Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

paw patrol

LorelaiG wrote: »

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

Hmmm.

irresponsible parent or don't be born ?

we all have differing opinions but I'd bet the vast majority would prefer the being alive bit.

LorelaiG

paw patrol wrote: »

irresponsible parent or don't be born ?

we all have differing opinions but I'd bet the vast majority would prefer the being alive bit.

But you wouldn't know and actually I think I'd prefer not to be born than to be born to someone who never wanted me but was forced to carry me

Billy86

paw patrol wrote: »

irresponsible parent or don't be born ?

we all have differing opinions but I'd bet the vast majority would prefer the being alive bit.

I worked in admin in tusla for about 2 years... I can tell you of many kids who would have preferred to have not been born, and attempt suicide with extreme regularity at ages as young as 8. Many of them fail due to being so physically disabled from their parents negligence during pregnancy, infancy and through their childhoods that they literally are not even capable of taking their own lives. It is one of the saddest, most genuinely pathetic (and in no way do I use that word insultingly here) existences I could imagine.

Still, I guess they have the silver lining though that there's a strong chance for many of them that these same health issues will do the job for them before they hit 30. So there's that...

batgoat

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.

You're entire idea is stupid, I think it's perfectly responsible to end a pregnancy when a person doesn't consider themselves prepared for it. If contraceptives fail for a married couple with children, would you classify them as irresponsible and they should not be allowed to get an abortion? Even if they're not fiscally capable of having another child?

People's situations don't always put a person in a position to have a child at that point in their life. To recognise that is in itself responsible. Contraceptives do fail and none is 100%, the morning after pill is unsafe to use regularly.

paw patrol wrote: »

irresponsible parent or don't be born ?

we all have differing opinions but I'd bet the vast majority would prefer the being alive bit.

If my mother felt she wasn't in the position to carry me to term at the time, it wouldn't phase me since I wouldn't be born. Secondly, I think it's incredibly responsible and sensible for a person to consider an abortion if they don't feel like they're in a position to have a child.

eagle eye

Elisabeth Wrong Stork wrote:

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

You have some cheek to try and put me down as a no voter.
Clearly you live in a bubble where anybody who disagrees even slightly with your views is a liar.
I won't be responding to you again

eagle eye

gandalf wrote:

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

I like the way you use others to back your point.
I don't hate women, I have a dislike for irresponsible, careless, negligent people regardless of their gender.

Amirani

eagle eye wrote: »

I have a dislike for irresponsible, careless, negligent people regardless of their gender.

You think it's going to make the country a better place by having a plethora of kids born to what you describe as "irresponsible, careless, negligent people"? These are exactly the sort of traits that wouldn't make good parents and would most likely cause problematic childhoods.

eagle eye

Amirani wrote:

You think it's going to make the country a better place by having a plethora of kids born to what you describe as "irresponsible, careless, negligent people"? These are exactly the sort of traits that wouldn't make good parents and would most likely cause problematic childhoods.

Well it might make them responsible!

batgoat

eagle eye wrote: »

Well it might make them responsible!

I'm glad to say that the referendum has passed, in general the electorate acted responsibly and understood what they were voting for. You are in the minority in terms of your judgmental views and clearly don't even want to even acknowledge the reasonable points that show up the silliness of your position.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

Well it might make them responsible!

And if not, hey ho, no big deal, it’s just another unwanted, unloved, neglected child dumped in state care?
Would you really gamble the well-being of a child with that kind of risk?

Children are not punishments. Children should not be brought into the world to teach their parents a lesson.
Children should be loved, cherished and adored.

Whether you like it or not, sometimes having an abortion IS in fact the more responsible decision.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

eagle eye wrote: »

You have some cheek to try and put me down as a no voter.
Clearly you live in a bubble where anybody who disagrees even slightly with your views is a liar.
I won't be responding to you again

And you have some cheek saying that's what I was doing. I said the posting was similar, read the sentence again.

You were directly called a no voter earlier in the thread and didn't have that response, but misrepresenting that one bit of my post is a good way to avoid answering questions put to you again.

You don't have to respond to me again, I'd really prefer if you responded to any one of the half dozen posters asking you direct questions.

gandalf

tbh at this stage I reckon he's just a troll.

Billy86

eagle eye wrote: »

Well it might make them responsible!

Uummmm... no. Another thing I learned in Tusla is where so many lifelong criminals and people with severe social issues come from.

Around fourteen seems to be a very common age for it to really manifest for many, but long term staff can often point them out as young as 6 or 7 years of age with freaky accuracy (because they're not judging the children, but their surroundings and reaction to them). Negligent parenting isn't the only factor, but is an absolutely massive contributor to social issues and criminality.

NuMarvel

eagle eye wrote: »

You have some cheek to try and put me down as a no voter.
Clearly you live in a bubble where anybody who disagrees even slightly with your views is a liar.
I won't be responding to you again

Electro isn't calling you a No voter because you're disagreeing with them. It's because you're posting a lot like No voters did on this forum at the time of the referendum. Your supposed ignorance as to the content, or even existence, of proposed post referendum legislation is certainly a red flag. And that's before we get to your suggested alternative which is entirely unworkable and seems to be designed to shame women who want to assert their right to bodily autonomy.

I personally don't think you are a No voter, but on the basis of what you've posted here today, I cannot blame anyone for thinking you are.

nullzero

Amirani wrote: »

You think it's going to make the country a better place by having a plethora of kids born to what you describe as "irresponsible, careless, negligent people"? These are exactly the sort of traits that wouldn't make good parents and would most likely cause problematic childhoods.

This is beginning to sound worryingly like eugenics.

SusieBlue

nullzero wrote: »

This is beginning to sound worryingly like eugenics.

You aren’t half jumping the gun.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that someone who is careless, irresponsible and who DOES NOT want to have a child probably wouldn’t make a good job of it if they had parenthood forced on them.

That has little to do with eugenics and more to do with common sense.

Call me Al

eagle eye wrote: »

Well it might make them responsible!

I think it's more likely to make them.jump on the 1st flight to another jurisdiction where they will get the abortion they've asked for.

nullzero

SusieBlue wrote: »

You aren’t half jumping the gun.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that someone who is careless, irresponsible and who DOES NOT want to have a child probably wouldn’t make a good job of it if they had parenthood forced on them.

That has little to do with eugenics and more to do with common sense.

Making decisions about who can have children and why is a central part of the philosophy of eugenics.
I don't think we have the right to make such determinations on the behalf of others even if you feel its "common sense".
I don't feel women who want to access abortion should be subject to harassment, nor do I feel anyone has the right to determine who is allowed to breed or not.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

Making decisions about who can have children and why is a central part of the philosophy of eugenics.
I don't think we have the right to make such determinations on the behalf of others even if you feel its "common sense".
I don't feel women who want to access abortion should be subject to harassment, nor do I feel anyone has the right to determine who is allowed to breed or not.

SusieBlue was not suggesting forced abortions; but arguing against forced pregnancy.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

SusieBlue was not suggesting forced abortions; but arguing against forced pregnancy.

I was quoting somebody else's comment, SusieBlue then quoted me and said I was jumping the gun.

SusieBlue

nullzero wrote: »

Making decisions about who can have children and why is a central part of the philosophy of eugenics.
I don't think we have the right to make such determinations on the behalf of others even if you feel its "common sense".
I don't feel women who want to access abortion should be subject to harassment, nor do I feel anyone has the right to determine who is allowed to breed or not.

You completely misinterpreted my point, you were the one who brought eugenics into the matter, not me.

I have no desire to decide anything on behalf anyone, but it’s surely common sense to point out that irresponsible people who don’t want kids are not the best people to be forced into parenthood.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

I was quoting somebody else's comment, SusieBlue then quoted me and said I was jumping the gun.

You were quoting SusieBlue.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You were quoting SusieBlue.

My original post was posted at 22.27, it's a short scroll up(previous page to this on the touch site). I was replying to somebody called Amirani.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

My original post was posted at 22.27, it's a short scroll up. I was replying to somebody called Amirani.

I see that, you misinterpreted two posts rather than one so.

It's quite simple, the posters are arguing that the more irresponsible in society should not be forced to remain pregnant. This is quite the opposite of eugenics.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I see that, you misinterpreted two posts rather than one so.

It's quite simple, the posters are arguing that the more irresponsible in society should not be forced to remain pregnant. This is quite the opposite of eugenics.

The post I replied to did have the hallmarks of eugenics I'm afraid. Saying a woman has a right to an abortion is one thing saying that people who are deemed summarily to be irresponsible having children has a detrimental effect on society is well into the arena of eugenics.
The issues of the perceived ability of certain people as potential parents and their effect on society is in no way related to a woman choosing to have an abortion. The poster in question was making a statement based upon their own opinions(I would argue prejudices) whilst trying to make a point on an different issue.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

The post I replied to did have the hallmarks of eugenics I'm afraid. Saying a woman has a right to an abortion is one thing saying that people who are deemed summarily to be irresponsible having children has a detrimental effect on society is well into the arena of eugenics.
The issues of the perceived ability of certain people as potential parents and their effect on society is in no way related to a woman choosing to have an abortion. The poster in question was making a statement based upon their own opinions(I would argue prejudices) whilst trying to make a point on an different issue.

Taken out of context, that would appear to be what Amirani's post said. In the context of the discussion at the time, you will see it is the opposite.

"Having irresponsible parents might make them more responsible."
ETA, that is an argument to denying "irresponsible" women access to abortion.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Taken out of context, that would appear to be what Amirani's post said. In the context of the discussion at the time, you will see it is the opposite.

"Having irresponsible parents might make them more responsible."
ETA, that is an argument to denying "irresponsible" women access to abortion.

The thing is saying those things in any context has the same result.
Arguing against a daft opinion is one thing but to write what was written is to display an odd logic that while may be coming from a "good place" strays into the arena of eugenics, even if its the furtherest thing from your mind.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

The thing is saying those things in any context has the same result.
Arguing against a daft opinion is one thing but to write what was written is to display an odd logic that while may be coming from a "good place" strays into the arena of eugenics, even if its the furtherest thing from your mind.

I realise this is a blue and black dress scenario, we're both reading the same post and seeing very different points.

However, it isn't relevant, as neither forced abortions nor forced pregnancies are going to happen.

gctest50

nullzero wrote: »

Making decisions about who can have children and why is a central part of the philosophy of eugenics.
I don't think we have the right to make such determinations on the behalf of others even if you feel its "common sense".
I don't feel women who want to access abortion should be subject to harassment, nor do I feel anyone has the right to determine who is allowed to breed or not.

It's not about allowed to breed or not, more about having the option safe,legal n free




I couldn't see this crew getting the money together for a trip to the UK :




https://www.thejournal.ie/child-abuse-boy-found-in-car-2023567-Apr2015/
.

The garda who had come across the vehicle told the court that just after midnight he had seen lights on in a parked car.

Accompanied by three colleagues, he approached car where he saw a child and one adult in the backseat and two adults in the front of the car. He said that the young child was awake and it was about two degrees outside. The woman told the garda that they had nowhere else to go and were sleeping there for the night.

“There were clear signs of drug use in the vehicle,” the garda said.

There was burnt tin foil from smoking heroin and ripped plastic bags of tobacco. The accused admitted to smoking heroin earlier in the day and said they were going to smoke it again when we stopped them.
“The woman was in the passenger side, her partner was in the driver seat of the vehicle, there was a third male in the back seat of the vehicle beside the child. They [the parents] didn’t know who he was, he had a bag full of needles and I believe he was there to supply them with heroin.”

The parents had been planning to sleep in the car, so the garda took him to hospital.

On arrival at the hospital, I noted that the child was dirty, his face, hands and clothes were dirty and there was a large cut across his throat. He told the nurse he was hungry and thirsty and was given a yogurt and a drink, he then asked for more food and was given toast.
The garda said that the child had been wearing runners that were too small for him, the nurse had trouble putting them back on his feet and his toenails were bruised.

The Out of Hours Service was called and the child went into emergency foster care for the night.

Although the child’s parents had given false names to the garda on the night they had given the correct name for the child and their names were subsequently found on the child’s hospital records.

The garda told the court that at the time he knew the mother was lying but was more concerned about the child’s well-being than arresting the parents.

During the care order proceedings, which took place before another judge, the garda told the court that he had followed up the mark on the child’s neck.

When the child had been scratching his neck the foster mother had asked him what had happened and she said the child had told her: “My daddy did it with a knife.”

The garda had then called out to the house with a specialist child interviewer who had, in the garda’s presence, asked the child what had happened and the child made the same disclosure.

The judge granted an interim care order and a guardian was appointed for the child

Hotblack Desiato

paw patrol wrote: »

irresponsible parent or don't be born ?

none of us had a right to be born. If any other of the millions of sperm had won the race, you would never have been born, someone else might, or maybe no-one at all. Or your mother might not have ovulated that month. Or the contraception may have worked. etc. etc.We are all here by a mighty improbable chance. None of us had a right to be born. This is the thing the "but, the baybees" crowd can't get their heads around. As a father of five pregnancies we know of, two live births, I'd like to think I know more than some about how the realities of pregnancy and birth work out. Nobody, even in a "catholic" hospital, regards a six or eight week miscarriage as if it was a baby.