Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

NuMarvel

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think there should be will nilly abortions.

Of all the women who have spoken about their abortions, not one of them struck me as being "willy nilly" about it.

You may not agree with their reasons or circumstances, but that's far from being cavalier about having one.

Neyite

eagle eye wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with that.
I'm saying that I'm against abortion of a healthy fetus if the reason for it is irresponsibility.
As I've explained already there are plenty of drugs and other contraceptives available. Even after the fact you can sort yourself out before it gets to the stage that you are pregnant.

It's ironic that when voting, you were irresponsible, factually ignorant and blasé of the information freely available but went ahead and voted anyway. Then you turn around to lecture everyone on being more responsible, informed and careful when having sex. :pac: Just as well people don't shag the way you vote otherwise it would be the floodgates that the pro-life scum claimed will happen.

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.

And any girl or woman between the age of 10 and 60 will be scrutinised and probably harangued going into their GP by this shower of scumbags. Probably while wearing body-cams.

I've never had an abortion in my life. Nor do I ever see myself wanting to access one. Do I deserve my face plastered on their You-Tube propaganda just because I attend my GP for my thyroid or dodgy knee, merely because I am female and therefore have a potentially functioning womb? They can fcuk right off.

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think there should be will nilly abortions.

Thats not really a reason though.

You don't seem to have an objection to abortion itself, it's the reason the abortion is needed that causes you concern but you haven't articulated or expanded on that point.

It seems to me, from your posts on this thread, that your issue isn't really with abortion but the inequality that women now get to decide whether they become a parent but men don't have the same option.

eagle eye

gandalf wrote:

How do you police that? What are your metrics for a valid termination and an invalid one?

I don't want to 'police' it. I want a law in place that says you are not allowed to do it.
I've already explained what I'd like to see above.

gandalf

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't want to 'police' it. I want a law in place that says you are not allowed to do it.
I've already explained what I'd like to see above.

Sigh, how do you propose to have this "law" work? How do you prove that a person was "responsible" versus "negligent" (your words)? What burden of proof is there?

And yes if you put a "law" in place it has to be policed.

IMHO some people shouldn't be allowed to vote, guess which camp you're in.

eagle eye

amcalester wrote:

It seems to me, from your posts on this thread, that your issue isn't really with abortion but the inequality that women now get to decide whether they become a parent but men don't have the same option.

Women have plenty of options. Take a pill or use some other form of contraceptive. Take a pill afterwards.
Abortion of a fetus shouldn't be an option just because you were irresponsible.
I think I've made it quite clear, I'm not against a woman having an abortion if the contraceptive doesn't work so long as they were responsible enough to use one in the first place.

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

Women have plenty of options. Take a pill or use some other form of contraceptive. Take a pill afterwards.
Abortion of a fetus shouldn't be an option just because you were irresponsible.

But why not? It is an option for someone who was "responsible", so really what difference does it make?

The result of an abortion doesn't change depending on the reason for it, so why is the reason relevant.

What if the women was "irresponsible" but now has a life threatening condition, or a FFA, can she get an abortion or does her being "irresponsible" mean no abortion under any circumstances?

Is there a hierarchy, and if so what is it?

NuMarvel

eagle eye wrote: »

Women have plenty of options. Take a pill or use some other form of contraceptive. Take a pill afterwards.
Abortion of a fetus shouldn't be an option just because you were irresponsible.
I think I've made it quite clear, I'm not against a woman having an abortion if the contraceptive doesn't work so long as they were responsible enough to use one in the first place.

What you haven't made at all clear is how this would be practically translated into legislation. Nor do you seem especially interested in explaining how it would be done.

In any case, it's all moot. The law has been passed, and the contents are no surprise to anyone who was interested. They were known months in advance of the referendum, and there was a new headline every time a politician spoke about them.

You're welcome to campaign to change the law. But if you want any hope of being listened to, you're going to have to explain how your changes would be enforced.

Call me Al

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't want to 'police' it. I want a law in place that says you are not allowed to do it.
I've already explained what I'd like to see above.

But if you want a law then you want it policed. That's the whole point of the law. So how do you propose it's put into practice?
Filling out a form asking what methods did the woman use to prevent conception? Should they asked to provide evidence of this?

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

Women have plenty of options. Take a pill or use some other form of contraceptive. Take a pill afterwards.
Abortion of a fetus shouldn't be an option just because you were irresponsible.
I think I've made it quite clear, I'm not against a woman having an abortion if the contraceptive doesn't work so long as they were responsible enough to use one in the first place.

How would that be legally proven? How would the woman prove a condom was used?
Statements from her partner, maybe a reference of good character from her employer? Bank statements to prove she's a "responsible" person?

I've asked you several times now and you haven't answered, why are you so determined to weaponise innocent children into punishments to be bestowed onto their "careless" and "irresponsible" mothers?

Why do you think irresponsible, careless people who do not want a child would make a good parent?
Do you think its in the best interests of a child to be born to such a parent?

Why do you think its an acceptable fate to force a woman to gestate a pregnancy she does not want, just to dump the baby into foster care in the hope it may be "adopted" at best, or at worst, go through life stuck in the system?

None of these scenarios have the best interests of the child, woman, or society at heart, none.
Those scenarios satisfy your own personal morals on the issue and very little else.
Why should women you don't know have their choices restricted because you, a stranger they will never meet, don't agree with it?

dudara

eagle eye wrote: »

Women have plenty of options. Take a pill or use some other form of contraceptive. Take a pill afterwards.

Yes, we do have lots of options. And I’m going to let you in on a little secret. They don’t always work, no matter how diligent or careful you are.

Now, how do you propose to define someone being “negligent”? How you do propose that is defined in law so that it is clear and straightforward to understand?

And even if someone was negligent, or careless, are you comfortable with making them live with the results of that “mistake” for the next 18 years? Because that is what you are suggesting, an 18 year sentence.

eagle eye

amcalester wrote:

What if the women was "irresponsible" but now has a life threatening condition, or a FFA, can she get an abortion or does her being "irresponsible" mean no abortion under any circumstances?

These are all reasons why I voted to repeal the law.
I'm talking about a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who has been irresponsible.
And the policing is the medical practitioner. She has to fill out a form and that form decides if she is allowed to proceed. If somebody is willing to put lies on the form they can live with it.

Wrongway1985

Eagle Eye c'mon now reading your posts is prior election speak it's all been through before and the thoughts or arguments you've laid down are very suspect to come from someone who apparently voted Yes.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

These are all reasons why I voted to repeal the law.
I'm talking about a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who has been irresponsible.
And the policing is the medical practitioner. She has to fill out a form and that form decides if she is allowed to proceed. If somebody is willing to put lies on the form they can live with it.

Then it is essentially a pointless exercise.
Over the course of history women have been known to throw themselves down the stairs, drink bleach, stick coat hangers up themselves, commit suicide and in more recent times, order tablets on the internet and travel to other jurisdictions to terminate their pregnancies.

You think having to fill in and potentially lie on a form will phase them if they're in that desperate a situation they need to end their pregnancy?

Your whole idea just adds more humiliation and stress to what is already a difficult situation.
Contraception or no contraception makes absolutely no difference, the end result is the same.

Also interesting and disappointing to note your repeated blame of the woman, she didn't get pregnant by herself, what's the punishment for the equally "irresponsible" man in this scenario? Does he have to fill in any forms to prove he wasn't careless?

Mr. CooL ICE

eagle eye wrote: »

These are all reasons why I voted to repeal the law.
I'm talking about a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who has been irresponsible.
And the policing is the medical practitioner. She has to fill out a form and that form decides if she is allowed to proceed. If somebody is willing to put lies on the form they can live with it.

I've asked you multiple questions and you haven't answered. I understand that there are a lot of people posting questions to you. When so many people are talking to you, it's very hard to respond to everybody.

However, I'm after re-reading the last few pages and I noticed something. You haven't responded to anybody asking you a difficult question. You have been spouting the same rhetoric about "irresponsibility" and "morning after pill" and whatnot with zero substance. Seems to me that you're skipping these because you don't have the answers and not because there are too many posters replying to you.

So here is my opinion. I don't think you voted yes on May 25th. I think you are a No voter using debating tactics to make it look like you were deceived and lied to about the referendum. I think you are lying and I don't think you are worth responding to any more.

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

These are all reasons why I voted to repeal the law.
I'm talking about a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who has been irresponsible.
And the policing is the medical practitioner. She has to fill out a form and that form decides if she is allowed to proceed. If somebody is willing to put lies on the form they can live with it.

You'll still need guidelines for the doctor to follow, and you haven't given any indication on what these would be.

It all comes across as very curtain twitchy for no real purpose other than to make it more difficult for women to access medical treatment.

If I needed treatment, but could only access it if I met some made up moral criteria, I'd lie every single time. Wouldn't even think twice about it, because it makes no difference.

Lying doesn't result in someone else being denied the treatment I received, doesnt change the cost, the duration anything.

Asking the question is pointless and serves no purpose other than to appease people like you. And sure, who are you?

Calina

eagle eye wrote: »

These are all reasons why I voted to repeal the law.
I'm talking about a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who has been irresponsible.
And the policing is the medical practitioner. She has to fill out a form and that form decides if she is allowed to proceed. If somebody is willing to put lies on the form they can live with it.

In other words, pregnancy as punishment. You must really, really hate women.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

I've asked you multiple questions and you haven't answered. I understand that there are a lot of people posting questions to you. When so many people are talking to you, it's very hard to respond to everybody.

However, I'm after re-reading the last few pages and I noticed something. You haven't responded to anybody asking you a difficult question. You have been spouting the same rhetoric about "irresponsibility" and "morning after pill" and whatnot with zero substance. Seems to me that you're skipping these because you don't have the answers and not because there are too many posters replying to you.

So here is my opinion. I don't think you voted yes on May 25th. I think you are a No voter using debating tactics to make it look like you were deceived and lied to about the referendum. I think you are lying and I don't think you are worth responding to any more.

To be fair, I was out canvassing and there were plenty people who were voting Yes but weren't exactly delighted about it, for variations on the same reasoning eagle eye has. They didn't like the idea of abortion full stop, or didn't like the idea of "irresponsible" or "lifestyle" abortions. But they recognised the harm the 8th was causing and that it had to go. Most of them were considerably better informed though I have to say.

Like it or not without voters Like that the majority wouldn't have been close to as big as it was, and there are still LOTS of people in this country for whom the nitty gritty of abortion essentially boils down to judging women's sex lives.

Trust me I'm normally one who sees pro-life lies and scheming everywhere, but this honestly just seems like a bad debater with unsustainable positions on the issue. Pick any thread on boards and you'll find people avoiding direct questions and repeating themselves :pac:

ELM327

Elisabeth Wrong Stork wrote: »

To be fair, I was out canvassing and there were plenty people who were voting Yes but weren't exactly delighted about it, for variations on the same reasoning eagle eye has. They didn't like the idea of abortion full stop, or didn't like the idea of "irresponsible" or "lifestyle" abortions. But they recognised the harm the 8th was causing and that it had to go. Most of them were considerably better informed though I have to say.

Like it or not without voters Like that the majority wouldn't have been close to as big as it was, and there are still LOTS of people in this country for whom the nitty gritty of abortion essentially boils down to judging women's sex lives.

Trust me I'm normally one who sees pro-life lies and scheming everywhere, but this honestly just seems like a bad debater with unsustainable positions on the issue. Pick any thread on boards and you'll find people avoiding direct questions and repeating themselves :pac:

A lot of yes voters I know (eg my father's generation) would be yes voters because even though they don't like, want, or even want to discuss, abortion available in Ireland, the previous alternative was worse. Women dying, women not getting cancer treatment, x rays declined, women sent bleeding onto ships/planes to the UK.


I do accept that the huge YES majority included many who for whom abortion is still unpalatable but they recognised they did not have jurisdiction over those women's bodies.

volchitsa

eagle eye wrote: »

These are all reasons why I voted to repeal the law.
I'm talking about a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who has been irresponsible.
And the policing is the medical practitioner. She has to fill out a form and that form decides if she is allowed to proceed. If somebody is willing to put lies on the form they can live with it.

What's the point of doing it then? A law that is based on forcing people to lie to get what they feel they need, but with no sanctions for having lied just discredits the whole legal system.

Even the rather crazy US immigration forms where you're asked if you're a terrorist are (I suppose) based on the idea that if the person is caught out in a lie it makes it easier to deport them or whatever, rather than having to go through a court case for what may be some minor link to terrorism.

eagle eye

SusieBlue wrote:

Your whole idea just adds more humiliation and stress to what is already a difficult situation.

We are, or at least I am, talking about a specific group of people here. I'm talking about somebody who is irresponsible, negligent.
I don't accept that as a good enough reason to abort.
I am fully for abortion for responsible people who just don't want a baby, for people who need it for medical reasons, for people who find out that their baby will not he a normal baby, for anybody who has got pregnant due to a sexual assault. I'm for abortion in almost all circumstances.
If you are irresponsible enough to get pregnant accidentally then I'm sorry but I've no sympathy for you.

volchitsa

eagle eye wrote: »

We are, or at least I am, talking about a specific group of people here. I'm talking about somebody who is irresponsible, negligent.
I don't accept that as a good enough reason to abort.
I am fully for abortion for responsible people who just don't want a baby, for people who need it for medical reasons, for people who find out that their baby will not he a normal baby, for anybody who has got pregnant due to a sexual assault. I'm for abortion in almost all circumstances.
If you are irresponsible enough to get pregnant accidentally then I'm sorry but I've no sympathy for you.

Ok, so if you stupidly make a drunken mistake and feel so bad about it that you tell the truth on this form,
then you're going to have a baby to teach you a lesson.

Whereas if you're irresponsible, and a blatant liar to boot, then it's all good. Right?

I wonder what lesson you think the form is there to teach people.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

eagle eye wrote: »

We are, or at least I am, talking about a specific group of people here. I'm talking about somebody who is irresponsible, negligent.
I don't accept that as a good enough reason to abort.
I am fully for abortion for responsible people who just don't want a baby, for people who need it for medical reasons, for people who find out that their baby will not he a normal baby, for anybody who has got pregnant due to a sexual assault. I'm for abortion in almost all circumstances.
If you are irresponsible enough to get pregnant accidentally then I'm sorry but I've no sympathy for you.

Man, nobody is unclear on the fact that those are your opinions, instead of repeating them again and again answer any one of the dozen or follow up questions, even to yourself.

This is, I have to admit, very very similar to the dishonest posting from no voters before the referendum.

This is just

You: Guys I think we should cross the road, I don't like this side of the road, I wish I wasn't on it.

Other people: well I disagree with your opinion, also there's a lot of fast moving traffic on that road, it's really really wide and if we cross it we're on a basically identical roadside, how do you think we can proceed with this crossing the road thing?

You: oh it's easy, I don't like this side of the road, we should definitely cross it! Sure wish I wasn't on this side of the road!

It's a waste of kilobytes to go round that circle again.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

We are, or at least I am, talking about a specific group of people here. I'm talking about somebody who is irresponsible, negligent.
I don't accept that as a good enough reason to abort.
I am fully for abortion for responsible people who just don't want a baby, for people who need it for medical reasons, for people who find out that their baby will not he a normal baby, for anybody who has got pregnant due to a sexual assault. I'm for abortion in almost all circumstances.
If you are irresponsible enough to get pregnant accidentally then I'm sorry but I've no sympathy for you.

Your sympathy is neither required nor necessary, just mind your own business and stop attempting to impose your morals and judgement on people whose circumstances you do not know.

And maybe next time there's a referendum, be a bit more responsible and do more thorough research before casting your vote.

LorelaiG

Soooo, force an irresponsible person to give birth to, and raise, a baby....

Hmmm.

Zubeneschamali

eagle eye wrote: »

If you are irresponsible, like you didn't try and make sure it didn't happen the I don't think you should be allowed abort.

The votes were already counted - it's over. Why do you think anyone cares what you think now?

uptherebels

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

People who didnt like the brexit result want a second referendum.

Why wouldnt people who dont like the abortion result seek a second referendum.

Its equally absurd. I voted no.

Because the side that told the lies lost the 8th referendum but won the Brexit vote

gandalf

eagle eye wrote: »

These are all reasons why I voted to repeal the law.
I'm talking about a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who has been irresponsible.
And the policing is the medical practitioner. She has to fill out a form and that form decides if she is allowed to proceed. If somebody is willing to put lies on the form they can live with it.

You cannot formulate a law that is policed by the opinion of a doctor???

I agree with the sentiment of others you appear to hate women.

So if a doctor decides the women is irresponsible is the man pursued as well. Do they get a forced vasectomy as their punishment for being irresponsible?

Hotblack Desiato

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't accept that as a good enough reason to abort.

You keep telling us the WHAT. You can't come up with one good reason WHY though, can you? Because it's a bloody stupid idea.

Call me Al

eagle eye wrote: »

We are, or at least I am, talking about a specific group of people here. I'm talking about somebody who is irresponsible, negligent.
I don't accept that as a good enough reason to abort.
I am fully for abortion for responsible people who just don't want a baby, for people who need it for medical reasons, for people who find out that their baby will not he a normal baby, for anybody who has got pregnant due to a sexual assault. I'm for abortion in almost all circumstances.
If you are irresponsible enough to get pregnant accidentally then I'm sorry but I've no sympathy for you.

So I'm wondering would you regard the rhythm method of contraception as being irresponsible?