Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 30-05-2018 02:09PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So you want to control women for 9 months!

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.

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.

..

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!

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.

....

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.

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

Overheal wrote: »

So... you misrepresented the argument to one extreme by strawmanning the rape issue and want to tell other people how to argue by not misrepresenting their position to one extreme? What?

Please explain what I misrepresented?

Summary:

"He wants to control women"

"want to control of women during pregnancy to force them to give birth to the child of their rapist."

"control"

"force"

"anti-choice"

seamus · 30-05-2018 02:12PM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

What reason might be chosen after 24 weeks?

A late-diagnosed fatal abnormality, or an emergency which risks the life of the mother.

Clinical guidelines in these scenarios are that they must be treated as a live birth (assuming the child is not stillborn) and neonatal or palliative care provided.

In some jurisdictions, euthanasia is permitted before birth in the case of a FFA, but this is not universal.

Pregnancy and gestation is not simple. It's an incredibly complicated process. You have an unmonitored biological process that's building and piecing together a million independent systems into one functioning body. Anything that can conceivably go wrong during this process, does go wrong on occasion.

It's not a case that every foetus that makes it to 24 weeks with no issues is "out of the woods". The risk of a problem that would require a late termination is a lot lower, but the risk is there nonetheless.

This is far from bedtime reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fetal_abnormalities

That's a list of some of the possible things that can go wrong. Pregnant women may not want to click that link.

30-05-2018 02:14PM

Those ICBR nutcases are outside Trinity now with their disgusting posters. What on earth do they expect to achieve?

Fighting Tao · 30-05-2018 02:16PM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Please explain what I misrepresented?

Summary:

"He wants to control women"

"want to control of women during pregnancy to force them to give birth to the child of their rapist."

"control"

"force"

"anti-choice"

You ignore what I quoted. You misrepresented the post you were defending.

spookwoman · 30-05-2018 02:20PM

There is a lot more to DS that what we just see.
Here are 2 articles about DS stats, I know one is US bases but it is from the CDC and it gives details of the other issues associated with DS.
The other is from Trinity College a study between DS and high prevalence rates, significantly earlier onset of dementia

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/downsyndrome/data.html

https://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/20-year-study-into-dementia-and-down-syndrome-in-ireland-paints-stark-picture/8041

Fighting Tao · 30-05-2018 02:20PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Those ICBR nutcases are outside Trinity now with their disgusting posters. What on earth do they expect to achieve?

Are they meant to be protesting at the students for wanting a better future? If so, I think exams are over and they are mostly gone home for the summer.

Overheal · 30-05-2018 02:21PM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

What reason might be chosen after 24 weeks?

Sorry, I thought you meant between 12-24 weeks, and in those cases I might assume a major life event like the death of a spouse or a divorce or loss of insurance or career or other events which really put the brakes on baby showers and such or your plans to raise another life. But, I'm speculating based off personal logic or anecdote I may have picked up over the years. Here's one link I pulled up based on your question I'm sure there are others out there:

https://www.self.com/story/why-people-get-second-trimester-abortions

As for third trimester abortions this paper is from the Guttmacher Institute that was founded as an arm of Planned Parenthood and isn't perfectly flattering but there it is:

"Women aged 20–24 were more likely than those aged 25–34 to have a later abortion (odds ratio, 2.7), and women who discovered their pregnancy before eight weeks’ gestation were less likely than others to do so (0.1). Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays (e.g., difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs), which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous [def: never had a pregnancy]."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1363/4521013 full PDF on the page.

The biggest reasons seem to be late diagnoses (eg. FFA) and financial reasons. These could be redressed with better education for young women (don't get me started on the hypocrisy of crisis pregnancy centers) and financial support especially for first time mothers, if you were looking for ways to limit late term abortion. But also, easy access to abortion, evidenced by their delay being difficulty getting to facilities at an earlier stage of pregnancy.

ELM327 · 30-05-2018 02:24PM

retro:electro wrote: »

How is this a bad thing? Seriously? Do you wish you were disabled?

It's a thing apparently
http://www.rebelcircus.com/blog/people-are-becoming-disabled-by-choice-and-calling-themselves-transabled/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder

30-05-2018 02:25PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Are they meant to be protesting at the students for wanting a better future? If so, I think exams are over and they are mostly gone home for the summer.

Thankfully there's enough of them around to cover up the posters. I called the guards but they don't seem too bothered.

Overheal · 30-05-2018 02:26PM

ELM327 wrote: »

It's a thing apparently
http://www.rebelcircus.com/blog/people-are-becoming-disabled-by-choice-and-calling-themselves-transabled/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder

I mean yeah there was also that woman who chose to be black... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

Overheal · 30-05-2018 02:29PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Those ICBR nutcases are outside Trinity now with their disgusting posters. What on earth do they expect to achieve?

https://us15.campaign-archive.com/?u=936f77bab5c39ec54958949d8&id=042bb1a367

Looks like a great bunch of lads that understand the meaning of censorship and all that.

ELM327 · 30-05-2018 02:32PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

The exact people who are lamenting the eradication of disabilities are the exact same people who use generalisations like "All people with DS are really happy, loveable and friendly folks, why would anyone want to abort a DS baby"...

We've seen it many times.
They don't have a clue what kind of sacrifice and responsibility is involved with having a disabled child, much less any consideration for the impact it will have on existing older children, or the suffering of the child with has to live with the disability.
Its a pawn in their argument and nothing more. They have little to no understanding and they don't care.

+1
I'm a mild autistic (Asperger's syndrome).
Autism is on a spectrum, and some of the more severely impacted autistic people are affected intellectually to the point they cannot function in the world without varying levels of care.
I wouldn't wish an autistic child on anyone. Autism is an assistance and a hindrance in the way I live my life on a day to day basis. But I am not intellectually impacted. For example, I can take a complex data situation and analyse it in a split second, but I cannot detect tone or sarcasm even if it's blatant. I can remember the exact lines of a TV show I last watched in 1994 but I cannot regulate emotions very well.

For those facing a pregnancy on the more severe side of the autism spectrum, or DS, or any other chromosomal abnormality, or intellectual disability, termination on those grounds is the only rational option.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 30-05-2018 02:36PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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.

That's actually hilarious. I'm frequently woken from sleep in the small hours by menstrual pain, don't even talk about it preventing me getting to sleep.

Nature is trying to tell me "you're not pregnant so I'm just going to bleed and cramp all this out for you and we'll go again". Nature has told me that about 200 times now, and will continue telling me that a dozen times a year for the next couple of decades.

That's just run-of-mill, middle of the pack menstrual pains. Which I can't even imagine what notion you have of, if pregnancy is just a bit of hassle and the odd small pain for a few auld months.

30-05-2018 02:36PM

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!

Amuses me a bit.

why does this amuse you?
I was a yes voter & an unplanned pregnancy myself. My mother made the choice to go through with the pregnancy.
My friends daughter was unplanned, in fact my friend travelled to England but changed her mind. Her daughter was a yes voter.
I don't understand why you find that amusing?

Billy86 · 30-05-2018 02:37PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Those ICBR nutcases are outside Trinity now with their disgusting posters. What on earth do they expect to achieve?

They want to achieve a lasting wedge issue to build a far right political platform on, and they've got Cambridge Analytica employees on board to help them.

eviltwin · 30-05-2018 02:41PM

ELM327 wrote: »

+1
I'm a mild autistic (Asperger's syndrome).
Autism is on a spectrum, and some of the more severely impacted autistic people are affected intellectually to the point they cannot function in the world without varying levels of care.
I wouldn't wish an autistic child on anyone. Autism is an assistance and a hindrance in the way I live my life on a day to day basis. But I am not intellectually impacted. For example, I can take a complex data situation and analyse it in a split second, but I cannot detect tone or sarcasm even if it's blatant. I can remember the exact lines of a TV show I last watched in 1994 but I cannot regulate emotions very well.

For those facing a pregnancy on the more severe side of the autism spectrum, or DS, or any other chromosomal abnormality, or intellectual disability, termination on those grounds is the only rational option.

Great post. I have two children, both have AS. I have no energy to give to another child and while I love my children I wish they didn't have this condition. Both suffer from severe anxiety and OCD, a common side effect of ASD. I don't see anyone on the No side in a position of power offering support in schools, offer support with medication or psychological care. All I get is the condescending b.s. that 'arent they great'? Yes they are but that won't get them the support they need.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-05-2018 02:41PM

ELM327 wrote: »

I can remember the exact lines of a TV show I last watched in 1994 but I cannot regulate emotions very well.

I was educating someone on boards last week about what it means to go to war with "an idea". And I remembered having heard someone discuss exactly that.

So I closed my eyes and thought about it and after a few seconds remembered who it was, then a few more seconds remembered generally where and when it was in 2015. Then a few second later which video and pretty much exactly around where it was in that 3 hour long video.

As I have never shown any of the more "negative" sides of being on the same spectrum as you, I have never sought to get diagnosed. But moments of insanely accurate memory like that sometimes make me wonder if it is symptomatic of something, or do I just have a good memory.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 30-05-2018 02:43PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You ignore what I quoted. You misrepresented the post you were defending.

Where did he say he wanted to force rape victims to carry their children?

spookwoman · 30-05-2018 02:44PM

ELM327 wrote: »

+1
I'm a mild autistic (Asperger's syndrome).
Autism is on a spectrum, and some of the more severely impacted autistic people are affected intellectually to the point they cannot function in the world without varying levels of care.
I wouldn't wish an autistic child on anyone. Autism is an assistance and a hindrance in the way I live my life on a day to day basis. But I am not intellectually impacted. For example, I can take a complex data situation and analyse it in a split second, but I cannot detect tone or sarcasm even if it's blatant. I can remember the exact lines of a TV show I last watched in 1994 but I cannot regulate emotions very well.

For those facing a pregnancy on the more severe side of the autism spectrum, or DS, or any other chromosomal abnormality, or intellectual disability, termination on those grounds is the only rational option.

Agreed people don't understand others with mild autistic (Asperger's syndrome) often call them weirdo's etc. You can guarantee the name callers are the same ones who called for a no.

I've heard the stories of the more extreme cases of autistic, those with intellectual disabilities and DS and its's frightening.
I've heard teachers and assistants getting bitten kicked and even had dirty sanitary towels thrown at them. I remember I had to go into a room full of these children and I got a talk on how to behave, don't make eye contact, don't speak, don't get close keep your distance. It was like walking through a mine field because anything could trigger them. I don't know how a family or someone come live like that constantly.

Fighting Tao · 30-05-2018 02:44PM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Where did he say he wanted to force rape victims to carry their children?

Does wanting to control pregnant women to ensure they can't abort their foetus not cover that in your world?

SusieBlue · 30-05-2018 02:46PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Great post. I have two children, both have AS. I have no energy to give to another child and while I love my children I wish they didn't have this condition. Both suffer from severe anxiety and OCD, a common side effect of ASD. I don't see anyone on the No side in a position of power offering support in schools, offer support with medication or psychological care. All I get is the condescending b.s. that 'arent they great'? Yes they are but that won't get them the support they need.

Couldn't agree more.
I personally think its insulting, as if these kids are one dimensional eternally happy little caricatures.
Yes, they can be happy. But they can also be grumpy and angry and anxious and sad and every other emotion out there under the sun.
In that sense, they are just like everyone else.

My brother has severe autism, next time he's having a meltdown I'll remind him that he's supposed to be happy all the time, I'll let you know how I get on. :rolleyes:

eviltwin · 30-05-2018 02:47PM

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!

Amuses me a bit.

I'm the product of a mother who never wanted children and resents her offspring and who has told us many times she would never have had kids if she felt that was an option.

I voted Yes. My mother is a very bitter, unhappy woman and in turn our childhood was very unhappy. I don't care much for who she has become but I do wish the young woman she was should have been supported in her wish to be childfree by whatever means.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 30-05-2018 02:49PM

ELM327 wrote: »

It may sound like semantics but it isn't.
People don't agree with the idea of something they don't like (perceived frivolous abortion on spurious grounds).... but they may agree with the right of the woman to make that decision.
I'm a hardline repeal, and that would be my position too.

Fair point

ELM327 wrote: »

There was a graph showing 52% in favour of abortion on demand.
It was shown on the RTE TV coverage, referencing the exit poll. Additionally, 66% of the nation voted to repeal the 8th knowing the published heads of the bill that were coming included 12 weeks abortion on demand. To claim otherwise is nonsensical or facetious.

There's reasonable time limits, there's reasonable everything.
Are you going to go to a fat person and tell them not to eat? A drunk person and take the pint from their hand? A poor person from a betting shop? How far do you want to enforce your beliefs and controls on society?

I can't find that graph in the link.

Yes you're absolutely right that we voted knowing the proposed legislation.

It is facetious in the extreme to compare stopping a fat person from eating and stopping the termination of a pregnancy.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 30-05-2018 02:52PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Does wanting to control pregnant women to ensure they can't abort their foetus not cover that in your world?

What is my world exactly?

With regards to those who "want to control pregnant women", I think you'll find that a huge number of no voters would agree with termination in a hard case such as rape.

soap1978 · 30-05-2018 02:53PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Great post. I have two children, both have AS. I have no energy to give to another child and while I love my children I wish they didn't have this condition. Both suffer from severe anxiety and OCD, a common side effect of ASD. I don't see anyone on the No side in a position of power offering support in schools, offer support with medication or psychological care. All I get is the condescending b.s. that 'arent they great'? Yes they are but that won't get them the support they need.

put them up for adoption,if u could go back would u abort them?

Fighting Tao · 30-05-2018 02:54PM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

What is my world exactly?

With regards to those who "want to control pregnant women", I think you'll find that a huge number of no voters would agree with termination in a hard case such as rape.

I don't know what your world is and that is why I asked.

I am talking about the one poster, the one you are defending. However, you seem to be interested in all that voted no.

Overheal · 30-05-2018 02:55PM

ELM327 wrote: »

+1
I'm a mild autistic (Asperger's syndrome).
Autism is on a spectrum, and some of the more severely impacted autistic people are affected intellectually to the point they cannot function in the world without varying levels of care.
I wouldn't wish an autistic child on anyone. Autism is an assistance and a hindrance in the way I live my life on a day to day basis. But I am not intellectually impacted. For example, I can take a complex data situation and analyse it in a split second, but I cannot detect tone or sarcasm even if it's blatant. I can remember the exact lines of a TV show I last watched in 1994 but I cannot regulate emotions very well.

For those facing a pregnancy on the more severe side of the autism spectrum, or DS, or any other chromosomal abnormality, or intellectual disability, termination on those grounds is the only rational option.

Friend of mine has a very autistic child. Cute kid but when he has an episode he will completely freak, smear feces on the wall etc etc. - requires special schooling, which you then have to worry about caretaker abuse (could tell you some stories about mystery bruises and cuts) and straight cost of care. Federal funding is available but only goes so far in providing. This is a woman that lost her job because of late/call-out write-ups because she has to get her child would have episodes that require her attention etc. and there is no labor law protecting her ability to do that while keeping the job that helps support the family.

Another friend has an autistic brother who may be even worse. Well into his 20s with the mentality of a 10 year old, and some neurological condition which has uncoupled his ability to ascertain his own strength (the ability of your brain for instance to stop you from squeezing your fist so tight that you can injure yourself). So, when HE has an episode, he can seriously hulk the **** out and throw people across the room. That requires 24/7 care. Your ability to support a loved one like that is severely handicapped by their need for perpetual supervision, meaning you need a family unit (not quite the case here) with dual incomes and complementary schedules, or a sole breadwinner and a stay at home caretaker, or you both pay for a stay at home caretaker who is aware of the risk they can be lifted off the ground by their throat if something goes wrong.

I’m not sure where science is on screening autism during pregnancy or in the future amending genomes to reduce or eliminate it but I am at least certain given the choice I wouldn’t judge anyone for not wanting that life for them or the child.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 30-05-2018 02:56PM

soap1978 wrote: »

put them up for adoption,if u could go back would u abort them?

Thats a hard question to ask someone.

Asking if someone would abort a hypothetical disabled child if they are pregnant is very different to asking someone who has raised their children if they would go back in time and abort their child.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-05-2018 02:57PM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

What is my world exactly?

With regards to those who "want to control pregnant women", I think you'll find that a huge number of no voters would agree with termination in a hard case such as rape.

Yeah we got a significant handful of people who said they were ok with abortion for rape, but not for many other reasons.

Two things struck me about those people.

1) Not one of them could describe how such a system would, or even could, work in practice. Well actually ONE tried and his proposal was..... horrific..... based around the concept of a woman having to prove herself to a panel.

2) Not one of them could explain why, if the fetus has a right to l ife, it should lose that right due to a crime committed by someone who was not it, on someone who was not it. Nor could they name any other situation where a fundamental right of X was forfeit because of an action Y did to Z.

So it came across to me as one of those "virtue signalling" things to me, where the anti abortion speakers were trying to make it look like they were tolerant and considerate.... by acknowledging abortion as the right thing to do ONLY in situations and cases where it would be entirely unworkable to actually do it.

That way they can look less hard line than they are, by giving ground to scenarios that would never become a reality anyway. Because "against all abortions except those that could not happen anyway" is functionally the same as, but sounds better than "against all abortion ever".

eviltwin · 30-05-2018 02:57PM

soap1978 wrote: »

put them up for adoption,if u could go back would u abort them?

You don't know until a few years down the line if a child has ASD, it's not something that can be tested for during pregnancy and its not apparent at birth.

I would imagine the chances of another child being on the spectrum is high so my husband and I agree that if we are unlucky enough to have another pregnancy we will not keep it.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments