gormdubhgorm wrote: » Yes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters A hopeful elimination of consequence Individualist - mé féin
gormdubhgorm wrote: » No - Selfless Act - put up with pain to bring another life into the world (unless a threat to the life of the mother) Thinking of others rather then yourself. Dealing consequences to actions. That is what it boiled down to for me in it's simplest terms
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Then it hit me... It got me thinking on the two extremesYes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters A hopeful elimination of consequence Individualist - mé féinNo - Selfless Act - put up with pain to bring another life into the world (unless a threat to the life of the mother) Thinking of others rather then yourself. Dealing consequences to actions. That is what it boiled down to for me in it's simplest terms
gormdubhgorm wrote: » It got me thinking on the two extremesYes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters A hopeful elimination of consequence Individualist - mé féinNo - Selfless Act - put up with pain to bring another life into the world (unless a threat to the life of the mother) Thinking of others rather then yourself. Dealing consequences to actions. That is what it boiled down to for me in it's simplest terms
gormdubhgorm wrote: » No sign of this thread been terminated yet will be interest to see how many weeks it is given..... The fun and games are really going to start now with the legislation. The genie is out of the bottle and people should be careful for what they wish for. The way some are going on you would swear abortion is as simple as changing the colour of your hair. "A woman's place is in the revolution" etc is one of the more annoying slogans I saw. On the other hand the Catholic church has done themselves no favours in the debate either. With the likes of Bishop's offering confessions for those who voted yes. Both hardliners on the yes and no side of this debate annoyed me if I am honest. It is was not as simple as yes or no. There was little nuance in the whole thing. Personally I ended up voting no not because 'I don't trust women' but because I don't trust the legislature.You don't need to trust the legislature, in countries like Canada abortion is legal up to term. What happens there is the same as anywhere else in the world, the stats are the same, 92% of abortions happen before 12 weeks and the rest are for threat to the health/life of the mother or for FFA. Women do not go around demanding abortions after being pregnant for 4/5/6 months just because. Millions will now have to be spend getting organised training from countries that already have abortion, couselling etcI'm sorry but you're wrong, no extra training will have to be provided to anyone, the pills are already dispensed in this country. The doctors know the risks, side effects etc. For abortions after 12 weeks and up to viability an ERPC will be performed, which is what already happens in Irish hospitals if there's a late term miscarriage anyway, after viability a live birth will take place so induction or ceserean. No extra training required by anybody. If the country cannot even get smear tests right what will happen with abortion.That wasn't this country, it was labs in the US... the way it was handled when it was discovered was the problem I was veering slightly towards yes (savita case in particular), when a conversation with a yes campaigner made me a definite no! Me: I was thinking about the Savita case main reason to vote yes However, I don't get this give women the choice they already have choices. If your mother had the choice you might not be here to have the choice!Yes Canvasser: That's hypoteticalMe: I am also worried about Downs Syndrome, designer abortions, - ethical questions like that Also what is wrong with adoption as a choice. I have had longer recoveries from surgeries then 9 months (which is true) and look at the joy it would bring others?Yes Canvasser: We are not there to give children to others...adoption laws are difficultMe: OK... I have a relation who adopted his son and he is doing very well for himself now. He would not have got that chance if he was aborted.Yes Canvasser: When I was pregnant I was in so much pain only for my mother....Me: But it is only 9 months!Yes Canvasser: (face like thunder) that is very patronising (closed the door and stormed off) Then it hit me... It got me thinking on the two extremesYes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters A hopeful elimination of consequence Individualist - mé feinNo - Selfless Act - put up with pain to bring another life into the world (unless a threat to the life of the mother) Thinking of others rather then yourself. Dealing consequences to actions. That is what it boiled down to for me in it's simplest terms
No - Selfless Act - put up with pain to bring another life into the world (unless a threat to the life of the mother) Thinking of others rather then yourself. Dealing consequences to actions.
gormdubhgorm wrote: Personally I ended up voting no not because 'I don't trust women' but because I don't trust the legislature.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » No sign of this thread been terminated yet will be interest to see how many weeks it is given..... The fun and games are really going to start now with the legislation. All the different agendas will be pitted against each other from the yes side. The genie is out of the bottle and people should be careful for what they wish for. The way some are going on you would swear abortion is as simple as changing the colour of your hair. "A woman's place is in the revolution" etc is one of the more annoying slogans I saw. On the other hand the Catholic church has done themselves no favours in the debate either. With the likes of Bishop's offering confessions for those who voted yes! Both hardliners on the yes and no side of this debate annoyed me if I am honest. It is was not as simple as yes or no. There was little nuance in the whole thing. Personally I ended up voting no not because 'I don't trust women' but because I don't trust the legislature. Millions will now have to be spend getting organised training from countries that already have abortion, couselling etc If the country cannot even get smear tests right what will happen with abortion. I was veering slightly towards yes (savita case in particular), when a conversation with a yes campaigner(at the door) made me a definite no!The Yes Canvasser and Me Me: I was thinking about the Savita case main reason to vote yes However, I don't get this give women the choice they already have choices. If your mother had the choice you might not be here to have the choice!Yes Canvasser: That's hypoteticalMe: I am also worried about Downs Syndrome, designer abortions, - ethical questions like that Also what is wrong with adoption as a choice. I have had longer recoveries from surgeries then 9 months (which is true) and look at the joy it would bring others?Yes Canvasser: We are not there to give children to others...adoption laws are difficultMe: OK... I have a relation who adopted his son and he is doing very well for himself now. He would not have got that chance if he was aborted.Yes Canvasser: When I was pregnant I was in so much pain only for my mother....Me: But it is only 9 months!Yes Canvasser: (face like thunder) that is very patronising (closed the door and stormed off) Then it hit me... It got me thinking on the two extremesYes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters A hopeful elimination of consequence Individualist - mé féinNo - Selfless Act - put up with pain to bring another life into the world (unless a threat to the life of the mother) Thinking of others rather then yourself. Dealing with consequences to actions. That is what it boiled down to for me in it's simplest terms
Dealing with consequences to actions.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » Does that mean he did not quote her out of context or misrepresent her argument? Apologies if you feel like I am not adding to the discussion. The point I initially wanted to make before we got distracted is that we should be cautious in what happens next. Naming and shaming every no voter is not a good course. You are entitled to vote for someone based on their vote in the referendum, no one is disputing that. Likewise if you want to choose a different GP because of their views on abortion, you are entitled to do so. What I think is problematic is the proposition that every no voter (including politicians, doctors and solicitors??) should be smeared and discredited, because they are women haters or oppressors. We are going in the direction of silencing everyone with a dissenting option, and that is rather worrying. Furthermore the refusal to engage in conversation with people (online or otherwise) based on their views is not productive in the slightest. We achieve nothing if we surround ourselves with people of the same opinion and bask in our superiority over the "others" on the other side. The yes campaign won, I would propose that the next step for those who wish to remain involved in the process would be to work to ensure that the legislation that goes through regarding abortion is solid.
Hitman3000 wrote: » Don't buy it.... just be honest you were No, no matter what. Blaming the legislature is an excuse and easily seen through.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Yes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters
swampgas wrote: » Hahaha - really? So unless a woman is prepared to sacrifice her autonomy, health, happiness and possibly her life, she's being selfish? Are all the women in your life expected to put themselves last? I guess they're also expected to make the sandwiches.
Shurimgreat wrote: I wouldn't waste my time on this thread. Many from the No side have and been shouted down and told to stop posting because they lost, etc.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » You can only shame someone for their stance if their stance is shameful, so you sorta torpedoed your own argument there. I don't think it's shameful for a politician to be anti-choice provided they're upfront about it so voters are aware. If they get elected then it's reasonable for them to express their view in the Oireachtas (not ridiculous filibustering or obstruction though) provided that they accept there is a majority opposing their view. It's important that pro-choice voters elect only pro-choice TDs, as the incoming abortion legislation could be tightened or overturned in future by a Dail vote. Unlikely I'd say, but possible.
Shurimgreat wrote: » @gormdubh. I wouldn't waste my time on this thread. Many from the No side have been shouted down and told to stop posting, give up, etc because they lost. It has become a yes side circle jerk and thank fest and my advice would be to leave them to it.
Hitman3000 wrote: » How can anyone be shouted down on this thread? If you post disingenuous comments you are going to get called out regardless of your stance in the referendum.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Even after you lost you still continue with the slut-shaming.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » You can only shame someone for their stance if their stance is shameful, so you sorta torpedoed your own argument there..
SusieBlue wrote: » He did quote her out of context, because he removed 5-6 lines of the post which explained her position on it, specifically regarding Savita and the No sides unyielding propensity to deny the 8th had any hand in her death. I think you are overstating things here. This isn't a movement to smear every single person with pro-life views. GP's are in a position of trust, that trust is compromised if doctor/patient priorities don't align. TD's and politicians represent us in government. I couldn't and wouldn't vote for someone whose views are the polar opposite to mine. Beyond that, I don't really care if my hairdresser or butcher or colleague in work is Pro-Life, its irrelevant. It has no bearing on my life. Their views are their own and I respect their right to hold them, it only becomes a problem when those views impact my life. In your regards to comments about online - I've been posting on this topic here for at least the last 2 years. I'm not afraid to have my views challenged. What I do have a problem with is misrepresenting someone's point by quoting 1 line out of a post, failure to back up arguments, and people posting with no proof of their claims. Unfortunately these threads can be rife with people doing all of the above.
gormdubhgorm wrote: When it comes down to it is a SELFISH act.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Those type of comments are not helpful is as silly as the "women's place is the revolution" slogan. The strong muscular female arm on the poster (ironically aping soviet russia) Silly stuff in my eyes It is not putting yourself last it is thinking of the greater good rather then a selfish quick fix act, which is likely to cause more trouble in the long run. An abortion cannot be undone but a child can be adopted or fostered. Which could bring happiness to another woman/man/same sex couple whatever. The consequences of abortion are far more finite. It is feigning strength, choice etc...there are other choices. When it comes down to it is a SELFISH act.
pleas advice wrote: » ...
gormdubhgorm wrote: » It is feigning strength, choice etc...there are other choices. When it comes down to it is a SELFISH act.
swampgas wrote: » So, you think your version of selfless should be made compulsory by law? Should we force people to donate kidneys? Should we force people to give a room to the homeless in their homes? Should we force people to adopt and foster, for the greater good? Or should people have a choice in these matters, perhaps? You're talking nonsense, to be honest - you just see women as breeding machines, and you would prefer if they didn't have any say in the matter.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
