Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

volchitsa wrote:

So what's your problem then? It was made perfectly clear what legislation was planned for after a Repeal vote, wasn't it?
If it becomes clear that that legislation is throwing up problems, it can be changed. Because the detail of it is not in the constitution.

It appeared from what I was reading here that something had been put in the Constitution.
I was unhappy, and I still am, that somebody can abort a healthy fetus because they were highly irresponsible.
Like take a pill, use another contraceptive, take a morning after pill. No excuse for letting it go that far along.

eagle eye wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with that.
I'm saying that I'm against abortion of a healthy fetus if the reason for it is irresponsibility.
As I've explained already there are plenty of drugs and other contraceptives available. Even after the fact you can sort yourself out before it gets to the stage that you are pregnant.

People's contraception (regular and emergency!) fails. It happens.
That doesn't make them irresponsible.
So how do police your assessment of irresponsibility?
I heard some anti-repealers promoting the idea that in some cases women would have to go before a panel who would judge whether or not she was actually raped.
Is this the approach you would prefer for irresponsibility?

Mr. CooL ICE

eagle eye wrote: »

take a morning after pill

*sigh*

Do you know how the MAP works?

Grayson

eagle eye wrote: »

It appeared from what I was reading here that something had been put in the Constitution.
I was unhappy, and I still am, that somebody can abort a healthy fetus because they were highly irresponsible.
Like take a pill, use another contraceptive, take a morning after pill. No excuse for letting it go that far along.

You do know that in the US over half the women who get terminations were using contraceptives? Contraceptives are far from useless but they're far from perfect.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

It appeared from what I was reading here that something had been put in the Constitution.
I was unhappy, and I still am, that somebody can abort a healthy fetus because they were highly irresponsible.
Like take a pill, use another contraceptive, take a morning after pill. No excuse for letting it go that far along.

Contraceptives fail. All the time.
Taking the MAP makes no difference if you have already ovulated that month and is unsafe and dangerous to take on a regular basis.
Please educate yourself.

Why do you think irresponsible people make good, caring, stable parents to children they do not want?

eagle eye wrote: »

It appeared from what I was reading here that something had been put in the Constitution.
I was unhappy, and I still am, that somebody can abort a healthy fetus because they were highly irresponsible.
Like take a pill, use another contraceptive, take a morning after pill. No excuse for letting it go that far along.

MAP doesn't always work, especually if you've already ovulated.

wench

eagle eye wrote: »

It appeared from what I was reading here that something had been put in the Constitution.
I was unhappy, and I still am, that somebody can abort a healthy fetus because they were highly irresponsible.
Like take a pill, use another contraceptive, take a morning after pill. No excuse for letting it go that far along.

There are no perfect methods of contraception.
Even with "responsible" usage, some women will get pregnant.

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm

Call me Al wrote:

Is this the approach you would prefer for irresponsibility?

No.
If you are irresponsible, like you didn't try and make sure it didn't happen the I don't think you should be allowed abort.
I don't think you should be policing it anymore than they have to put the reason on the form of how they got pregnant and why they want to abort.
If they are willing to lie about, that is their business.
Why on Earth you bring rape into this is beyond me. I've made it very clear what I'm against. I've made it clear that there are many good reasons for an abortion too.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

No.
If you are irresponsible, like you didn't try and make sure it didn't happen the I don't think you should be allowed abort.
I don't think you should be policing it anymore than they have to put the reason on the form of how they got pregnant and why they want to abort.
If they are willing to lie about, that is their business.
Why on Earth you bring rape into this is beyond me. I've made it very clear what I'm against. I've made it clear that there are many good reasons for an abortion too.

Or we could just trust the woman that she isn't in a position to have a child right now, not cast any judgement, and let her request a termination for the reasons she herself finds necessary, up till the 12 week mark.

There are no "good" and "bad" abortions.
It is what it is. It doesn't become something different if there happened to be contraception used, because there is the same end result.

eagle eye wrote: »

No.
If you are irresponsible, like you didn't try and make sure it didn't happen the I don't think you should be allowed abort.
I don't think you should be policing it anymore than they have to put the reason on the form of how they got pregnant and why they want to abort.
If they are willing to lie about, that is their business.
Why on Earth you bring rape into this is beyond me. I've made it very clear what I'm against. I've made it clear that there are many good reasons for an abortion too.

Who gets to decide if she was "responsible" enough? What if contraception was used but didn't work, will you want to then know why it didn't work?

Was it user error, manufacturer defect etc. Your ideas are ridiculous and unworkable, and actually have no purpose other than making you feel better yourself.

Can we extend this to voting too? Have people in the polling station ask voters why they voted they way they did, and if they haven't voted responsibly their vote is not accepted.

seamus

eagle eye wrote: »

If you are irresponsible, like you didn't try and make sure it didn't happen the I don't think you should be allowed abort.

So now you're veering into idealism, not practicality.

You're entitled to that moral judgement, but you have to acknowledge that it's impossible to enforce a rule that says, "abortions only for responsible people".

It is possible to be entirely responsible and still have an unwanted pregnancy.

Sycamore Tree

What are the Iona nutters up to these days?

I hope they are doing lots of confessions to atone for all the lies they told during the referendum(s).

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

eagle eye wrote: »

No.
If you are irresponsible, like you didn't try and make sure it didn't happen the I don't think you should be allowed abort.
I don't think you should be policing it anymore than they have to put the reason on the form of how they got pregnant and why they want to abort.
If they are willing to lie about, that is their business.
Why on Earth you bring rape into this is beyond me. I've made it very clear what I'm against. I've made it clear that there are many good reasons for an abortion too.

Why bother with that exercise in complete futility? Make rape victims, people living in a domestic violence situation etc fill that out on a form just so that you can feel better that the bold girls having risky sex are very mildly inconvenienced by having to lie on the form?

Why are some reasons good enough for an abortion and others not? Because of the inherent humanity of the foetus? If so, where's the line? How physically I'll do you have to be for it to be worth a termination? If you get dragged into a field and raped does that get you as much as getting raped when you were passed out at a party? And how the Christ do you legislate for that?

If it's not the foetus then what is it?

eagle eye wrote: »

No.
If you are irresponsible, like you didn't try and make sure it didn't happen the I don't think you should be allowed abort.
I don't think you should be policing it anymore than they have to put the reason on the form of how they got pregnant and why they want to abort.
If they are willing to lie about, that is their business.
Why on Earth you bring rape into this is beyond me. I've made it very clear what I'm against. I've made it clear that there are many good reasons for an abortion too.

The reason I brought up the panel approach (rape was completely beside the point) suggested by anti-repeal campaigners is because it involves strangers sitting down making moral/value-judgements (which are invariably nothing to do with healthcare) on women who are requesting medical treatment.

dotsman

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

People who didnt like the brexit result want a second referendum.

Why wouldnt people who dont like the abortion result seek a second referendum.

Its equally absurd. I voted no.

It's not about people "not liking the brexit result" wanting a second referendum. It's about the fact that it won by only a tiny margin, with lots of uncertainty, unknowns and lies in the debate prior to the vote. In the 2.5 years since, a lot has happened, a lot more things have become clear a lot of lies have been exposed and there is now reason to believe that the result no longer reflects the current will of the people.

The people who "don't like the abortion result" don't want a second referendum. Nobody is asking for that - where did you get that crazy idea from? A second referendum would make no sense as there was a huge majority in favour of repeal, the people mostly knew and understood the topic they were voting on, and nothing has really changed in the 7 months since.

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

51.9% was enough to win.

The margin was irrelevant

The margin is extremely very relevant when it comes to determining the impact people changing their minds has. If a there are only 5 voters of a difference between win/loss of a referendum, then once 5 voters subsequently change their mind, their is an argument to be made that the result no longer reflects the democratic will of the people and another one should be held. If there are 5 million votes separating the sides, then you need to change 5 millions peoples minds (all in the same direction) before that argument can be made.

SusieBlue wrote:

There are no "good" and "bad" abortions. It is what it is. It doesn't become something different if there happened to be contraception used, because there is the same end result.

I think there is huge difference between being negligent and responsible.
If somebody uses contraception and it doesn't work I'm not against them having an abortion.
I'm against somebody who doesn't even try to prevent it happening from having an abortion.

Hotblack Desiato

eagle eye wrote: »

I think there is huge difference between being negligent and responsible.

You'll have to clarify your terminology a bit.

Going into a polling booth and voting to change the constitution, the fundamental legislative basis for the state, while having little or no clue about what it is you're actually voting on, would that be negligent or irresponsible?

eagle eye wrote: »

I think there is huge difference between being negligent and responsible.
If somebody uses contraception and it doesn't work I'm not against them having an abortion.
I'm against somebody who doesn't even try to prevent it happening from having an abortion.

Why?

In both a pregnancy is being terminated.

gandalf

eagle eye wrote: »

I think there is huge difference between being negligent and responsible.
If somebody uses contraception and it doesn't work I'm not against them having an abortion.
I'm against somebody who doesn't even try to prevent it happening from having an abortion.

How do you prove that?

TBH it should be none of your business what another person does with regard to their own healthcare.

Most of us knew very well what we were asked to vote for and it was very clear what was being proposed as legislation if the 8th was repealed. That is what has been put in place (with the exception of the three day wait which I think is unnecessary).

amcalester wrote:

In both a pregnancy is being terminated.
Why?

I don't think there should be will nilly abortions.

gandalf

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think there should be will nilly abortions.

How do you police that? What are your metrics for a valid termination and an invalid one?

"Have you got your receipt for those condoms you said you used"....Nope sorry no abortion for you hussy!

:rolleyes:

NuMarvel

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think there should be will nilly abortions.

Of all the women who have spoken about their abortions, not one of them struck me as being "willy nilly" about it.

You may not agree with their reasons or circumstances, but that's far from being cavalier about having one.

Neyite

eagle eye wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with that.
I'm saying that I'm against abortion of a healthy fetus if the reason for it is irresponsibility.
As I've explained already there are plenty of drugs and other contraceptives available. Even after the fact you can sort yourself out before it gets to the stage that you are pregnant.

It's ironic that when voting, you were irresponsible, factually ignorant and blasé of the information freely available but went ahead and voted anyway. Then you turn around to lecture everyone on being more responsible, informed and careful when having sex. :pac: Just as well people don't shag the way you vote otherwise it would be the floodgates that the pro-life scum claimed will happen.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

New to the thread. Just wondering what people’s views were on the protests that took place outside a GP’s practice in Galway. Should they be able to do it?

My take on it is that they should have the right to stand there with their signs to the extent that they aren’t disrupting public order. They’re not being coercive or harrassing anyone. There just voicing opposition to an elective procedure they disagree with on a moral level. There’s nothing unruly about it.

And any girl or woman between the age of 10 and 60 will be scrutinised and probably harangued going into their GP by this shower of scumbags. Probably while wearing body-cams.

I've never had an abortion in my life. Nor do I ever see myself wanting to access one. Do I deserve my face plastered on their You-Tube propaganda just because I attend my GP for my thyroid or dodgy knee, merely because I am female and therefore have a potentially functioning womb? They can fcuk right off.

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think there should be will nilly abortions.

Thats not really a reason though.

You don't seem to have an objection to abortion itself, it's the reason the abortion is needed that causes you concern but you haven't articulated or expanded on that point.

It seems to me, from your posts on this thread, that your issue isn't really with abortion but the inequality that women now get to decide whether they become a parent but men don't have the same option.

gandalf wrote:

How do you police that? What are your metrics for a valid termination and an invalid one?

I don't want to 'police' it. I want a law in place that says you are not allowed to do it.
I've already explained what I'd like to see above.

gandalf

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't want to 'police' it. I want a law in place that says you are not allowed to do it.
I've already explained what I'd like to see above.

Sigh, how do you propose to have this "law" work? How do you prove that a person was "responsible" versus "negligent" (your words)? What burden of proof is there?

And yes if you put a "law" in place it has to be policed.

IMHO some people shouldn't be allowed to vote, guess which camp you're in.

amcalester wrote:

It seems to me, from your posts on this thread, that your issue isn't really with abortion but the inequality that women now get to decide whether they become a parent but men don't have the same option.

Women have plenty of options. Take a pill or use some other form of contraceptive. Take a pill afterwards.
Abortion of a fetus shouldn't be an option just because you were irresponsible.
I think I've made it quite clear, I'm not against a woman having an abortion if the contraceptive doesn't work so long as they were responsible enough to use one in the first place.

eagle eye wrote: »

Women have plenty of options. Take a pill or use some other form of contraceptive. Take a pill afterwards.
Abortion of a fetus shouldn't be an option just because you were irresponsible.

But why not? It is an option for someone who was "responsible", so really what difference does it make?

The result of an abortion doesn't change depending on the reason for it, so why is the reason relevant.

What if the women was "irresponsible" but now has a life threatening condition, or a FFA, can she get an abortion or does her being "irresponsible" mean no abortion under any circumstances?

Is there a hierarchy, and if so what is it?

NuMarvel

eagle eye wrote: »

Women have plenty of options. Take a pill or use some other form of contraceptive. Take a pill afterwards.
Abortion of a fetus shouldn't be an option just because you were irresponsible.
I think I've made it quite clear, I'm not against a woman having an abortion if the contraceptive doesn't work so long as they were responsible enough to use one in the first place.

What you haven't made at all clear is how this would be practically translated into legislation. Nor do you seem especially interested in explaining how it would be done.

In any case, it's all moot. The law has been passed, and the contents are no surprise to anyone who was interested. They were known months in advance of the referendum, and there was a new headline every time a politician spoke about them.

You're welcome to campaign to change the law. But if you want any hope of being listened to, you're going to have to explain how your changes would be enforced.