there looking to adopt.
I hate even saying that because I feel like I'm one of those no campaigners and I'm far from it.
I don't accept irresponsibility as a good enough reason for abortion.

SusieBlue wrote:

Honestly all this was done to death several times over before May 25th.

I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it.
A big error on my part.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

There are lots of people out there looking to adopt.
I hate even saying that because I feel like I'm one of those no campaigners and I'm far from it.
I don't accept irresponsibility as a good enough reason for abortion.


I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it.
A big error on my part.

There isn't, people are having fewer children than ever, some even opting to have none.The demand isn't there like it was in the 80's and before to have a big family.
Its almost impossible to adopt in this country (hence the thousands of children stuck in our foster care system), it takes years if its successful at all, by which time the child will have spent many years stuck in the system.
The system can barely cope with the children it currently has in its care.

In 2016 (most recent statistics), there were 5 babies adopted in this country. Five . This information is all freely available on the CSO website online.


I think its incredibly cruel to force a woman to see through a pregnancy she does not want just to dump the child in foster care.
Its illogical and barbaric and has neither the best interests of the woman, child, or society at heart.

ELM327

eagle eye wrote: »

There are lots of people out there looking to adopt.
I hate even saying that because I feel like I'm one of those no campaigners and I'm far from it.
I don't accept irresponsibility as a good enough reason for abortion.


I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it.
A big error on my part.

I accept that you do not believe you are one of the fanatical anti-choice/pro life groups. However your line of posting here would imply that you are on that side of the fence, the fact that you feel your opinions or beliefs somehow trump the woman's right to bodily autonomy


I don't agree with willy nilly abortion but it's not my right to tell another person what they can or can't do with their body.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

eagle eye wrote: »

There are lots of people out there looking to adopt.
I hate even saying that because I feel like I'm one of those no campaigners and I'm far from it.
I don't accept irresponsibility as a good enough reason for abortion.


I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it.
A big error on my part.

In all seriousness, that legislation can be changed by an oireachteas with a mandate, the 8th couldn't. Surely even from your perspective the current situation is better than pre-repeal? If not, you can speak to your councillors and TDs about it.

However, not just the content of the legislation but the rationale behind it were laid out in the reports from the relevant assemblies before the referendum, plenty of people went in feeling like you do and came out understanding how impossible and frankly crazy headed it is to try and differentiate between "good" and "bad" aabortions. I'm sure someone can link you to the relevant bits of the reports.

Mr. CooL ICE

eagle eye wrote: »

There are lots of people out there looking to adopt.
I hate even saying that because I feel like I'm one of those no campaigners and I'm far from it.
I don't accept irresponsibility as a good enough reason for abortion.


I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it.
A big error on my part.

Ok, I'll ask it this way. How do you legislate to prevent abortion access to people who were "irresponsible"? Lie detector tests? Think actual legislation. Something to be put in law. Nobody from the pro life campaign was able to put forward anything that was remotely workable.

And why do you bring up responsibility? How do you define it? How do you measure it? Does a cheap condom breaking meaning the couple was irresponsible for not paying for a reputable brand of condom? Does an extra strong condom breaking or a condom falling off mean they were irresponsible for riding too vigorously?

You also mention "pills for both before and after". If you know anything about the morning after pill, you'd know that it doesn't work if ovulation has occurred. And you can't take the MAP needlessly because it will completely mess with your cycle.

Seriously, there were endless debates going for a long time before May 25th and every avenue was brought up. Repealing the 8th and legislating for unrestricted access up to 12 weeks was widely regarded as the most acceptable solution.

PuppyMcPupFace

eagle eye wrote: »

Unfortunately I voted for it without knowing.


I don't smoke.

If you voted "without knowing" despite the mounds of information available, that is your hard lines.

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

I thought it was just a vote to repeal the law that was in place. I didn't need to read anything to know that it had to go.


I want a responsible society. Getting an abortion just because a person was irresponsible is just wrong imo.
What would you say if the girl wanted to keep the child and the father said he was just irresponsible that night get and wanted no part in paying for the upbringing of the child?

That depends, did he do everything possible to avoid getting the girl pregnant? Did he wear a condom?

Can he prove that to a committee who will decide based on how responsible he was whether he can opt out?

Sean.3516

New to the thread. Just wondering what people’s views were on the protests that took place outside a GP’s practice in Galway. Should they be able to do it?

My take on it is that they should have the right to stand there with their signs to the extent that they aren’t disrupting public order. They’re not being coercive or harrassing anyone. There just voicing opposition to an elective procedure they disagree with on a moral level. There’s nothing unruly about it.

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

New to the thread. Just wondering what people’s views were on the protests that took place outside a GP’s practice in Galway. Should they be able to do it?

My take on it is that they should have the right to stand there with their signs to the extent that they aren’t disrupting public order. They’re not being coercive or harrassing anyone. There just voicing opposition to an elective procedure they disagree with on a moral level. There’s nothing unruly about it.

Certainly not new to abortion threads in general though. They have no business harassing women who are going for a legal medical procedure.

SusieBlue

Sean.3516 wrote: »

New to the thread. Just wondering what people’s views were on the protests that took place outside a GP’s practice in Galway. Should they be able to do it?

My take on it is that they should have the right to stand there with their signs to the extent that they aren’t disrupting public order. They’re not being coercive or harrassing anyone. There just voicing opposition to an elective procedure they disagree with on a moral level. There’s nothing unruly about it.

They may not be disrupting public order per se, but I’m sure they are causing distress to those who have to see them, not to mention how intimidating and offensive they are being to patients of the clinic who may need access to abortion services.

They have no right to oppose or object to a legal medical procedure another private citizen is having.
It’s not their business and not their place.
If they feel that strongly about it they should focus on their ‘grassroots’ campaign to overthrow the referendum.
Not harass vulnerable women and couples.

It’s just more self righteous arrogance from the LoveBoats gang. They really are pathetic.