Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

B0jangles wrote: »

The birthrate is probably low in Russia because many russian women are looking at their society and economy and thinking that it would be crazy to have a child in such circumstances. The Russian government just wants to boost the birthrate but not actually do anything to incentivise having children by maybe making life for Russians in general (and Russian women in particular) easier and more stable.

Instead they boost their credientials with the far right and with the Russian orthodox church by simply making abortion illegal, making contraception hard to get.

All that happens when you do that is force women to buy black market contraception and back alley abortions.

It has been high since it was first introduced.
One can't blame religion for example for China having the highest abortion rate in the world.

btw I am not a fan of Viktor Orban, but I do think his incentives for women are good, subsidised people carriers, no income tax payable for life if a woman has 4 children or more and other measures to increase the birth rate.
Discounted loans up to €32k or so for married under 40s which will be 'forgiven' when they have children.
Supports for grandparents who look after their grandchildren.
I would say that is a start, one can question the measures if they are enough but its better than nothing.

I do think we need this trade off, abortion is not going away so don't view what I am about to post as being 'we need to get rid of it', current policies towards birth are not supportive enough of women. This is being real about where we are now.
There is no point nations across Europe for example simply talking about their birth rates being too low and doing nothing extra to support women and children. Just to maintain populations at current levels in Europe we need a higher birth rate.
Is it morally right to rely on stripping poorer nations of their best talents simply to maintain the lifestyles we are use to in Europe?
People living longer and less workers to support the elderly is where we are currently increasingly heading towards.
So if we want to keep abortion as it is now in Europe for example, which lowers birth rates, we need counter measures to really support women and their children in a meaningful way.
Before anyone gets upset, remember I have not said restrict anything, instead far more should be done for pregnant women and their subsequent children.

amcalester wrote: »

While they may be entitled, they should not be celebrated for it.

Was the repeal shield a twitter thing? Don't use twitter so can't really comment, but there were some on the No side who were not interested in changing opinions, they were merely out to cause shock and outrage. I'm thinking of those targeting schools with images, so if they were doing the same on Twitter I'm not surprised they were blocked.

Reasonable discourse is to be welcomed, zealotry not so much.

Repeal shield is still in use on twitter.
Repeal shield was used on anyone who held very very mild opinions to extreme opinions, I could understand if it was based on the extreme with images and vile language, but Repeal Shield was used to stifle interaction from anyone who was deemed to hold the 'wrong opinion'.
In a democracy I think we all need to be exposed to opinions we disagree with, it makes people wiser, it can change opinion or at least soften a hard line opinion.
I think it is bad if people want to only hear people who share the same opinion, it only leads to less tolerance in my opinion, and we all need to live on this planet together so we need to be open to accepting people's right to disagree and keep it civil.
The way I view it is this way, if I am entitled to give my opinion, it is my right, but if someone gives an opposing opinion it is their right and to defend my right to my own opinion I need to 100% respect the other's person's right and be civil with them, as that is how I want to be treated.
We all need opposing opinions in our lives and then agree or disagree and then move on in a civil manner.

Which I will now do, need to enjoy this weather

RobertKK wrote: »

Repeal shield is still in use on twitter.
Repeal shield was used on anyone who held very very mild opinions to extreme opinions, I could understand if it was based on the extreme with images and vile language, but Repeal Shield was used to stifle interaction from anyone who was deemed to hold the 'wrong opinion'.
In a democracy I think we all need to be exposed to opinions we disagree with, it makes people wiser, it can change opinion or at least soften a hard line opinion.
I think it is bad if people want to only hear people who share the same opinion, it only leads to less tolerance in my opinion, and we all need to live on this planet together so we need to be open to accepting people's right to disagree and keep it civil.
The way I view it is this way, if I am entitled to give my opinion, it is my right, but if someone gives an opposing opinion it is their right and to defend my right to my own opinion I need to 100% respect the other's person's right and be civil with them, as that is how I want to be treated.
We all need opposing opinions in our lives and then agree or disagree and then move on in a civil manner.

Which I will now do, need to enjoy this weather

You do realise that terminations were not made mandatory, Robert?

If you ever become pregnant yourself, you have a choice to go full term and nobody will bat an eyelid...well apart from seeing a pregnant male. Boards even has a Pregnancy Forum to help you through your morning sickness, should you experience any.

Enjoy the sun!

Haha that’s gas complains about the repeal shield when he puts posters who absolutely decimated his arguments on ignore.

Can’t say diddly about the repeal side tactics considering the pro-life campaign lied left right and centre about pretty much everything significant throughout the entirety of the Repeal the 8th Movement. What about that nurse who saw all those horrible things but ended up not being a nurse at all? What about all the factually incorrect images of fetuses? What about the “murder up until birth” lines?

Considering this particular pro-lifer said the Miss P case was a publicity stunt that goes to show you the mindset, ignorance & overall complete lack of informed arguments (I don’t know how many pro-lifers were completely ignorant of the fact that no practical method of contraception other than abstinence was 100% effective yet it was paraded about consistently) from the pro-life side.

They lost resoundingly, both in debates and in the polls! Not a single one of them realized that for the hard cases to be legislated, the 8th needed to be repealed anyways! It was the complete lack of understanding that it wasn’t the repeal/save that mattered, but the LEGISLATION and the ability to lobby for what they wanted to be LEGISLATED!

But sure look, we’ll get them back in here, the usual suspects who have necks like jockeys boll*cks toddling on in here despite having every single aspect and point of their “argument” torn to shreds.

Not everyone who held strong views about the referendum wanted to get into debates about it Robert. That's where Repeal shield came in handy.

RobertKK wrote: »

Who have I on ignore?

I don't know who you have on your ignore, current or past.

Convenient you gloss over the rest of the post particularly the parts which reference things you've said yourself.

Why?

RobertKK wrote: »

Why?
Maybe you forgot what you just posted, let me quote:
“Haha that’s gas complains about the repeal shield when he puts posters who absolutely decimated his arguments on ignore.”

I didn’t gloss over it, I don’t have to reply to stuff I don’t agree with if I feel the person is looking for a reaction.

You appear to have difficulty reading, that's okay.

"I don't know who you have on your ignore, current or past."

Happy to keep at this for as long as possible Robert. Honesty isn't exactly something you're known for here.

amcalester wrote: »

Isn’t that the whole point of the repeal shield?

No, I can read what I don’t want to reply to, They don’t read.
That is a massive difference.

Calina wrote: »

Robert you appear to under estimate how abusive some people can be on Twitter. Some people have fully private accounts which is basically a full shield. Anyone who wants to use Repealshield has the absolute right to do so. You have the right to speak. Everyone else has the right to ignore you.

The right to freedom of speech does not confer the right to impose your views on other people.

Most whinging about repealshield came from the no side who don’t appear to understand this. No one has to listen to you. And they certainly do not have to read or view the shock and awe photos that no campaigners tried to ram down people’s twitter feeds.

You have a voice. But you do not have a god given right to walk into people’s homes and shout abusively at them.

The more you complain about repealshield, the more I understand that you really don’t care about other people, that you are selfish and impose yourself on other people’s lives. It is all about you and nothing else.

I agree with that - excluding the last paragraph, and it works both ways.
As you might have seen some who post in this thread wanted to impose their views on me in another thread by bringing their grievances from here to elsewhere.

RobertKK wrote: »

I agree with that - excluding the last paragraph, and it works both ways.
As you might have seen some who post in this thread wanted to impose their views on me in another thread by bringing their grievances from here to elsewhere.

If you agree with me in general then I trust you will never again mention repealshield in any debate on the question of abortion. It is fundamentally irrelevant to the subject.

But your posts to date which have mentioned it do not support your comment above.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Nobody is imposing any views on you, you're just widely known in this subject of discussion because of how you carried on during the build-up to the referendum. This is not something new or fresh in any way shape of form.

Really?

Is intimidation not a form of imposing views on someone? When someone takes something from one thread to post in another to try and belittle a person, try and make them look bad in front of others, it is done with an intent.