Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

robarmstrong wrote: »

So would the protesters who crowded the maternity hospitals in Dublin with graphic images not be displaying this "intimidation" due to them imposing their views on innocent parties?

I'm not imposing any views upon you, like I said, your reputation on this subject and your past behavior are well known.

You're more than welcome to continue to pretend to be a victim here though.

They were very wrong.

But some people like to generalise all by a minority, around three quarters of a million people voted against repeal.
How many are out doing stuff you posted about?

Calina wrote: »

If it is a view you support and defend in this thread, why would it be an issue in another thread?

I don’t personally agree with it as a practice because people don’t read across every thread on the site but are you acknowledging that the way you post in this and maybe previous versions of a thread might make you look bad elsewhere on the site?

If so, a period of self reflection is called for.

Because the murder of a woman in Bangladesh had nothing to do with this, and I was told I was using her as I don't care about women.
It is like I am made out to be that I didn't care about my deceased mother, my sister, female friends etc.
That I am somehow inhuman and hate women because I am not an advocate for abortion. I know lots of women who voted against repeal, they too don't hate women, they believe there are two lives involved, but believing there are two lives involves for some it means one hates women.
This is where self reflection is needed, but I doubt you will agree.

Remind me again why they said it should not be discussed in a previous thread Robert, remind us all?

I'm not trying to cause needless trouble at all, you're masquerading yourself as a victim, someone who wants to genuinely contribute but anyone who searches through your posts will see that on this particular topic you have done nothing but lie, speculate, offend and spout some absolute vitriol which resulted in correctly applied moderator action.

So don't sit there and white-knight and pretend you're up for genuine discussion or debate or engage honestly with users when you very clearly are not.

Not any I can think of, as one wouldn't expect these cases to be common.

On a separate note...
We had the state keep a dead woman alive because she was 16 weeks pregnant which was ridiculous and which looked like a stunt to blame the 8th amendment, and it took the courts to say that the 8th amendment never applied in that case, it was repeal people who tried to use it as a reason to make a point in my opinion, and failed as the woman was dead.

Time to go off and do some self-reflection.

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.

persecution complex now is it?

batgoat wrote: »

Some people simply don't want to read it, they're seeing the same arguments reiterated. If somebody wants to block users that they have no desire to interact with, they're entitled to.

A lot of people were using the "repeal shield" because they did not want to view the grossly inappropriate and misleading graphic images of deceased fetuses being passed off as "aborted", when further inspection or investigations would show that these pictures were in fact spontaneous miscarriages.

It's something that should be taken into consideration before attacking the "repeal shield".