The Golden Miller wrote: » It had support to repeal for the hard cases, we got abortion for any reason until 12 weeks thrown in for free on top of that
PurvesGrundy wrote: » From here on in I can see parents being judged for bringing children with Down Syndrome, spina bifida or any other congenital disorder into this world.
freshpopcorn wrote: » If it did end up being No now it would be a little like finding a nice piece of jewelry in your partners pocket on Christmas Eve and then getting socks on Christmas morning!
The Golden Miller wrote: » We were, once! Now we're the biggest subservient western lapdogs you'll find, always needing to put on a "how great are we" show to the world, all for a pat on the back and for everyone to tell us how matured and progressive we are these days
Galwayguy35 wrote: » I'd be christian myself but I voted Yes because I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her own body, I'd assume many other christians had the same view which gave us the result that is being predicted.
iamtony wrote: » Good job yes side! Seems like a land slide. Hopefully the next vote is either for assisted suicide or getting religion out of schools! We should have one referendum per year I say.
Movementarian wrote: » So you believe theres multiples or even just one woman would carry a baby up to the second trimester, not avail of the option of legal abortion in the first 12 weeks, go into the second trimester and say 'ah sod this I will fake a mental health card now'...you honestly see this as a realistic scenario? If you genuinely think that well they you are the one with the problem and I cant help you. Maybe you need your mental health card checked.
PurvesGrundy wrote: » Who's to say not? The parents will probably be called selfish for bringing a child who will have such struggle into the world and probably be a drain on state resources.
Jetstone wrote: » That's your opinion, which is neither right nor wrong, others believe differently.
Movementarian wrote: » You voted no though. So you didnt support repeal for the hard cases or any cases.
Jetstone wrote: » As my wife and I will be trying for a baby soon, it puts my mind at ease that we can abort if it has down syndrome.or some other disability. It would ruin our lives to have to raise such a child.
uptherebels wrote: » Looks like 12 weeks had 70 % support to me
The Golden Miller wrote: » There's many reasons. Read the link I sent you which outlines many. Is that going to be the attitude now? Bury our collective heads in the sand to the reality that healthy unborn's will be aborted in horrific fashion in the second trimester? I'd have more respect for what your saying if you just honestly admitted that you didn't really care about how they'll suffer, instead of trying to convince people it won't really happen at all
ChikiChiki wrote: » All for abortion in cases where the mothers life is in danger, the foetus has a low chance of survival in the womb, rape and incest cases. Completly against abortion as a means of contraception. Admittedly I've been very ignorant of the debate being abroad but will people who just decide they don't want to have a child whether it be from a mistake, not finacially independent or otherwise just be able to get an abortion on tap?
martingriff wrote: Why do we need a referendum on religions out of schools it's not in our constitution.
fritzelly wrote: » The old rubbish that healthy fetuses are aborted - reality a lot would miscarry in the first 12 weeks anyway and more beyond that, others would not survive if they went full term The stupid 97% figure
The Golden Miller wrote: » Again, are you someone willfully ignoring the point or just a bit dim?
martingriff wrote: » Why do we need a referendum on religions out of schools it's not in our constitution. Not sure the result in this referendum would mean a yes for assisted suicide. Pretty emotive subject and I would not just say it would pass easily