nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Ozymandius2011

This is for people who have already voted in the referendum. How did you vote? I voted yes.

Mod: This thread is little more than a survey about how you voted. Please don't the ins and outs of abortion.

Mod: This is not a reiteration of the previous 8th threads. If you were threadbanned from those, you are not threadbanned here.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

SusieBlue

Fighting Tao wrote: »

But I thought there were going to be forced abortions. Equality and all that means that men have to have them too.

There is a thread after hours right now with many men advocating that they should be allowed to have financial abortions now that the 8th has been repealed.
Anyone who thinks this might not be a good idea is accused of being a hypocrite and of being anti-choice.

7aubzxk43m2sni

meeeeh wrote: »

Hysterical is it? I think you care about hypocrisy a lot more than I do. I actually believe we are all hypocritical to certain extent and I just don't care enough about it to feel bad.

Yes, hysterical. "Im not worried about getting struck by lighting" and blah blah blah.

meeeeh wrote: »

I agree with abortion without the need to give a reason so yes.

ELM327 wrote: »

I (and 66% of the people of Ireland) agree with a women's right to make a decision based on whatever criteria she sees fit.

If she decides to have a termination based on gender, then that is her right.
It is her right to do that in Ireland since the 8th was repealed.
Before that, it was her right to travel to get it done.

Both of those rights were conferred by a majority vote in a public referendum.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Wouldn't they be happening already, albeit in the UK on Irelands behalf? What is going to change? Everyone will suddenly rush to get an abortion?

As far as I am aware the baby's sex can be determined at 18-20 weeks, well past the 12 week window proposed?

7aubzxk43m2sni

SusieBlue wrote: »

There is a thread after hours right now with many men advocating that they should be allowed to have financial abortions now that the 8th has been repealed.
Anyone who thinks this might not be a good idea is accused of being a hypocrite and of being anti-choice.

I can see the logic to a certain extent although obviously it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Woman does not want a baby: Has an abortion
Man does not want a baby: Tough luck

Proposed solution: Man can sign form stating he did not want a child, is signing away any parental rights and as a result has no financial obligations relating to the child.

What's your opinion on the matter?

Billy86

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That's a strange comment in particular as I reasoned out my thoughts as cogently as I could.

The trend on this thread seems to be.

No voter comments

Yes voter gives hypothetical situation why don't you?

No voter comments

Yes voter have you answered my question?

No voter answers question weighs up reasons and thier thoughts on the issue.

Yes voter flippant comment... to get laughs from the majority as they could not think of a proper reply.... hahaha etc

(welcome to "internet debate")

Yeah, suicidal disabled children with suicidal tendencies who are physically unable to even commit the deed themselves, and other children born into drug addicted households who doomed to a life of crime and addiction from as good as the moment they were born. Hi-fucking-larious!!

gormdubhgorm

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Would you agree with gender abortions in Ireland?

I know it is off topic slightly.

When Pat Spillane (Former Kerry footballer) had a new baby the question down there was:

"Is it a footballer or a child?"

Meaning is it a son or daughter.

It turned out it was a daughter/child.

Now I am thinking that Meath/Kildare (not doing very well at football) need to bring in gender abortions as soon as possible!

:eek:

SusieBlue

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

I can see the logic to a certain extent although obviously it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Woman does not want a baby: Has an abortion
Man does not want a baby: Tough luck

Proposed solution: Man can sign form stating he did not want a child, is signing away any parental rights and as a result has no financial obligations relating to the child.

What's your opinion on the matter?

Without cross posting, I agree with it in theory, but in practice, I think it could have long term repercussions for the child involved.
Abortion and financial abortion have different outcomes. In one, there is no child. In the other, there is a living child whose needs, wants and rights need to be considered.

ELM327

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

As far as I am aware the baby's sex can be determined at 18-20 weeks, well past the 12 week window proposed?

Then the woman will have the (already established and conferred by the 13th+14th amendments) right to travel as before.

The difference is, that should she make that decision, she will still be able to have aftercare here.

I don't expect many women to make that decision. But if they do - whilst I may disagree with their choice - I fully support their right to make that choice.

meeeeh

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

As far as I am aware the baby's sex can be determined at 18-20 weeks, well past the 12 week window proposed?

I don't know, but I agree with later therm abortions when there are certain medical conditions or when mother would be adversely affected. So it depends but while I would prefer slightly more liberal abortion after 12 weeks I agree it should be to medical panel to decide weather they want to grant the abortion.

7aubzxk43m2sni

ELM327 wrote: »

I (and 66% of the people of Ireland) agree with a women's right to make a decision based on whatever criteria she sees fit.

If she decides to have a termination based on gender, then that is her right.
It is her right to do that in Ireland since the 8th was repealed.
Before that, it was her right to travel to get it done.

Both of those rights were conferred by a majority vote in a public referendum.

66% voted to repeal the 8th.

I think if you asked the question: "Do you agree with the idea of abortion based on the gender of the baby?", you'd get a seriously different answer.

Fighting Tao

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Now I am thinking that Meath/Kildare (not doing very well at football) need to bring in gender abortions as soon as possible!

:eek:

To ensure that no more crap footballers are born? Yep, girls all the way. The boys born in other counties will thank them for that when they grow up.

Overheal

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

I can see the logic to a certain extent although obviously it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Woman does not want a baby: Has an abortion
Man does not want a baby: Tough luck

Proposed solution: Man can sign form stating he did not want a child, is signing away any parental rights and as a result has no financial obligations relating to the child.

What's your opinion on the matter?

There’s a thread for that?

iguana

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

As far as I am aware the baby's sex can be determined at 18-20 weeks, well past the 12 week window proposed?

Not anymore. From about the 9-10th week of pregnancy there is enough foetal DNA in the mother's blood to determine gender with a finger prick blood test.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Overheal wrote: »

There’s a thread for that?

Sorry Mr.Moderator, won't happen again

Fighting Tao

iguana wrote: »

Not anymore. From about the 9-10th week of pregnancy there is enough foetal DNA in the mother's blood to determine gender with a finger prick blood test.

The way science is progressing it's only a matter of time before people can swallow a blue pill or pink pill depending on what gender they want. The whole thing of gender specific abortions is yet another red herring.

gormdubhgorm

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah, suicidal disabled children with suicidal tendencies who are physically unable to even commit the deed themselves, and other children born into drug addicted households who doomed to a life of crime and addiction from as good as the moment they were born. Hi-fucking-larious!!

Suicidal disabled children???

I am surprised you did not say "Suicidal, disabled, black, gay, children from the travelling community" to cover every minority and vulnerable group.

Not only that you uses suicidal twice as if being a suicidal disabled child was not enough the suicial tendances had to be added for good measure!

Jayus..

At that rate if there was a test in future for "suicidal tenancies" why just limit it to disabled children?

Or correct me if I am wrong do disabled children only get "suicidal tenancies"?

I am baffled at the logic...

As for the drug addicted houseshold.. would neutering the drug addicts be most cost effective for you?

nozzferrahhtoo

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

66% voted to repeal the 8th.

I think if you asked the question: "Do you agree with the idea of abortion based on the gender of the baby?", you'd get a seriously different answer.

Well thinking it certainly does not make it true. But even if it was true what would it tell us other than many people do not have the courage of their own convictions.

For me at least the fact that no one, certainly no one on boards.ie, has come up with a single argument as to why there is any moral or ethical problem with the termination of a fetus at 10 weeks gestation............. it would seem to me there is no reason therefore to obsess over one particular REASON someone might have for seeking such a termination.

If we are ok with abortion, then the reason someone seeks one is simply not our concern.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The way science is progressing it's only a matter of time before people can swallow a blue pill or pink pill depending on what gender they want. The whole thing of gender specific abortions is yet another red herring.

In certain circumstances, sure it can be used as a red herring, but as its own topic of discussion its perfectly fine.

Overheal

iguana wrote: »

Not anymore. From about the 9-10th week of pregnancy there is enough foetal DNA in the mother's blood to determine gender with a finger prick blood test.

Could always restrict access to the test before 12 weeks if this was seen as a real issue.

Again I’m all for personal choices though. Hard for me to imagine a scenario where I wouldn’t try to assuage someone from a gender based abortion but in the end is it not their choice.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Fighting Tao

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

In certain circumstances, sure it can be used as a red herring, but as its own topic of discussion its perfectly fine.

You mean when it suits an agenda that has no valid arguments its fine?

7aubzxk43m2sni

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well thinking it certainly does not make it true. But even if it was true what would it tell us other than many people do not have the courage of their own convictions.

For me at least the fact that no one, certainly no one on boards.ie, has come up with a single argument as to why there is any moral or ethical problem with the termination of a fetus at 10 weeks gestation............. it would seem to me there is no reason therefore to obsess over one particular REASON someone might have for seeking such a termination.

If we are ok with abortion, then the reason someone seeks one is simply not our concern.

I don't know how its relevant to "the courage of their own convictions".

I suppose we're getting onto the topic of "abortion on demand". While most agree that the hard cases are acceptable reasons for abortion, the disagreement becomes more prominent when it's regarding questions of "can I afford the baby" and similar themes.

Obviously nobody knows a specific person's circumstances more than the person themselves, and no one has the right to decide if that person's circumstances are "bad enough" to justify abortion.

However, for me at least, the idea of abortion for the simple reason alone that the baby is not the gender wanted is a bit grim to say the least.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You mean when it suits an agenda that has no valid arguments its fine?

What agenda?

We're literally discussing gender based abortion as its own concept, not in relation to the 8th or anything else, so what's the issue?

Fighting Tao

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

What agenda?

We're literally discussing gender based abortion as its own concept, not in relation to the 8th or anything else, so what's the issue?

But this thread is about repealing the 8th. How can we not be discussing the 8th?

Fighting Tao

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

I suppose we're getting onto the topic of "abortion on demand".

That topic has been covered a number of times in this thread already. Do you want to go around in more circles or just read this thread from the start?

iguana

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The way science is progressing it's only a matter of time before people can swallow a blue pill or pink pill depending on what gender they want. The whole thing of gender specific abortions is yet another red herring.

It's certainly true of Down's Syndrome. Down's Syndrome will probably be eradicated, not because of abortion but because of gene editing. In utero treatment for Trisomy 13, 17 and 21 is on the horizon. Switching the extra chromosome is doable on embryos in laboratory conditions and will eventually be available for pregnant women. It's not going to be available tomorrow but the odds are in the next couple of decades Down's Syndrome will be curable. And as much as people fear 'playing God' I doubt too many people being given the news of a Down's diagnosis will turn down medical treatment that will remove the multitude of health problems associated with Down's and drastically improve their baby's health and abilities. As for Patau's and Edward's (T13&17) both FFAs, who would worry about 'playing God' when it saves their baby's life.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Fighting Tao wrote: »

But this thread is about repealing the 8th. How can we not be discussing the 8th?

I'll repeat, what agenda?

7aubzxk43m2sni

Fighting Tao wrote: »

That topic has been covered a number of times in this thread already. Do you want to go around in more circles or just read this thread from the start?

Do you want to respond to anything I've said or continue deflecting?

Fighting Tao

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

I'll repeat, what agenda?

I'm just waiting for you to day that you are playing devils advocate.

gormdubhgorm

See below...

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fighting Tao

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Do you want to respond to anything I've said or continue deflecting?

I already referenced the point previously in the thread. So I can not be deflecting. You re no the first new addition to the thread that raises all these new ideas that suddenly came to mind.