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; } } }

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During the lead up to the general election I heard some talk about the 8th amendment being repealed and it being an important election issue.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

Comments

stinkle

anothernight wrote: »

Some women are irregular enough that it would take a long while to notice that they missed a period, especially when they're younger or when there are some health issues.

Not to mention certain types of contraception can stop periods altogether so it could take that bit longer to realise you're pregnant. No contraception is 100%, and with longer term ones like IUDs and injectable you might not realise it hasn't worked until relatively late.

colossus-x

stinkle wrote: »

Not to mention certain types of contraception can stop periods altogether so it could take that bit longer to realise you're pregnant. No contraception is 100%, and with longer term ones like IUDs and injectable you might not realise it hasn't worked until relatively late.

Just take a pill after every ride?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Side_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill

stinkle

DO you mean morning-after pill? That's fairly expensive to take regularly, not to mention it's a massive hormone dose and not "just a pill". It'd be a big deal to take a dose like that regularly if have frequent intercourse. It's more easily available now too, but previously required a prescription and AFAIK you couldnt just stock up on it then. Given that it;s most effective in the first 24 hours, it's not a great option to depend on, for example, during a bank holiday when getting an emergency appointment is trickier.

colossus-x

I would have though that the overall cost of 'morning after pill' is cheaper in the long run to the state stead for carrying out abortions.

This argument about "It's to expensive for me not to get pregnant" because I have so much sex , is just laughable.

Jolly good for youz for having such a good time.

[Deleted User]

colossus-x wrote: »

I would have though that the overall cost of 'morning after pill' is cheaper in the long run to the state for carrying out abortions.

It is not recommended for a woman to take the morning after pill twice in the one cycle. It is a huge dose of hormones and can affect her cycle going forward. It is a fantastic drug in my opinion but not as a means of long term birth control.

La.de.da

I would like to think it will be passed but I would have my doubts.

Women should have every right to make a decision based on what is best and right for them. Criminalizing them and taking away their dignity, forcing them abroad to deal with such situations is appalling IMO.

colossus-x

Deleted User wrote: »

It is not recommended for a woman to take the morning after pill twice in the one cycle. It is a huge dose of hormones and can affect her cycle going forward. It is a fantastic drug in my opinion but not as a means of long term birth control.

So effectively it's useless , you can use it for a month or so or whatever so it's pointless if your f*cking all year round. What is the point of taking it then? Who f*ucks just for a month or whatever and doesn't ride the rest of the year ???

I admit I'm really ignorant about after ride contraception. Is there none that one could take to avoid having an abortion?

anothernight

It's not useless. It's emergency contraception.

stinkle

colossus-x wrote: »

I would have though that the overall cost of 'morning after pill' is cheaper in the long run to the state stead for carrying out abortions.

This argument about "It's to expensive for me not to get pregnant" because I have so much sex , is just laughable.

Jolly good for youz for having such a good time.

If you took that from my reply then I suggest you re-read. There are plenty of affordable contraceptives out there, but none are 100%. When it fails EMERGENCY contraception, as the name suggests, is really useful in emergencies. Some caveats with using this are:
-cant take it regularly, due to side effects. So it should never be marketed or recommended as something to rely on
-must use within 72 hours (with it being most effective if taken within 24 hours, and effects decreasing thereafter)
-used to be quite difficult to get a prescription for, especially when you take the 72-hour window into consideration
-some doctors and pharmacists refused to prescribe/dispense it - again not something to be taken lightly when time is of the essence
-often isn't prescribed to women over a certain BMI

colossus-x wrote: »

So effectively it's useless , you can use it for a month or so or whatever so it's pointless if your f*cking all year round. What is the point of taking it then? Who f*ucks just for a month or whatever and doesn't ride the rest of the year ???

I admit I'm really ignorant about after ride contraception. Is there none that one could take to avoid having an abortion?

Is there a reason you are calling it after ride contraception? Commenting on the frequency of anyone's sex life is pretty disingenuous to the discussion, as it only takes one occurrence to become pregnant. It's especially unwelcome in the cases of women who become pregnant due to rape. I don't see the point of judging any woman's sex life, but if we're discussing pregnancy then a man has to be involved too.

There is no pill you can take to avoid an abortion. There is an abortion pill, and it is an essential medicine according to the WHO. It's suitable to take up to 12 weeks and is known as a medical abortion, as opposed to the much rarer (in the countries where both are available) surgical abortions that prolifers love to talk about. As conception has already occured in the case of needing to use the abortion pill, it's not a contraceptive.

One could face 14 years in jail for importing it illegally into Ireland, so that would certainly cost the state a lot more to incarcerate women/doctors than to provide essential medicines and surgery as necessary.

La.de.da

Just had more or less same reply as stinkle.

I'm not aware of any 'after sex contraception'.
Two people can have taken all the precautions before the act but from time to time things happen.
That's where most would look for the morning after pill.

nozzferrahhtoo

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Its very clear what my problem is I am totally against ending the life of an unborn child which is what abortion is doing at any stage of development.

THAT that is your problem is clear, I said that already so repetition of the assertions lends nothing TO those assertions.

The basis for it is altogether not clear however. Your issue appears to be linguistic more than intellectual or substantive. I see no argument at all, least of all from you, to have any problem with ending the life cycle of a fetus at, say, 16 weeks.

So as I said before, it appears to be wrong because.... well because you say so. And I fear that if that is the standard of the arguments to be made from the anti abortion side then, much like the SSM referendum, you risk not just losing such a referendum, but winning it for us.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

It's very tiresome going back over every little thing and having to justify it.

That is the issue though, you have not apparently justified ANYTHING let alone the "little things", so it is not clear how it can be tiresome to do what you are not actually doing. You have made it clear you are against abortion in NEARLY all it's forms. You have not yet made any argument, let alone a clear one, as to WHY this is so.

wokingvoter

anothernight wrote: »

Wait, so all women who don't get hand me downs are "a bit precious"? Try being new in a country without any support from anyone. It's very condescending of you to assume people are "precious" like that. You know, some people aren't lucky like you to have a support network.

Well if the new country is Ireland Uk IUS or Canada there's endless charity shops absolutely full of kids clothes and other"must have" maternity and nursery items for knock down in perfect condition. And they'll let you "pay off" on things
Most people have at least 6 1/2 months to collect up items for the impending delivery and arrival
That's why the CWOs no longer give ENPs for new babies
A new baby is neither an emergency or unforeseen and there is no exceptional need about it

lazygal

For those who are happy with the eighth amendment maybe they could answer something. How far should the Irish state go to vindicate the right to life of the unborn? Exactly what should the apparatus of the state be doing to ensure that every unborn child in Ireland right now has its right to life vindicated?

AtomicHorror

wokingvoter wrote: »

But child benefit is to offset the costs of child rearing. It's not a reward for being a mum. Babies in the womb don't cost anything. You know that

Hey look, wokingvoter has discovered free energy- conservation of energy and mass dis-proven. All this time I thought you couldn't get something from nothing. All those years of wackos with their perpetual motion machines, magnets and microwave cavities and it was under our noses the whole time. You can create a human foetus for nothing.

It's a miracle.

AtomicHorror

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Won't be a popular answer on this thread but its factually accurate to say it might not happen in the future (anything might) but abortion has definitely been used as a common method of contraception for large areas in the past, behind the Iron curtain it was the most common method of contraception for a long time.

It annoys me that those that hold their pro-choices principals as such strong part of their identity don't read a bit wider and have more knowledge on the subject. If your views on this define who you are please at least read about it and don't restrict yourself to solely thinking about Ireland.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/02/opinion/birth-control-in-russia.html
There is tons of other sources for this if you don't like the NY Times

That set of circumstances arose because of lack of access to easier contraception- shortages of condoms for example. Surgery will never be a primary means of contraception unless something really horrendous happens to Irish society and our economy and we somehow make the cultural leap from barely tolerating abortion to advocating state-sponsorship of it. At which point I think we'll probably have bigger problems to think about, such as why the Russians invaded Ireland.

volchitsa

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That set of circumstances arose because of lack of access to easier contraception- shortages of condoms for example. Surgery will never be a primary means of contraception unless something really horrendous happens to Irish society and our economy and we somehow make the cultural leap from barely tolerating abortion to advocating state-sponsorship of it. At which point I think we'll probably have bigger problems to think about, such as why the Russians invaded Ireland.

Yes, abortion as a means of family planning/population control was the choice made by the healthcare systems in the Eastern bloc, individuals had little or no choice in the matter, that was what was available to them.

I believe it was because the healthcare systems had been put in place before reliable articificial contraception was invented, and by the 60s the Cold War Communist governments saw no need to change what they felt worked adequately for their own needs. People were queuing for hours to buy food and clothes at the time, their governments were hardly going to create a new burden of importation of contraceptive pills from US manufacturers, nor occupy needed production time in their own factories producing local versions.

But the situation in the Eastern Bloc only shows that couples who need to control their fertility will do whatever it takes to do so however unpleasant. Including multiple abortions if that is the only choice they have.

It's not an example of couples choosing to use surgery when they could have had a pill instead.

osarusan

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Won't be a popular answer on this thread but its factually accurate to say it might not happen in the future (anything might) but abortion has definitely been used as a common method of contraception for large areas in the past, behind the Iron curtain it was the most common method of contraception for a long time.

It annoys me that those that hold their pro-choices principals as such strong part of their identity don't read a bit wider and have more knowledge on the subject. If your views on this define who you are please at least read about it and don't restrict yourself to solely thinking about Ireland.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/02/opinion/birth-control-in-russia.html
There is tons of other sources for this if you don't like the NY Times

I don't think that really addresses what Atomic Horror said.

In a country where access to condoms, pills, and other methods of contraception is restricted or they are unavailable, women will resort to abortion if it is available.

But in such cases, abortion is not 'just another form of contraception'. 'Just another' means one of several/many, and that was clearly not the case in Russia, as the article explains.

To address the point, you would have to find a society in which condoms, pills, IUD, and the other methods of contraception are freely available, but where a significant number of women eschew these methods, and use abortion instead.

That would demonstrate that abortion was widely chosen as just another form of contraception, rather than being the only option.

seamus

colossus-x wrote: »

I'm absolutely all for abortion. I'd give you two weeks after your ride to get rid of it. After that your stuck with it.

How anyone can go and F*** and not look into the fact your pregnant is beyond me.

You miss your period, that's it. Go and get it done. I'd give you two weeks after your missed period.

L.O.L.

This is exactly the reason why society, the law (and especially the constitution!) needs to stay the f*ck out of women's reproductive choices.

Absolute ignorance and naivety like this. This isn't a personal jab at you colossus-x, I imagine this level of cluelessness is pretty standard across the population and yet for some reason lots of them think the state (and by extension, they) should have a say.

AtomicHorror

osarusan wrote: »

To address the point, you would have to find a society in which condoms, pills, IUD, and the other methods of contraception are freely available, but where a significant number of women eschew these methods, and use abortion instead.

Perfectly explained, thank you.

The only scenario I can imagine where abortion could start to approach parity with conventional contraceptions would be if technology advanced to the point that it was just as convenient as condoms or the pill (or more importantly the gold standard contraception of the time, which itself will have changed and advanced), and where our thinking about it had changed dramatically even from the pro-choice perception of abortion as an unpleasant necessity, to the view that it was inconsequential.

I wouldn't rule out these possibilities entirely, but I think they're both very unlikely.

Also, RDM, was this really necessary?

It annoys me that those that hold their pro-choices principals as such strong part of their identity don't read a bit wider and have more knowledge on the subject. If your views on this define who you are please at least read about it and don't restrict yourself to solely thinking about Ireland.

If you show me an example of the type osarusan describes, then I'll take this on the chin.

lazygal

seamus wrote: »

L.O.L.

This is exactly the reason why society, the law (and especially the constitution!) needs to stay the f*ck out of women's reproductive choices.

Absolute ignorance and naivety like this. This isn't a personal jab at you colossus-x, I imagine this level of cluelessness is pretty standard across the population and yet for some reason lots of them think the state (and by extension, they) should have a say.

Slightly related, very few people seem to know how conception works. As I posted upthread, by the time you're 'pregnant' you're already two weeks pregnant, as in a month pregnant going on the two weeks it takes to get a positive test. There's also massive variation in cycles. Mine are completely different after having had children, so my fertile period is different and if I was planning on getting pregnant again it'd be a different scenario to the first two times we got pregnant. It simply isn't the case that you have sex and two weeks later you do a test to check if you're pregnant and then make a decision. I was actively trying to get pregnant, monitoring cycles and fertile periods and I had negative pregnancy tests and no symptoms-my first pregnancy was confirmed at a hospital appointment for a totally unrelated matter. If I hadn't been trying to get pregnant at all and hadn't been at hospital I could easily have been two months pregnant without realising it because of my cycle pattern.

TL/DR women and girls get pregnant. Making arbitrary rules on access to WHO essential medication based on terms like 'having the ride' isn't good practice.

melissak

RayM wrote: »

I have no respect for the argument that abortion should be legal in the case of rape or incest. You either believe a woman should have autonomy over her own body or you don't. If a person thinks abortion is acceptable in the case of rape or incest, then it logically follows that they think abortion is actually acceptable. Those people are massive hypocrites and their biggest problem is with women, not with abortion.

I agree. Either the unborn baby has right to a life or not. Someone elses act (rapist) could not invalidate that right. It would by extension be on demand as otherwise it would be unconstitutional

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

THAT that is your problem is clear, I said that already so repetition of the assertions lends nothing TO those assertions.

The basis for it is altogether not clear however. Your issue appears to be linguistic more than intellectual or substantive. I see no argument at all, least of all from you, to have any problem with ending the life cycle of a fetus at, say, 16 weeks.

So as I said before, it appears to be wrong because.... well because you say so. And I fear that if that is the standard of the arguments to be made from the anti abortion side then, much like the SSM referendum, you risk not just losing such a referendum, but winning it for us.

That is the issue though, you have not apparently justified ANYTHING let alone the "little things", so it is not clear how it can be tiresome to do what you are not actually doing. You have made it clear you are against abortion in NEARLY all it's forms. You have not yet made any argument, let alone a clear one, as to WHY this is so.

You really are talking nonsense now. I have very clearly stated I am against abortion because killing an unborn child is wrong, being wrong is the reason.

If I said killing a toddler is wrong you would be perfectly happy with that reason but because it doesn't suit your agenda the pro-abortion crew have somehow managed to compartmentalise their brain into thinking a living baby growing inside its mother is not actually a life and not entitled to life and that the abhorrent and disgusting act of abortion is ok.

seamus wrote: »

L.O.L.

yet for some reason lots of them think the state (and by extension, they) should have a say.

As a citizen of Ireland I very much should have a say in what is allowed in this country, this is not simply about someones choices its about what we as a society should strive for, You don't go around saying "people should stay the f*ck out of some womans life, she should be allowed murder her 3 year old as she doesn't want him anymore" :rolleyes:

Its pretty sad that in 2016 peope will campagin for killing unborn children, its something that should have been left in the dark ages.

lazygal

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

You really are talking nonsense now. I have very clearly stated I am against abortion because killing an unborn child is wrong, being wrong is the reason.

If I said killing a toddler is wrong you would be perfectly happy with that reason but because it doesn't suit your agenda the pro-abortion crew have somehow managed to compartmentalise their brain into thinking a living baby growing inside its mother is not actually a life and not entitled to life and that the abhorrent and disgusting act of abortion is ok.

As a citizen of Ireland I very much should have a say in what is allowed in this country, this is not simply about someone choices its about what we as a society should strive, You dont go around saying "people should stay the f*ck out of some womans life, she should be allowed murder her 3 year old as she doesn't want him anymore" :rolleyes:

How far should the state go to ensure all pregnancies in Ireland continue without interruption by the abhorrent and disgusting act of abortion? Or is it ok to have this abhorrent and disgusting act if my life is at risk?

[Deleted User]

lazygal wrote: »

How far should the state go to ensure all pregnancies in Ireland continue without interruption by the abhorrent and disgusting act of abortion? Or is it ok to have this abhorrent and disgusting act if my life is at risk?

I've stated my position numerous times I'm not doing it again.

lazygal

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I've stated my position numerous times I'm not doing it again.

What is your position on how far the state should go to stop women killing children?

Chris Rock

I'm pro choice. I think women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, and have the termination in Ireland. But I don't want it to be in anyway tax payer funded. They should have to pay all the cost themselves.

lazygal

Chris Rock wrote: »

I'm pro choice. I think women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, and have the termination in Ireland. But I don't want it to be in anyway tax payer funded. They should have to pay all the cost themselves.

Why? What would women who can't afford to pay do?

volchitsa

Chris Rock wrote: »

I'm pro choice. I think women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, and have the termination in Ireland. But I don't want it to be in anyway tax payer funded. They should have to pay all the cost themselves.

Why?

(In the context of a country with Child Benefit and Single Parent Allowance I mean - or are you equally against financial support for parents too? And is this part of a broader desire for a US-style healthcare system, or is it only abortions?)

Martypants1

I find it annoying that only women are being considered here.

So if a man and a woman decide to have a baby and the woman gets pregnant. She then decides she doesn't want one, so she gets to take the mans chance of fatherhood away from him after partaking in the act of baby making? Baby making needs a man and a woman so the rights of the man should need to be considered. I am sure though the rights of the woman trumps all the mens rights because she is carrying the baby despite needing the man to make the baby in the first place.

There's so much to consider and just wiping it from the constitution is just going to lead to lawsuits and court cases in the future.

nozzferrahhtoo

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

You really are talking nonsense now. I have very clearly stated I am against abortion because killing an unborn child is wrong, being wrong is the reason.

But that is just repetition of the assertion, so the "nonsense" is yours not mine. I am asking you.... repeatedly.... WHY you think it is wrong and all I am getting in return is you repeating that you think it is wrong. See the problem now?

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

If I said killing a toddler is wrong you would be perfectly happy with that reason

I would be happy with it because I already KNOW the arguments for why we think killing a toddler is wrong. The problem is I do NOT KNOW the argument for why the destruction of a 16 week old fetus is wrong. That has nothing to do with "agendas". See the difference now?

The issue for me is that I know all the arguments against the murder of toddlers. Yet none of those arguments that I know.... apply in any way to a fetus. Understand my issue now?