Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

ELM327 wrote: »

But if asked the all encompassing question of "do you agree with abortion on demand - without any reason" a majority still said yes.

To be fair that wasn't on the ballot at all, and if that's how you took it to mean, then you shouldn't have been voting.

The only thing that was on the table:

Do you want to remove the "computer says no" section, and replace it with "gov can legislate"

Government can legislate. That's all that was on the table.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I do not wish to control them they have the control after they deliever the baby.

You don't wish to control them, but you do anyways, or you want to.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They can adopt it to any family they choose.

Except adoption in this country has been proven time and time and time and time again but you'll still cling to that notion. If they can choose to give the baby up for adoption, surely they can choose to terminate the pregnancy? Or do you only want them to choose what suits you?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They also have the control to be more careful to avoid unplanned unwanted pregnancies in future.

Is there any contraceptives out there that are 100% effective?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am not controlling nature when a fetus is forming and decide to dump it.

You said you were in physical pain for god knows how long, imagine someone came to you and offered you a pill that would make your pain go away and you could have your life back to normal again. You'd be an out and out waffler if you told me you'd sit there and take the pain, an absolute fibber.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Can they? Could you explain to me the procedures involved in doing that in this country? I know very little about the procedure but I have read on this thread a number of times that there is effectively no such option at all in Ireland.

Change them!!??

Legislate!

Bring in the procedure I remember neighbours who had to adopt Romanian kids as it was too difficult to adopt Irish kids.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I do not wish to control them they have the control after they deliever the baby.

Quite the contradictory statement: so you want to control them during pregnancy. Just say so.

Ideally for me it would be:

They can adopt it to any family they choose if unwanted.

How does this work exactly? Please expand: especially in the case of a family that already has say 5+ children and the woman has already undergone multiple cesareans and other medical complications that put her at increasing risk of permanently debilitating her health and well being? Does the family just acknowledge the mother is pregnant and then what, the child just lives next door? How do you see this playing out in the society at large?

They also have the control to be more careful to avoid unplanned unwanted pregnancies in future.

I am not stopping that.

I am not controlling nature when a fetus is forming and decide to dump it.

I don't believe in controlling that unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary

Simple as that.

Not really, you can use multiple forms of contraception and still conceive. Doctors will also refuse on multiple grounds to administer contraceptive methods that have proven to be the most effective, like tubal ligation. You are controlling the decision to "dump" a fetus though, it is disingenuous to pretend or rephrase the idea to suggest you aren't.

But those days are gone now.

So now it is the hands of the legislators now which worries me...as there will be competing agendas.

At the back of my mind the irony never escapes me, that some of those who voted yes may have been unplanned and / or unwanted pregnancies themselves.

Amuses me a bit.

I guess people who will never trust women to make decisions for themselves or their families will be less inclined to trust legislators, sure. Instead of bemoaning the fact though, you can always go chum up to your TD and make your views known directly though.

Plenty of yes voters now they were unplanned, unwanted, put up for adoption, etc. but still voted yes anyway. You may have also been a girl if your dad did doggy instead of missionary that day, or they had sex before the movie instead of after, or or or or or.

The Yes side you label as selfish "MY body MY choice ME ME ME" without looking at the No side that is selfish in saying "It could have been ME I May have been aborted ME ME ME." Amuses me a bit also. See it a few ways, if you try.

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

No, they didn't. The voted to repeal the 8th amendment.

Yes, and I doubt there is many people in the country at all who did not also know that this was a first step towards adopting the proposals of the Citizens Assembly, and the recommendations of international Human Rights reviews.

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

What cut off point would you propose for abortions? Sorry I just read above, you would really support abortion on demand with no term limits?

I think it pays to be cognizant of what "Terminations" means in later terms of pregnancy. Where possible, especially in late term, we do not terminate the fetus, we terminate the pregnancy.

A very different thing, and quite a lot of people do call for exactly that. But I think I have yet to meet anyone who wants the ability to terminate the fetus without term limits. And the only person who even APPEARED to be suggesting it (or at least refused time and time again to clarify what he meant by it) seems now to have been a "poe" of the pro choice position.......... and in fact around the time the referendum was announced he shifted entirely to the opposite extreme of being entirely against abortion in all but the most no-brainer of situations.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I won't respond to your replies about controlling I have coveed that.

But as for this comment.
It is not entirely true removal of pain completely can be a bad thing.
I would suffer pain as much as I could tolerate it - would draw the line at impacting sleep.

Pain is natures way of telling you there is something wrong if that was masked completely it could cause further damage.

You have to be very careful with pain management for this reason.

Plus the tablets to manage pain can have unintended results.

You've covered nothing, you've just ran and hidden, you've literally just talked shite the second you started posted here.

That's not what I asked you, I asked you if someone came along with a pill to make all your pain go away again and put you back to normal again, I didn't ask you to go off an a tangent and attempt to give me a lecture on pain management.

Cop on, answer the question asked or toss off.

EDIT: I also asked you for a contraceptive that's guaranteed to be 100% to counter your comment on individuals needing to be careful and you conveniently glossed over that.

Overheal wrote: »

S
Back on to other topics, I'd still like to know what personal logic you use that works in both cases: that abortion should be enshrined in the constitution but not matters related to alcohol, when alcohol demonstrably kills at least a thousand a year by several gruesome means, including the death of other living persons by way of vehicular manslaughter along with domestic violence etc. ?

Alcohol laws are currently already in legislation, and the culture of Ireland's relationship with drink is the problem.

I don't know how you would have a wording for alcohol in the constitution.

The sex-selection boogeyman is just that.

If we got to the point where there were a significant volume of sex-selection abortions taking place, the focus should not be on banning them, but figuring out why people are doing it in the first place.
Just like banning abortions doesn't stop abortions, and doesn't stop people from needing them, banning sex-selective abortions won't fix the problems that people are trying to avoid by gender-selecting their children. If someone will go as far as abortion because they don't want a boy, does that seem like a good family to force a boy to be born into?

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people don't really care what gender their children come out as. If that changes - such as in the Chinese or Indian examples oft cited - then we have a social issue that needs to be fixed.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I do not wish to control them they have the control after they deliever the baby.

So you want to control women for 9 months!

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Ideally for me it would be:

They can adopt it to any family they choose if unwanted.

So you don't care really what happens once a baby is born. She could choose a family that will treat the child like crap and abuse it but that's ok because you controlled her for 9 months.

How many adoptions happen in this country already when the 8th is in place? Virtually zero! How many will there be in the future? Virtually zero! Adoption doesn't even come into the equation.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They also have the control to be more careful to avoid unplanned unwanted pregnancies in future.

I am not stopping that.

That old chestnut again. I presume that you are over the age of 11 and therefore know that contraception it is not failsafe. You also know that there are cases of rape etc. But then you want to control of women during pregnancy to force them to give birth to the child of their rapist.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am not controlling nature when a fetus is forming and decide to dump it.

So you are are not against abortion now?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I don't believe in controlling that unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary

Simple as that.

But you do want to control women. You are getting confused. One minute you don't want to and the next you do. Make up your mind!

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But those days are gone now.

Your controlling days are gone for sure and it is no thanks to you. Tbh, it's not surprising that the vast majority of people that are anti-choice are men and women of non-child bearing age.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So now it is the hands of the legislators now which worries me...as there will be competing agendas.

That is why the government published a draft bill outlining their intentions and that is what the vast majority of people want.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

At the back of my mind the irony never escapes me, that some of those who voted yes may have been unplanned and / or unwanted pregnancies themselves!

Just because it is unplanned does not mean it was unwanted. Also, just because they may have been unwanted doesn't mean that they have to be anti-choice. Maybe some of those unwanted people had such a bad life that they don't want to force it upon others in the future.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Amuses me a bit.

The strangest things seem to amuse you. Thankfully your wants are dead and gone.

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

How is "do you agree with" any more leading than "do you support"?

Half of voters agreeing with the idea of 12 weeks unrestricted abortion isn't really saying much for your stance? Where in the link does it say that anyway? The closest thing I can find is



where the where the mean result was 6.1, which isn't really in your favour either?

That's a bit extreme. There is a ridiculous amount of intensive care required for a baby born that prematurely (24 weeks) to survive, let alone avoid serious health complications in the future.

Surely there's a reasonable time limit for a woman to make her decision regarding the pregnancy, and surely it's long before 24 weeks?

Certainly, and the vast majority of abortions happen well before that. That doesn't mean some don't happen late; evidently, a shorter window would fail to encapsulate the reasons women in the latter case might seek one.

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Did he say anywhere that he wanted to force a rape victim to carry a child?

If you want to beat somebody in argument, build up the strongest version of their argument and try to undermine that, rather than reducing and misrepresenting their position to one so extreme that very would agree with it in the first place.

Hmm... misrepresenting? Like you are now? Did you miss the point that he is anti-choice and wants to control pregnant women?

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

What reason might be chosen after 24 weeks?

Breech birth endangering the health but not life of mother?
Severe blood loss?
Infection?
Disconnected placenta?


etc, etc.
I'm not a medical professional but I could carry on with a myriad of reasons.
At the end of the day the people have spoken and this is now between a woman and her doctor, the state is no longer involved.