Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 04:27PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

We did a no poster said they could just make a phone call and say they were raped and it would be fine for them to have an abortion. It's just a rehash at this stage.

You'd swear there was a referendum coming up.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 27-05-2018 04:28PM

As my father used to say; It's all over bar the shouting. A lot of pointless bickering out there.

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 04:28PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It only occured to me this morning.

I can see a problem with the legislation dealing with such cases.

Have you read the proposed legislation? Do you know what the final legislation will say? I suspect the answer to the first question is 'no' and the second is definitely 'no'.

Pugzilla · 27-05-2018 04:28PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It is as simple as two pills and a heavy period.

Except as stated earlier, over 80% of abortion at 10-12 weeks are surgical.

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 04:30PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

We did a no poster said they could just make a phone call and say they were raped and it would be fine for them to have an abortion. It's just a rehash at this stage.

Not a proper answer.

Its a serious and legitimate question.

I will ask again.

Will a raped woman who misses the 12 week limit be allowed an abortion?

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 04:31PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Not a proper answer.

Its a serious and legitimate question.

I will ask again.

Will a raped woman who misses the 12 week limit be allowed an abortion?

I already pointed you to the thread on the legislation.

pitifulgod · 27-05-2018 04:31PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It only occured to me this morning.

I can see a problem with the legislation dealing with such cases.

As Peter Boylan pointed out earlier, medical guidelines are well established in other countries so pretty simply to implement as a result. I don't think your concern is genuine and the legislation is going to comfortably pass. The people have spoken.

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 04:34PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Have you read the proposed legislation? Do you know what the final legislation will say? I suspect the answer to the first question is 'no' and the second is definitely 'no'.

There is only proposed legislation at the moment. You knew that already.

Try answer again rather than be dismissive.

A hard case where a raped woman misses the 12 week limit. What happens?

Is this not the main flaw in the proposed 12 week limit?

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 04:34PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

As Peter Boylan pointed out earlier, medical guidelines are well established in other countries so pretty simply to implement as a result. I don't think your concern is genuine and the legislation is going to comfortably pass. The people have spoken.

A lot of concerns were raised after the same sex referendum too. All from the no side. I'm not sure what they were trying to achieve then, and I'm still not sure now.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 27-05-2018 04:35PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Not a proper answer.

Its a serious and legitimate question.

I will ask again.

Will a raped woman who misses the 12 week limit be allowed an abortion?

Let's face it, nobody knows. The legislation is not drafted nor agreed yet. Any argument about it is absolutely useless at this point.

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 04:35PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There is only proposed legislation at the moment. You knew that already.

Try answer again rather than be dismissive.

A hard case where a raped woman misses the 12 week limit. What happens?

Is this not the main flaw in the proposed 12 week limit?

How about you try to answer my earlier post about providing a source for all the mental health abortions?

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 04:38PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

As Peter Boylan pointed out earlier, medical guidelines are well established in other countries so pretty simply to implement as a result. I don't think your concern is genuine and the legislation is going to comfortably pass. The people have spoken.

Which countries?

See you don't really understand what I was asking. Does the woman have to prove she is raped? I would genuinely appreciate some more substantial answers with sources and links rather than the ususal nonsense such as "who cares, you lost".

RayCun · 27-05-2018 04:40PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I would genuinely appreciate some more substantial answers with sources and links rather than the ususal nonsense such as "who cares, you lost".

Why would anyone bother?

It's over.

You lost.

retro:electro · 27-05-2018 04:41PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Sounds very like the current UK model to me ie the mental health grounds. I''m not demeaning mental health but we know its been misused to a degree in the UK case..

I don’t know how a victim’s mental health wouldn’t be affected had she just found out she’s 12+ weeks pregnant with her rapist’s spawn

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 27-05-2018 04:41PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There is only proposed legislation at the moment. You knew that already.

Try answer again rather than be dismissive.

A hard case where a raped woman misses the 12 week limit. What happens?

Is this not the main flaw in the proposed 12 week limit?

No it's not because the proposed regime isn't a batshít dystopian nightmare where "the experts" assess if a woman has been subject to a "genuine" rape or if she's some "clown" like you were spouting off about last week.

If a woman is between 12 and 24 weeks pregnant as a result of rape, she can continue with that pregnancy, or, if it's endangering her physical or mental health then she will now have recourse to a termination.

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 04:41PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I would genuinely appreciate some more substantial answers with sources and links rather than the ususal nonsense such as "who cares, you lost".

Tough sh!t. We are still awaiting your sources for claims you made earlier.

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 04:42PM

Elisabeth Wrong Stork wrote: »

No it's not because the proposed regime isn't a batshít dystopian nightmare where "the experts" assess if a woman has been subject to a "genuine" rape or if she's some "clown" like you were spouting off about last week.

If a woman is between 12 and 24 weeks pregnant as a result of rape, she can continue with that pregnancy, or, if it's endangering her physical or mental health then she will now have recourse to a termination.

That answer won't suit him. He wants you to produce the final legislation.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 27-05-2018 04:43PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

That answer won't suit him. He wants you to produce the final legislation.

I'm a glutton for punishment :pac:

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 04:46PM

RayCun wrote: »

Why would anyone bother?

It's over.

You lost.

Typically immature response.

The referendum is over. Its now onto the question of discussing the legislation.

So lets discuss it.

Water John · 27-05-2018 04:46PM

You can well see that Iona Et al are immediately focussing on the proposed legislation. The one problem they have is that the TDs who generally campaigned on the No side have indicated that they will not in any way oppose the legislation, given the large majority. At most, they will abstain. That is, game over for Iona..

swampgas · 27-05-2018 04:47PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There is only proposed legislation at the moment. You knew that already.

Try answer again rather than be dismissive.

A hard case where a raped woman misses the 12 week limit. What happens?

Is this not the main flaw in the proposed 12 week limit?

It is a hard case, however I'd assume that most raped women would be very aware of the 12 week limit. And practically speaking, there remains the escape valve of the UK. As this is an escape valve that has never seemed to bother the anti-repeal crew up to now, I don't expect many objections from them on it.

I imagine it's also possible a very distressed woman (whether a rape victim or not) would get an exemption on mental health grounds, assuming that the medical professionals involved agreed.

There will always be hard cases around the edges, but once the 8th is removed the government can legislate for these as we go along, rather than having to try and figure out every single case in advance.

Nettle Soup · 27-05-2018 04:49PM

Iona are hated now. No TD will want to be associated with those fringe lunatics. This referendum has done so much good.

27-05-2018 04:49PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Not a proper answer.

Its a serious and legitimate question.

I will ask again.

Will a raped woman who misses the 12 week limit be allowed an abortion?

And you only thought of it this morning, you did research and educate yourself before you made your mind up on the issue and cast your vote last Friday because unless you have been ignoring the debates on TV and radio, along with the threads on here or on social media where it's been discussed.

Apart from that, as per the proposed legislation it would need to be proven to be a threat to the health including medical health of the woman, if not she will have to carry to term I'd say. But again I'm sure you've researched and educated yourself on all this before you cast your vote last Friday.

Also unless their in denial or has an existing condition that affects the regularity of their periods, a woman will know their pregnant before twelve weeks. You know just ask the women you know if this is the case or not.

RayCun · 27-05-2018 04:51PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Typically immature response.

The referendum is over. Its now onto the question of discussing the legislation.

So lets discuss it.

With you?

You voted against repeal. You want the most restrictive legislation possible.

I've read enough of your posts to see you are not going to change your mind, and there is nothing for me to learn about your position. Your only interest is to try to come up with some stupid 'gotchas'.

Why bother?

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 04:51PM

Water John wrote: »

You can well see that Iona Et al are immediately focussing on the proposed legislation. The one problem they have is that the TDs who generally campaigned on the No side have indicated that they will not in any way oppose the legislation, given the large majority. At most, they will abstain. That is, game over for Iona..

No affilliation with Iona here. They are as looney as the far left groups on the Yes side.

The Yes side got the 8th repealed. Its now their responsibility to come up with legislation which covers all hard cases including raped women over the 12 weeks limit. Lets see what the final legislation says.

It would be odd if the legislation will not cover all hard cases.

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 04:54PM

RayCun wrote: »

With you?

You voted against repeal. You want the most restrictive legislation possible.

I've read enough of your posts to see you are not going to change your mind, and there is nothing for me to learn about your position. Your only interest is to try to come up with some stupid 'gotchas'.

Why bother?

Clearly you missed the posts where I said I am in favour of abortion for hard cases. I want all hard cases covered in new legislation. Which is why I raised the question. I was against parts of the proposed legislation and I felt a no vote would force the government to come back with better proposals which I could support.

swampgas · 27-05-2018 04:56PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It would be odd if the legislation will not cover all hard cases.

It would be very strange indeed if any legislation, in any field, could deal with all the hard cases. All we can do is address the most common ones first, and then work to address the rarer ones as they crop up.

Isn't it great when the legislators don't have their hands tied by a piece of extremist Catholic dogma in the constitution? I mean, imagine being able to amend laws in a reasonable timeframe when needed

Or is that just a bit too modern and progressive for you?

Timberrrrrrrr · 27-05-2018 04:57PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Grand.
So how do they prove they were raped?

Well according some NO posters in here there should be"rape commitees' set up to interview the woman in question and make the decision.

Me personally, I'd be happy to believe the woman and let her make the choice. If a woman presents herself at a doctor's over 12 weeks pregnant and says it's due to rape then let her have her termination.

RayCun · 27-05-2018 04:57PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Clearly you missed the posts where I said I am in favour of abortion for hard cases. I want all hard cases covered in new legislation. Which is why I raised the question. I was against parts of the proposed legislation and I felt a no vote would force the government to come back with better proposals which I could support.

Part of the reason the No campaign lost so massively is that they treated people like idiots.

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 05:00PM

swampgas wrote: »

It would be very strange indeed if any legislation, in any field, could deal with all the hard cases. All we can do is address the most common ones first, and then work to address the rarer ones as they crop up.

Isn't it great when the legislators don't have their hands tied by a piece of extremist Catholic dogma in the constitution? I mean, imagine being able to amend laws in a reasonable timeframe when needed

Or is that just a bit too modern and progressive for you?

Athiest here so nothing to do with catholic church. I despise much of the hypocisy of the average CC follower.

Still not answered my original question in full nor even bothered to acknowledge the difficulty in framing legislation. I suppose you did concede that not all hard cases will be covered.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments