nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Do you think a referendum on abortion would be passed?(not how you'd vote)

freshpopcorn

During the lead up to the general election I heard some talk about the 8th amendment being repealed and it being an important election issue. Outside of a few candidates and people online. I didn't really find people gave much thought when they were voting. A good few pro life candidates who want to keep the 8th amendment were elected.
If we were to have a referendum on the issue I'm not sure it would be passed. It would depend on what we would be voting on. Would it only be for cases of rape/incest or would it be abortion on demand.
If it was for cases of rape/incest. Would this be hard to prove. So would we essential be voting for abortion on demand.
Going on the marriage referendum a good few constituencies were close enough on voting No. So I think these areas would probably vote No. I could also see another few areas voting No also. I think areas around Dublin would probably vote Yes but it wouldn't be around the 70%. So these areas might pull up the national average.
I know a good few people who'd happily voted Yes last May but they wouldn't support abortion. These would be young/old people and from different areas.
I also know people who'd support abortion
What's After Hours opinion?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

CaraMay

eviltwin wrote: »

That's my point, you may not personally agree with it but you haven't let it damage your friendship.

I don't see what point you are making. I don't think she should have done it. The other girl I haven't seen in years due to distance. If she had asked me my view beforehand I would have told her but no point lecturing two years after the fact.

Dirty Dingus McGee

aaakev wrote: »

I would certainly hope it passed anyway so women could have a free choice over their own bodies. Id say it would be close but i think it would pass

But that is the crux of the issue.

A lot of people don't consider the child the women is carrying to be the womens own body .They've been given a job by nature to carry a child to it's birth.

[Deleted User]

eviltwin wrote: »

No you care and you would have issues with it. Most people don't have your narrow view of reality. What would you do if someone close to you had an abortion? Would you distance yourself from them?

I don't know to be honest but my opinion of them would change, whether I'd make my feelings known or not I don't know. If I found out in advance I'd do my best to stop them also. Luckily I can't see anyone I know closely even considering an abortion so it's not something I'm likely to be faced with.

eviltwin

CaraMay wrote: »

I don't see what point you are making. I don't think she should have done it. The other girl I haven't seen in years due to distance. If she had asked me my view beforehand I would have told her but no point lecturing two years after the fact.

I'm making the point that while you may personally not agree with abortion very few people will be so offended by it they disown a family member or stop talking to someone. I'm very open about having had an abortion and I come from a very religious background. Only one person has ever had an issue with it. Nobody else cares.

The Randy Riverbeast

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

But that is the crux of the issue.

A lot of people don't consider the child the women is carrying to be the womens own body .They've been given a job by nature to carry a child to it's birth.

What nature thinks is irrelevant. If it was up to nature our child mortality rate would be multiple times higher than it is.

CaraMay

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm making the point that while you may personally not agree with abortion very few people will be so offended by it they disown a family member or stop talking to someone. I'm very open about having had an abortion and I come from a very religious background. Only one person has ever had an issue with it. Nobody else cares.

But I do care. I somewhat grieved the loss of two babies. I suppose if I'm to be honest my opinion of them has changed. I now see them as harder and more mercenary tbh. Both abortions were down to bad timing. Not atrocious timing, just bad timing. Not enough to abort IMHO but you and I will never agree on this.

LoonyLovegood

I have incredibly mixed feelings on this. Incredibly mixed. I considered myself pro life until I had a pregnancy scare, and then I was counting up everything I had and trying to work out if I could get a credit union loan or if I could afford to get to England. It's a terrifying feeling, being 20 and just out of an abusive relationship and thinking that you could have a remnant of the worst time in your life forever.

And now? I don't know. Right now I don't know if I'd have an abortion - I certainly can't afford one - and I'm in an ok enough spot where I think that I could take care of a child, if it happened. But I don't know.

And that's the thing, that would be my decision. My decision, and if the father was in the picture, he'd be involved in making it. But I don't feel that it's fair for me to make that decision for any other woman, because when I think back to 20 year old me it's terrifying that someone would make me remember that time in my life even more than I already do. So I guess the best way I can describe myself is pro choice, but I don't know if I would have the mental courage to have one myself.

As an aside, I was going to Manchester to see a friend last year, and the glares I got from people on my flight over were something else. I was sitting beside another young woman around my age, and she was going over for an abortion. We sat and talked, and then we were on the same flight back that evening. There were a couple of other people there who had been on the flight that morning, and the glares that both of us got - in our early twenties, female and without rings on our left hands - were horrible. I was judged for something I hadn't done, and my heart goes out to the other woman who had made what she called the hardest decision of her life.

eviltwin

CaraMay wrote: »

But I do care. I somewhat grieved the loss of two babies. I suppose if I'm to be honest my opinion of them has changed. I now see them as harder and more mercenary tbh. Both abortions were down to bad timing. Not atrocious timing, just bad timing. Not enough to abort IMHO but you and I will never agree on this.

Exactly so there is no point even discussing it. These threads just go round in circles and insults on both sides. I can completely understand where you are coming from with your views but I know my opinion will never change so I know yours won't either.

Malari

LoonyLovegood wrote: »

I have incredibly mixed feelings on this. Incredibly mixed. I considered myself pro life until I had a pregnancy scare, and then I was counting up everything I had and trying to work out if I could get a credit union loan or if I could afford to get to England. It's a terrifying feeling, being 20 and just out of an abusive relationship and thinking that you could have a remnant of the worst time in your life forever.

And now? I don't know. Right now I don't know if I'd have an abortion - I certainly can't afford one - and I'm in an ok enough spot where I think that I could take care of a child, if it happened. But I don't know.

And that's the thing, that would be my decision. My decision, and if the father was in the picture, he'd be involved in making it. But I don't feel that it's fair for me to make that decision for any other woman, because when I think back to 20 year old me it's terrifying that someone would make me remember that time in my life even more than I already do. So I guess the best way I can describe myself is pro choice, but I don't know if I would have the mental courage to have one myself.

As an aside, I was going to Manchester to see a friend last year, and the glares I got from people on my flight over were something else. I was sitting beside another young woman around my age, and she was going over for an abortion. We sat and talked, and then we were on the same flight back that evening. There were a couple of other people there who had been on the flight that morning, and the glares that both of us got - in our early twenties, female and without rings on our left hands - were horrible. I was judged for something I hadn't done, and my heart goes out to the other woman who had made what she called the hardest decision of her life.

But...hundreds of women fly to the UK every day. For hundreds of reasons. Why on earth do you think anyone assumes you are going for an abortion? Are these glares from people who overheard your conversation?

CaraMay

eviltwin wrote: »

Exactly so there is no point even discussing it. These threads just go round in circles and insults on both sides. I can completely understand where you are coming from with your views but I know my opinion will never change so I know yours won't either.

Let's agree to disagree and I hope I didn't insult you. I don't want to but I just don't agree with what you are saying

eviltwin

CaraMay wrote: »

Let's agree to disagree and I hope I didn't insult you. I don't want to but I just don't agree with what you are saying

Gosh no not at all. It's lovely to have a nice, rational talk about it with someone who has an opposing view for a change

Dirty Dingus McGee

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

What nature thinks is irrelevant. If it was up to nature our child mortality rate would be multiple times higher than it is.

When a woman is pregnant their body isn't solely theirs for those 9 months whether people want to think it or not it simply isn't.

Just like when people have children their lives aren't solely their own anymore and they have to make decisions based on that as they are expected to look after something that can't care for itself.

bodice ripper

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

When a woman is pregnant their body isn't solely theirs for those 9 months whether people want to think it or not it simply isn't.

Just like when people have children their lives aren't solely their own anymore and they have to make decisions based on that as they are expected to look after something that can't care for itself.

Your argument by assertion wouldn't trouble me one bit as I ended the pregnancy.

Dirty Dingus McGee

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I don't see it as taking another human life.

Even if it is a life, at best it's a life on life support which is the sole purview of one person who should not be compelled to maintain that life support against their wishes. In every other case where a single individual can through a personal sacrifice save another's life (from blood donation, to organ donation, to jumping into a river to save someone) it is their decision and their decision only. Pregnancy should not be some magical exception.

So if someone has a child they should then be entitled to not feed it or look after it and let it die?

emo72

LoonyLovegood wrote: »

As an aside, I was going to Manchester to see a friend last year, and the glares I got from people on my flight over were something else. I was sitting beside another young woman around my age, and she was going over for an abortion.

are you sure they were glaring at you? how would anyone know if someone was having an abortion? and more importantly id imagine most people on a flight would be sympathetic also, and if i overheard anyone speaking about abortion i would keep out of it. none of my business.

wokingvoter

bodice ripper wrote: »

I am not an incubator. If I chose to have an abortion, people around me can accept it, or not talk to me again.

So you support a woman's right to choose to abort a baby with no regard to time limits then?

PopePalpatine

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

So if someone has a child they should then be entitled to not feed it or look after it and let it die?

I'm pretty sure that PhoenixParker was referring to the fact that the only thing keeping a foetus alive for at least the first six months after its conception is the umbilical cord between it and the woman carrying it.

Dirty Dingus McGee

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that PhoenixParker was referring to the fact that the only thing keeping a foetus alive for at least the first six months after its conception is the umbilical cord between it and the woman carrying it.

The poster said:

"
Even if it is a life, at best it's a life on life support which is the sole purview of one person who should not be compelled to maintain that life support against their wishes. In every other case where a single individual can through a personal sacrifice save another's life (from blood donation, to organ donation, to jumping into a river to save someone) it is their decision and their decision only. Pregnancy should not be some magical exception."

That theory could equally apply to raising a child also.

If don't feed a young child then they die.Children are completely dependent on their parents in order to help them survive and parents are compelled by law (and common decency) to look after their children properly and make sure they don't die through neglect.

PopePalpatine

Maybe PhoenixParker has a better idea of what they're talking about, but I'm guessing they didn't count feeding an already-born baby as "life support".

Smidge

CaraMay wrote: »

Hi evil twin

I guess the difference for me is that the fetus relies on one person to survive whereas a born child can be raised by anybody. I don't believe in abortion as contraception tbh but I do see how it could be necessary in other circumstances.

My gut tells me it's wrong to mirder a child whether born or not and that it's not fair to use the 'it's my body' line as an excuse. Yes it's your body but it is a short term incubator for a baby. A baby of your making. To me that's a whole human being who won't be around in 10 years time because of the 'mothers' decision.

I've a number of friends and family members who are adopted and I'm glad their mothers had / chose to have them. Thinking about them being aborted just upsets me no end.

I guess, as I don't agree with abortion other than for medical / mental health reasons eg after rape etc then I think of its against the laws of the land then people should be treated accordingly.

C

And here lies the real crux of the issue.

Women are still, in this day and age, seen as mere "incubators".
No lives of our own, no other obligations, no mortgages, no bills.
Just to be an incubator for seed.
WEmade the baby, so therefore must bear the consequences.
And considering that we are just "vessels" for the unborn should just shut up about it and suck it up.
It ABSOLUTELY is the woman's body, woman's choice for a reason.
The baby is guaranteed, the father is NOT. That's the reality, like it or not.

I have had so many friends left "holding baby" (all working before the dole brigade arrives)and now their lives with no support from fathers who have flown the coop, are just incredibly difficult. Very easy to talk the talk from the sidelines tbh, not so easy in the day to day mire.

But that aside, I can practically guarantee that there isnt a woman out there who has had an abortion on a "whim".
Believe me, its no picnic.
I accompanied a friend to have one once.
It was desperately sad.
Married couples.
Older women alone(may have had medical issues/age was a factor)
And women alone
All looking very sad.
All Irish in a UK clinic.(six, including my friend)
All went through with it that day, for what ever the reason.
I spoke with the nurse while my friend was under.
She said the reason a lot of the Irish patients were upset was that they were having a procedure done in another country and that was common. Make of that what you will.

The Randy Riverbeast

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

When a woman is pregnant their body isn't solely theirs for those 9 months whether people want to think it or not it simply isn't.

Just like when people have children their lives aren't solely their own anymore and they have to make decisions based on that as they are expected to look after something that can't care for itself.

I was merely commenting on your job given by nature comment.

After the last referendum I don't have much time for people telling others what nature wants as they sit in their homes on the Internet. Clearly they have no problem making things how they want rather than nature.

The Golden Miller

Smidge wrote: »

And here lies the real crux of the issue.

Women are still, in this day and age, seen as mere "incubators".
No lives of our own, no other obligations, no mortgages, no bills.
Just to be an incubator for seed.
WEmade the baby, so therefore must bear the consequences.
And considering that we are just "vessels" for the unborn should just shut up about it and suck it up.
It ABSOLUTELY is the woman's body, woman's choice for a reason.

Some serious amount of cliched nauseating rubbish right here. Poor poor you and poor poor women. Everyone's always out to get ye's. Any other cliches you want to throw in to try and reinforce this as a gender issue and how you're the poor victim? Give me one link of any Irish person calling women "nothing but incubators"? Absolute drivel

Smidge

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Some serious amount of cliched nauseating rubbish right here. Poor poor you and poor poor women. Everyone's always out to get ye's. Any other cliches you want to throw in to try and reinforce this as a gender issue and how you're the poor victim? Give me one link of any Irish person calling women "nothing but incubators"? Absolute drivel

Maybe if you took the time to read the quote I was addressing, you would see the "women as incubators" line.

And if you think pregnancy isn't a gender issue for women, you might want to go back and have some sex ed lessons

The Golden Miller

Smidge wrote: »

Maybe if you took the time to read the quote I was addressing, you would see the "women as incubators" line.

And if you think pregnancy isn't a gender issue for women, you might want to go back and have some sex ed lessons

I read the quote and you tried to take it out of context to play the poor mouth. And it is an issue that encompasses more than just women, ergo this isn't a gender debate. Attempts to make it a gender issue by certain women is nothing more than an attempt to play the victim as a means to shut down debate and if one doesn't conform they are alienated as sexist and wanting to "control women". It's disingenuous in the extreme and fairly pathetic

Chain Smoker

I think it would be passed, I've absolutely no faith that the country is far enough away from 1983 that whatever happens after its repealed would be significantly better though.

Smidge

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It's an issue that encompasses more than just women. Attempts to make it a gender issue by certain women is nothing more than an attempt to play the victim as a means to shut down debate and if one doesn't conform they are alienated as sexist and wanting to "control women". It's disingenuous in the extreme and fairly pathetic

By "certain women"? Playing the Victim? Agenda? Ok.

There is nothing disingenuous about my post.
You may not like it or agree with it.

And it IS a woman's choice. Its her body. Her choice.
And if you find that pathetic, that's your choice.
Its a choice you will never have to make. Thankfully.

The Golden Miller

Smidge wrote: »

By "certain women"? Playing the Victim? Agenda? Ok.

There is nothing disingenuous about my post.
You may not like it or agree with it.

And it IS a woman's choice. Its her body. Her choice.
And if you find that pathetic, that's your choice.
Its a choice you will never have to make. Thankfully.

It's a choice I'd never consider even if I could. My moral indicator tells me that ending the life of another living being who never asked to be brought into this world is wrong.

Well even if it is the woman's choice, at least the majority of this country will prevent abortion on demand which means going abroad will continue to be a deterrent for many women in their attempt to kill their child. It's her body, but there's something inside there which simply isn't hers. At least there are many out there who will continue to fight the corner for those who are defenseless. The unborn babies are the only one's who had no hand in creating the situation yet are the only one's who ultimately suffer

CaraMay

One things I've always been curious about but never had the forum to ask. For people who have had an abortion, between finding out you were pregnant and the abortion, did you continue to smoke/ drink/ do drugs / eat peanuts / shellfish / un pasteurized foods or was the baby's health just unimportant from the start?

Dirty Dingus McGee

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I was merely commenting on your job given by nature comment.

After the last referendum I don't have much time for people telling others what nature wants as they sit in their homes on the Internet. Clearly they have no problem making things how they want rather than nature.

And I was merely pointing out that regardless of what people want to think, when a women is pregnant their body is no longer solely theirs .Whether they want to believe it or not or whether they think that situation is fair or not.A decision wasn't made to do this to women it's just the way things are.

PhoenixParker

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

So if someone has a child they should then be entitled to not feed it or look after it and let it die?

No.

The words "sole purview" are very important. Pre-24 weeks while a fetus is in utero the pregnant woman is the only person who can support and maintain its existence.

Once it is born and capable of maintaining life from second to second independently anyone can care for them. At that point the responsibility can be passed to others readily either temporarily for an hour or two off, or permanently through adoption.

Letting a child die is murder. Abortion is the withdrawal of medical care or the switching off of life support. They're very very different things despite the anti-choices protestations to the contrary.