Overheal wrote: » So are deaths from alcohol? reminder, I'm only trying to discern the poster's logic against why one social issue should be in the constitution and not the other, having made the remark that social issues should be legislated in the constitution.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » There are unplanned from alcohol and there will be a lot of abortions as a result of alcohol (thanks to 2/3s of the country so I suppose it is a relevant point. There is a clear death of a human life when it comes to abortion. I thought it was right that it had that protection. Now the legislators can have thier way and decide on lowering the number of weeks over time if they wish. The world is mixed up on what is legal and illegal basically because of money. Cigarettes make too much money and out weigh the health consequences cost wise which is why they remain legal. Those types of issues like cigarettes are constantly changing, smoking ban, drink driving laws so it would not be convenient to put those less important items it the Constitution. The constitution should reflect the culture of the state where practicable. Unfortunately Ireland has a strange love affair with excessive drinking. So unfortunately your suggestion is never going to happen in my lifetime. If you could put in just the two will do (the doctors would love that, but the breweries would never allow it) Too much money to made.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » There are unplanned from alcohol and there will be a lot of abortions as a result of alcohol (thanks to 2/3s of the country so I suppose it is a relevant point. There is a clear death of a human life when it comes to abortion. I thought it was right that it had that protection.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » There are unplanned from alcohol and there will be a lot of abortions as a result of alcohol (thanks to 2/3s of the country so I suppose it is a relevant point. There is a clear death of a human life when it comes to abortion. I thought it was right that it had that protection. Now the legislators can have thier way and decide on lowering the number of weeks over time if they wish.
Hellrazer wrote: » See I can do colour aswell!!!!! The referendum was a definitive "Yes" The electorate has decided by a majority of 2 to 1 in favour of allowing abortion in the state. I wish the No campaigners would just get over that. Sore losers anyone?? The sooner the better the law is in place to shut you lot up once and for all. Womens rights won through in the end and I firmly believe that's what made the yes vote win in the end.No number of aborted fetus`posters could have swayed the referendum in favour of the no vote. The whole controlling women has been defeated regardless of whether you agree with abortion or not.
Hellrazer wrote: » Can you just stop.Your posts are hurting my brain at this time of the evening. Are you suggesting that all the women that voted yes are going to go out,get pissed and have loads of unwanted pregnancies and then use abortion for contraception purposes?
Overheal wrote: » It still has protection, an embryo just doesn't have the same equal status as a fully grown woman - its mother - under the law any longer.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » A baby has hands feet primitive neural pathways and even forms nails, thier limbs can bend at 10 weeks.... To hard to wait 30 weeks and give the child away in EVERY [?????] to someone who wants it? Really? Seriously?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I am glad you went red I can return to black.
I am curious as how it is seen as controlling women.
How do the yes side view a female no voter in that case?
I think the main people who will be sore will be the people who have abortions that will hurt both physically and emotionally.
Just because the majority votes for something does not necessarily make it the correct decision.
The government made us vote twice on an EU ref till they got the decision they wanted for example.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » No I never said that and I surprised that a moderator would resort to such silly comments.
Hellrazer wrote: » I am glad you went red I can return to black. Maybe you should have resorted to turning the pc off if you ask me.So there is no diverant view permitted on boards.ie is that in the charter now Because no one has the right to tell anyone what to do with their own body. End of. Obviously a lot better than the no side treat a women who voted yes. -Silly generalisation not proper reply to comment - you can't talk your way out of it Absolutely no evidence that every woman that has an abortion is hurt either emotionally or physicially. Some do but the majority are relieved by not having an unwanted pregnancy hanging over them. The majority have said they had a feeling of relief after the abortion.Some studies say it doeshttp://www.cmf.org.uk/resources/publications/content/?context=article&id=1850Some say it does nothttp://time.com/4599806/abortion-doesnt-negatively-affect-womens-mental-health-study/ As usual there is a divergence of opinion
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Making a point thats in agreement with most people's opinions leads to them expressing agreement with you? I'm shocked. The problem isn't boards.ie, the problem is your outdated worldview is in the minority in modern day Ireland.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Boards.ie is funny somestines if they don't agree with you aor a point is made that is too close to the bone. They tell you to go away. If you agree with the masses you get lots of likes Maybe boards.ie could introduce a "go away" button?
Overheal wrote: » If you're unwilling or unable to refute, or accept what others are saying to you, then indeed there is not much point in you continuing to post here, surely? It just becomes soapboxing at a certain point, when you seem so certain that "ah shur its just 30 weeks" - 37 actually, but who is counting, right? And that women should just 'deal with the pain' because you've had some experience with pain that you dealt with (that you pointedly refuse to disclose, though you then said you draw the line at pain or discomfort that affects sleep) and this in your view gives you the authority to tell women to just grin and bear the hot flashes, vomiting, blood work, doctors visits, the mood swings, the spontaneous and frequent vomiting, doctors visits, the spinal misalignments, slipped discs, and hip pains, doctor visits, the cramps, the kicks, le mans classes, the vomiting, night sweats, risk of sepsis and/or death, blood pressure spikes, blood pressure dips, the vomiting, sudden allergies to random foods, gestational diabetes, having ****ing needles shoved up your spine, pissing and ****ting into a bedpan for 12+ hours, and of course - risk of miscarriages - so they can "just adopt" the child all easy peasy just like that? It's as if you've never lived with someone or known someone going through a pregnancy before (really), and you haven't at all invested any time reading the thread you have thus far pretended to engage in. So yes, why bother posting if you're not going to follow along and take on board the view of others? Why should they, in turn, listen to any of your god damn ramblings that take little to no consideration of anything they've really taken the time to say to you? Jog on, I guess.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » You're essentially complaining about loads of people agreeing with a post sharing opinions they agree with, and instead of stopping to think maybe you're out of touch, you decide the problem is boards. Do you not see how ridiculous that looks?No because boards has an obvious agenda the mods prove that. I bet there was not one mod who voted no in building...hardly a rpresentation of Ireland.. Or was it 100% yes vote?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » It's nature and nature is messy sometimes. So to sum up because I disagree with you I should go away as you cannot accept my viewpoint. Boards debate at its finest there.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Disagree boards.ie has a clear leaning when it comes to political and social debate.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » The government made us vote twice on an EU ref till they got the decision they wanted for example.
Hellrazer wrote: » The referendum was a definitive "Yes" The electorate has decided by a majority of 2 to 1 in favour of allowing abortion in the state. I wish the No campaigners would just get over that. Sore losers anyone?? The sooner the better the law is in place to shut you lot up once and for all.
Hellrazer wrote: » Womens rights won through in the end and I firmly believe that's what made the yes vote win in the end.No number of aborted fetus`posters could have swayed the referendum in favour of the no vote. The whole controlling women has been defeated regardless of whether you agree with abortion or not.
Hellrazer wrote: » Because no one has the right to tell anyone what to do with their own body. End of. the law seems to disagree. we can't use our bodies to drink and drive. or hit someone else. or take something belonging to someone else. not that most of us would do those anyway, but they are examples that disprove that nobody has the right to tell us what to do with our bodies. Hellrazer wrote: » Obviously a lot better than the no side treat a women who voted yes. i treat all the women i know or i meet the same regardless of how they voted. with kindness and respect as i was brought up to do. most no and yes voters are the same, we just have a different view on whether the unborn's right to life should be upheld in full or not. Doctor Jimbob wrote: » The problem isn't boards.ie, the problem is your outdated worldview is in the minority in modern day Ireland. the thing is, being against abortion on demand, or believing that it shouldn't be left up to a woman as to whether her unborn lives or dies, isn't an outdated view. it's an extension of the support for the laws that prohibit us from harming anyone else.
Hellrazer wrote: » Obviously a lot better than the no side treat a women who voted yes.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » The problem isn't boards.ie, the problem is your outdated worldview is in the minority in modern day Ireland.
end of the road wrote: » it's very unlikely the no campaign is going to simply go away because the law is introduced. they aren't going to simply get over it or shut up. that isn't how democracy works.
Captain Obvious wrote: » That was amazing.
Overheal wrote: » Well no, perhaps not. But it would be good of them to refocus efforts ensuring that social services are strong enough in this country such that a crisis pregnancy never really becomes that; that 'social services are comprehensive enough to ease the worries of potential mothers fearful of their ability to raise a child,' and that adoption services in Ireland get a good long, thorough audit and revision.
Overheal wrote: » Most importantly if this referendum has proven anything it should prove to No and Pro-Life that life at conception argument, that all abortion is murder, doesn't hold sway with the electorate. So, at the very least, please change debate tact for everyone's sanity.
Overheal wrote: » I think they are better served, when it comes to upcoming legislation, to rationally endorse a compromise position, not sit in the corner and continue to shout "abortion is murder" and scaremonger about how awful late term abortions are (as if women desire to have those, instead of the earliest and safest means of termination available to them if they're intent on aborting) or about scaremongering regarding profit-making baby-killing businesses (substantially more money to be had in natal care, to be perfectly honest).
Overheal wrote: » The current battle seems to no longer be 'is abortion moral or unjustified in all cases,' but more frankly 'how far will abortions now go.' I think the 12 week period with limited validation requirements is pretty reasonable, and in fact is more conservative than the vast majority of US States. Also bearing in mind that, even with these relatively looser laws in the US, 89~93% of abortions still occur in the 1st trimester (12 week) time frame.
Overheal wrote: » I think, personally anyway, that No needs to establish some time frame they are indeed comfortable with for "on demand" termination as they call it, because some timeline is going to be had for that. The law can't possibly encapsulate all the reasons someone might justifiably terminate a pregnancy. Right now that position seems to fall somewhere between "Morning After Pill" and "12 weeks." It's just a matter of discussing where, and why. 50~52% of the electorate is already on board with the first trimester being the reasonable checkpoint, so there should be some reasonable justification to some other position than that. I agree with 12, and frankly I'd be happy if it was farther up, but I think if you want lower it has to be coupled with measures that make it possible that women across the country have rapid and accommodating access to pregnancy screening & support services to reduce delay of action.
THE VAST MAJORITY of Irish people want referendum posters banned, a poll has indicated. According to a Claire Byrne Live/Amarach Research poll, 74% said yes they should, while 19% answered that they should not. 7% said that they didn’t know whether posters should be banned.
There’s no authority to police the information that’s put on referendum posters to ensure that they’re not misleading and are factual.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » That is one third of the electorate dismissed as backward with no nuance for thier decision taken into account.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
