Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 10012
gormdubhgorm wrote: »There are unplanned from alcohol and there will be a lot of abortions as a result of alcohol (thanks to 2/3s of the country so I suppose it is a relevant point.
There is a clear death of a human life when it comes to abortion.
I thought it was right that it had that protection.
Now the legislators can have thier way and decide on lowering the number of weeks over time if they wish.
Can you just stop.Your posts are hurting my brain at this time of the evening.
Are you suggesting that all the women that voted yes are going to go out,get pissed and have loads of unwanted pregnancies and then use abortion for contraception purposes?0 -
See I can do colour aswell!!!!!
The referendum was a definitive "Yes" The electorate has decided by a majority of 2 to 1 in favour of allowing abortion in the state.
I wish the No campaigners would just get over that. Sore losers anyone??
The sooner the better the law is in place to shut you lot up once and for all.
Womens rights won through in the end and I firmly believe that's what made the yes vote win in the end.No number of aborted fetus`posters could have swayed the referendum in favour of the no vote. The whole controlling women has been defeated regardless of whether you agree with abortion or not.
I am glad you went red I can return to black.
I am curious as how it is seen as controlling women.
How do the yes side view a female no voter in that case?
I think the main people who will be sore will be the people who have abortions that will hurt both physically and emotionally.
Just because the majority votes for something does not necessarily make it the correct decision.
The government made us vote twice on an EU ref till they got the decision they wanted for example.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Can you just stop.Your posts are hurting my brain at this time of the evening.
Are you suggesting that all the women that voted yes are going to go out,get pissed and have loads of unwanted pregnancies and then use abortion for contraception purposes?
No I never said that and I surprised that a moderator would resort to such silly comments.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
It still has protection, an embryo just doesn't have the same equal status as a fully grown woman - its mother - under the law any longer.
OK fair point can't argue with thatGuff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »A baby has hands feet primitive neural pathways and even forms nails, thier limbs can bend at 10 weeks....
To hard to wait 30 weeks and give the child away in EVERY [?????] to someone who wants it?
Really?
Seriously?
Really. Seriously.
Perhaps if you listened to what people have been trying to tell you, instead of only reading what you want to believe, you would know that. Pregnancy isn't a simple as "ho hum 30 weeks to go" and you must be aware of that, or you are painfully and willfully ignorant, especially if you've actually absorbed the responses you've received in this thread and have yet to grasp that.0 -
Advertisement
-
Can you just stop.Your posts are hurting my brain at this time of the evening.
Are you suggesting that all the women that voted yes are going to go out,get pissed and have loads of unwanted pregnancies and then use abortion for contraception purposes?
Well it was a stated belief from some of the no posters in the threads before the vote, would be strange for them to change it after the vote.0 -
Boards.ie is funny somestines if they don't agree with you aor a point is made that is too close to the bone.
They tell you to go away.
If you agree with the masses you get lots of likes
Maybe boards.ie could introduce a "go away" button?
Or better sitil
Given the thread that is in itGuff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 10012
gormdubhgorm wrote: »I am glad you went red I can return to black.
Maybe you should have resorted to turning the pc off if you ask me.
Because no one has the right to tell anyone what to do with their own body.I am curious as how it is seen as controlling women.
End of.How do the yes side view a female no voter in that case?
Obviously a lot better than the no side treat a women who voted yes.I think the main people who will be sore will be the people who have abortions that will hurt both physically and emotionally.
Absolutely no evidence that every woman that has an abortion is hurt either emotionally or physicially. Some do but the majority are relieved by not having an unwanted pregnancy hanging over them. The majority have said they had a feeling of relief after the abortion.
That's your opinion.Just because the majority votes for something does not necessarily make it the correct decision.The government made us vote twice on an EU ref till they got the decision they wanted for example.
I don't see what that's got to do with this discussion.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 10012
gormdubhgorm wrote: »No I never said that and I surprised that a moderator would resort to such silly comments.
Im only a moderator in the forums I mod. Everywhere else Im only an ordinary poster but that's been explained to you by numerous other posters as well.0 -
That transcript was amazing!
I'm deeply worried that lass is claiming to have a "background" in Psychology. From where? it doesn't say what college on her twitter. I find that hard to believe...she hasn't a fookin clue about statistics anyway.
Between that interview, Fidelma Healy Eames shit-eating grin, The loveboats hashtag, Ronan Mullen being...Ronan Mullen, Simon Harris kissing the lass with the I fancy Simon Harris sign, The various photoshops of the Ben Bulben No sign and the after eights being handed out, I'm not sure what I'll remember most fondly.0 -
Advertisement
-
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Boards.ie is funny somestines if they don't agree with you aor a point is made that is too close to the bone.
They tell you to go away.
If you agree with the masses you get lots of likes
Maybe boards.ie could introduce a "go away" button?
Or better sitil
Given the thread that is in it
Making a point thats in agreement with most people's opinions leads to them expressing agreement with you? I'm shocked.
The problem isn't boards.ie, the problem is your outdated worldview is in the minority in modern day Ireland.0 -
Amazed at thisI am glad you went red I can return to black.
Maybe you should have resorted to turning the pc off if you ask me.
So there is no diverant view permitted on boards.ie is that in the charter now
Because no one has the right to tell anyone what to do with their own body.
End of.
Obviously a lot better than the no side treat a women who voted yes.
-
Silly generalisation not proper reply to comment - you can't talk your way out of it
Absolutely no evidence that every woman that has an abortion is hurt either emotionally or physicially. Some do but the majority are relieved by not having an unwanted pregnancy hanging over them. The majority have said they had a feeling of relief after the abortion.
Some studies say it does
http://www.cmf.org.uk/resources/publications/content/?context=article&id=1850
Some say it does not
http://time.com/4599806/abortion-doesnt-negatively-affect-womens-mental-health-study/
As usual there is a divergence of opinionGuff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Doctor Jimbob wrote: »Making a point thats in agreement with most people's opinions leads to them expressing agreement with you? I'm shocked.
The problem isn't boards.ie, the problem is your outdated worldview is in the minority in modern day Ireland.
See that is the narrative that annoys ne
abortion = modern progressive
Against abortion = backward
Silly generalization yet again.
That is one third of the electorate dismissed as backward with no nuance for thier decision taken into account.
Again silly.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Boards.ie is funny somestines if they don't agree with you aor a point is made that is too close to the bone.
They tell you to go away.
If you agree with the masses you get lots of likes
Maybe boards.ie could introduce a "go away" button?
If you're unwilling or unable to refute, or accept what others are saying to you, then indeed there is not much point in you continuing to post here, surely? It just becomes soapboxing at a certain point, when you seem so certain that "ah shur its just 30 weeks" - 37 actually, but who is counting, right? And that women should just 'deal with the pain' because you've had some experience with pain that you dealt with (that you pointedly refuse to disclose, though you then said you draw the line at pain or discomfort that affects sleep) and this in your view gives you the authority to tell women to just grin and bear the hot flashes, vomiting, blood work, doctors visits, the mood swings, the spontaneous and frequent vomiting, doctors visits, the spinal misalignments, slipped discs, and hip pains, doctor visits, the cramps, the kicks, le mans classes, the vomiting, night sweats, risk of sepsis and/or death, blood pressure spikes, blood pressure dips, the vomiting, sudden allergies to random foods, gestational diabetes, having ****ing needles shoved up your spine, pissing and ****ting into a bedpan for 12+ hours, and of course - risk of miscarriages - so they can "just adopt" the child all easy peasy just like that?
It's as if you've never lived with someone or known someone going through a pregnancy before (really), and you haven't at all invested any time reading the thread you have thus far pretended to engage in. So yes, why bother posting if you're not going to follow along and take on board the view of others? Why should they, in turn, listen to any of your god damn ramblings that take little to no consideration of anything they've really taken the time to say to you? Jog on, I guess.0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »See that is the narrative that annoys ne
abortion = modern progressive
Against abortion = backward
Silly generalization yet again.
You're essentially complaining about loads of people agreeing with a post sharing opinions they agree with, and instead of stopping to think maybe you're out of touch, you decide the problem is boards. Do you not see how ridiculous that looks?
Your own silly generalisation isn't in any way an accurate representation of what I actually think. I'm personally against abortion, but in favour of a woman's right to choose. But you carry on complaining about others generalising while doing exactly the same yourself if you want.0 -
If you're unwilling or unable to refute, or accept what others are saying to you, then indeed there is not much point in you continuing to post here, surely? It just becomes soapboxing at a certain point, when you seem so certain that "ah shur its just 30 weeks" - 37 actually, but who is counting, right? And that women should just 'deal with the pain' because you've had some experience with pain that you dealt with (that you pointedly refuse to disclose, though you then said you draw the line at pain or discomfort that affects sleep) and this in your view gives you the authority to tell women to just grin and bear the hot flashes, vomiting, blood work, doctors visits, the mood swings, the spontaneous and frequent vomiting, doctors visits, the spinal misalignments, slipped discs, and hip pains, doctor visits, the cramps, the kicks, le mans classes, the vomiting, night sweats, risk of sepsis and/or death, blood pressure spikes, blood pressure dips, the vomiting, sudden allergies to random foods, gestational diabetes, having ****ing needles shoved up your spine, pissing and ****ting into a bedpan for 12+ hours, and of course - risk of miscarriages - so they can "just adopt" the child all easy peasy just like that?
It's as if you've never lived with someone or known someone going through a pregnancy before (really), and you haven't at all invested any time reading the thread you have thus far pretended to engage in. So yes, why bother posting if you're not going to follow along and take on board the view of others? Why should they, in turn, listen to any of your god damn ramblings that take little to no consideration of anything they've really taken the time to say to you? Jog on, I guess.
It's nature and nature is messy sometimes.
So to sum up because I disagree with you I should go away as you cannot accept my viewpoint.
Boards debate at its finest there.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Disagree boards.ie has a clear leaning when it comes to political and social debate.Doctor Jimbob wrote: »You're essentially complaining about loads of people agreeing with a post sharing opinions they agree with, and instead of stopping to think maybe you're out of touch, you decide the problem is boards. Do you not see how ridiculous that looks?
No because boards has an obvious agenda the mods prove that.
I bet there was not one mod who voted no in building...hardly a rpresentation of Ireland..
Or was it 100% yes vote?Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »It's nature and nature is messy sometimes.
So to sum up because I disagree with you I should go away as you cannot accept my viewpoint.
Boards debate at its finest there.
Please continue to post their a reminder of why the no side lost in case anyone forgets.0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »It's nature and nature is messy sometimes.
So to sum up because I disagree with you I should go away as you cannot accept my viewpoint.
Boards debate at its finest there.
You're welcome to stay, of course, though generally unless you're constructing upon the conversation I find it really to be quite useless.
Regardless of whether or not it's natural, fact is in most modern societies (now, yours included) we recognize that a woman should have the right to control whether that natural process occurs, given that we now have medical technology to control whether it does or not. It is certainly a contentious issue given that people don't like the idea of prohibiting a life from gestating and being born, but that is a consequence of the process, generally to reduce the rate at which this occurs we promote modern sex education and access to contraceptive methods. The end result is the same: children that are not planned to be born, are not born.
You'll find most people on the thread generally agree that Ireland's abortion policies and practices are inadequate and should be the focus of thoughtful overhaul, but for most (me included, and presumably at least 66% of the electorate) that is not a panacea alternative to offering abortions as an option to women.
You'll find that most people on the thread generally agree that if contraceptives were 100% effective, that women could always 100% of the time choose when and how to conceive, and adoption was 100% efficient and medicine could ensure a 0% mortality rate, and that fetuses were always 100% healthy, and that pregnancies and childcare were all 100% supported, that there would be no cause or need for abortions. This is not yet realistic. If it will ever be.
You're certainly welcome to disagree with abortions, but respectfully now that the law is poised to permit individuals to determine those decisions for themselves, but it is a wonder as to why given that even most No voters, based on exit polling, believe that abortions are justified in at least some number of so-called, 'hard cases.'0 -
" Ruth Coppinger says she will try to get rid of the 72-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion when the bill comes to the Dáil. "
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ruth-coppinger-to-seek-to-remove-insulting-72-hour-wait-for-abortion-845721.html
Well it didn,t take long for Ruth Coppinger to look to make changes to the planned legislation post referendum win, she could of being more upfront pre referendum that she would seek changes to get rid of the 72 hour pause period but didn,t , it shall be interesting to see what other changes others will try to make .0 -
Advertisement
-
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Disagree boards.ie has a clear leaning when it comes to political and social debate.
And? It is unrealistic to expect that a website of virtually-open access and discussion would be able to somehow guarantee a 50/50 split during discussions and debates. You're going to have to at some point expect that your viewpoint may be in the minority, and if the number of people disagreeing with your is off-putting, that cannot really be helped, nor will it. Not much usefulness in playing the victim.
Especially given this topic: 66% of voters chose Repeal. Voters of each age demographic were majority Yes, with 65+ being the lowest (58%). Only FF supporters were split (49%) on the vote.
'73% were in favour of making abortion available in cases of rape or incest; 71% in cases of fatal foetal abnormality, 67% between 12 and 24 weeks gestation where there was a risk to the health of the woman; but only 52% were in favour of abortion being available on request up to 12 weeks.
Even No voters were in favour of abortion in cases of rape or incest, by 40 to 38%.'
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0526/966120-eighth-amendment-referendum/
So, if you're going to play the position that abortion is wrong in all cases - it's murder, etc. etc. - then yeah, both on the street and on this site, you're certainly in the minority position. 'Deal with it' as you might say.0 -
To be perfectly fair to the Lisbon Treaty, that was a 46/54 vote, with 53% turnout. Exit polling showed that 40% of those voting No did not understand or were not familiar with the details of the Treaty. A separate poll also showed that 20% of those did not understand enough about the Treaty and were not prepare to have Ireland sign it in.gormdubhgorm wrote: »
The government made us vote twice on an EU ref till they got the decision they wanted for example.
It wasn't then unreasonable to rerun the referendum and launch a more informative campaign. At the same time, Ireland also used the opportunity to renegotiate terms in the treaty and carved our exclusions for itself. The referendum then got a 67/33 vote.
Not in any serious way can people pretend they were not clued in to what they were voting on here: to repeal, or not repeal the 8th amendment. The government was even kind enough to preview the most likely set of legislation that would be proposed after a repeal of the 8th amendment. The electorate was very well informed on what the voting subject was.0 -
The referendum was a definitive "Yes" The electorate has decided by a majority of 2 to 1 in favour of allowing abortion in the state.
I wish the No campaigners would just get over that. Sore losers anyone??
The sooner the better the law is in place to shut you lot up once and for all.
it's very unlikely the no campaign is going to simply go away because the law is introduced. they aren't going to simply get over it or shut up. that isn't how democracy works.Womens rights won through in the end and I firmly believe that's what made the yes vote win in the end.No number of aborted fetus`posters could have swayed the referendum in favour of the no vote. The whole controlling women has been defeated regardless of whether you agree with abortion or not.
women's rights won through in the end only in relation to the issue of the medically necessary abortions which were not covered under POLDPA and which should have been. women's rights in general have been upheld in ireland for a long time now thankfully. for the controling women to have been defeated there would have had to have been controling of women on a whole scale basis, which while ireland was once a place where such happened, it hasn't been a place where such happened for a long long time.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »The government made us vote twice on an EU ref till they got the decision they wanted for example.
they had to because the terms of the treaty changed. we got concessions which effectively meant a new treaty. it likely would have been unconstitutional for their not to have been another referendum.Because no one has the right to tell anyone what to do with their own body.
End of.
the law seems to disagree. we can't use our bodies to drink and drive. or hit someone else. or take something belonging to someone else. not that most of us would do those anyway, but they are examples that disprove that nobody has the right to tell us what to do with our bodies.Obviously a lot better than the no side treat a women who voted yes.
i treat all the women i know or i meet the same regardless of how they voted. with kindness and respect as i was brought up to do. most no and yes voters are the same, we just have a different view on whether the unborn's right to life should be upheld in full or not.Doctor Jimbob wrote: »The problem isn't boards.ie, the problem is your outdated worldview is in the minority in modern day Ireland.
the thing is, being against abortion on demand, or believing that it shouldn't be left up to a woman as to whether her unborn lives or dies, isn't an outdated view. it's an extension of the support for the laws that prohibit us from harming anyone else.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »it's very unlikely the no campaign is going to simply go away because the law is introduced. they aren't going to simply get over it or shut up. that isn't how democracy works.
Well no, perhaps not. But it would be good of them to refocus efforts ensuring that social services are strong enough in this country such that a crisis pregnancy never really becomes that; that 'social services are comprehensive enough to ease the worries of potential mothers fearful of their ability to raise a child,' and that adoption services in Ireland get a good long, thorough audit and revision. Most importantly if this referendum has proven anything it should prove to No and Pro-Life that life at conception argument, that all abortion is murder, doesn't hold sway with the electorate. So, at the very least, please change debate tact for everyone's sanity.
I think they are better served, when it comes to upcoming legislation, to rationally endorse a compromise position, not sit in the corner and continue to shout "abortion is murder" and scaremonger about how awful late term abortions are (as if women desire to have those, instead of the earliest and safest means of termination available to them if they're intent on aborting) or about scaremongering regarding profit-making baby-killing businesses (substantially more money to be had in natal care, to be perfectly honest).
The current battle seems to no longer be 'is abortion moral or unjustified in all cases,' but more frankly 'how far will abortions now go.' I think the 12 week period with limited validation requirements is pretty reasonable, and in fact is more conservative than the vast majority of US States. Also bearing in mind that, even with these relatively looser laws in the US, 89~93% of abortions still occur in the 1st trimester (12 week) time frame.
I think, personally anyway, that No needs to establish some time frame they are indeed comfortable with for "on demand" termination as they call it, because some timeline is going to be had for that. The law can't possibly encapsulate all the reasons someone might justifiably terminate a pregnancy. Right now that position seems to fall somewhere between "Morning After Pill" and "12 weeks." It's just a matter of discussing where, and why. 50~52% of the electorate is already on board with the first trimester being the reasonable checkpoint, so there should be some reasonable justification to some other position than that. I agree with 12, and frankly I'd be happy if it was farther up, but I think if you want lower it has to be coupled with measures that make it possible that women across the country have rapid and accommodating access to pregnancy screening & support services to reduce delay of action.0 -
That is one very annoying smug lady that I would love to remove the smirk off her face.Captain Obvious wrote: »That was amazing.
I'd use another words but would be kicked off boards.0 -
Well no, perhaps not. But it would be good of them to refocus efforts ensuring that social services are strong enough in this country such that a crisis pregnancy never really becomes that; that 'social services are comprehensive enough to ease the worries of potential mothers fearful of their ability to raise a child,' and that adoption services in Ireland get a good long, thorough audit and revision.
elements of the yes and no campaigns have been focusing on those issues as it is . any of the other groups not involved should of course join them. however the no campaign can also focus on campaigning for more restrictive legislation then what is proposed.Most importantly if this referendum has proven anything it should prove to No and Pro-Life that life at conception argument, that all abortion is murder, doesn't hold sway with the electorate. So, at the very least, please change debate tact for everyone's sanity.
i'm assuming the relevant people over the campaign will be looking at whether it's worth continuing with that tactic or not. i know i and most no voters on here have never said all abortion is murder.I think they are better served, when it comes to upcoming legislation, to rationally endorse a compromise position, not sit in the corner and continue to shout "abortion is murder" and scaremonger about how awful late term abortions are (as if women desire to have those, instead of the earliest and safest means of termination available to them if they're intent on aborting) or about scaremongering regarding profit-making baby-killing businesses (substantially more money to be had in natal care, to be perfectly honest).
i'm assuming that campaigning for the legislation they feel is best is what they will do, along with campaigning to insure that the abortion providers aren't allowed to set up here. i don't think the fear over the big abortion providers setting up is scaremongering for the moment, because i'm not sure it can be 100% ruled out right now.The current battle seems to no longer be 'is abortion moral or unjustified in all cases,' but more frankly 'how far will abortions now go.' I think the 12 week period with limited validation requirements is pretty reasonable, and in fact is more conservative than the vast majority of US States. Also bearing in mind that, even with these relatively looser laws in the US, 89~93% of abortions still occur in the 1st trimester (12 week) time frame.
i agree but for me the battle was never about whether abortion is moral or justified in all cases, it was about which specific cases it should be allowed and where it shouldn't, and where abortion would go in general. the no campaign did try on that score but not hard enough. it's a battle still worth fighting IMO.I think, personally anyway, that No needs to establish some time frame they are indeed comfortable with for "on demand" termination as they call it, because some timeline is going to be had for that. The law can't possibly encapsulate all the reasons someone might justifiably terminate a pregnancy. Right now that position seems to fall somewhere between "Morning After Pill" and "12 weeks." It's just a matter of discussing where, and why. 50~52% of the electorate is already on board with the first trimester being the reasonable checkpoint, so there should be some reasonable justification to some other position than that. I agree with 12, and frankly I'd be happy if it was farther up, but I think if you want lower it has to be coupled with measures that make it possible that women across the country have rapid and accommodating access to pregnancy screening & support services to reduce delay of action.
i think there should be no compromise in terms of what we call abortion on demand. i'm happy for that to be faught against in some form as i believe it's still worth fighting against. the no campaign would need to not fight against abortions where medically necessary though.
quick access to pregnancy screening and other support services should already be implemented but the government don't do proper funding of services unfortunately. the people get what they vote for though, by voting for the main 2 parties.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
http://www.thejournal.ie/referendum-posters-ban-4034334-May2018/THE VAST MAJORITY of Irish people want referendum posters banned, a poll has indicated.
According to a Claire Byrne Live/Amarach Research poll, 74% said yes they should, while 19% answered that they should not. 7% said that they didn’t know whether posters should be banned.There’s no authority to police the information that’s put on referendum posters to ensure that they’re not misleading and are factual.
I think we all know that now!0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »
That is one third of the electorate dismissed as backward with no nuance for thier decision taken into account.
Wait. What? Their decisions have not been taken into account? No voters are still perfectly free to CHOOSE not to have an abortion. Their rights have not been impacted in the slightest after the 8 was destroyed, and their right of CHOICE has finally been extended to all.0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »i'm assuming the relevant people over the campaign will be looking at whether it's worth continuing with that tactic or not. i know i and most no voters on here have never said all abortion is murderend of the road wrote: »it's an unborn baby and is murder.end of the road wrote: »morally she has commited a murder yes . she has killed the most defenseless, the unborn.end of the road wrote: »plenty of "left wing liberals" disagree with baby murder.end of the road wrote: »it should not be up to her what happens it and it can't be, as it's a separate entity which has rights of it's own. the fact it relies on it's mother as a host doesn't justify it's murder.end of the road wrote: »it is murder. however the state can only protect the life of the unborn as much as is practical.end of the road wrote: »the unborn and people have a right to live. people suffering hardship is sad but at the end of the day if we allow abortion on demand, then there will be unborn with ds who may live a mostly functioning life who will be murdered.end of the road wrote: »abortion on demand is not comparible to tv shows or drinks or food or gum. abortion on demand is the murder of an unborn life.
no . an unborn baby with Down Syndrome is being murdered for having Down Syndrome.end of the road wrote: »technically it is . it's premeditated taking of a life. the state may not recognise it as such but it definitely fits the definition of murder.end of the road wrote: »you don't know. you have just decided because it fits your agend of pro-murder of the unborn.end of the road wrote: »we can only deal with acts commited within our state, or acts that are illegal abroad commited by citizens of our state. we cannot do anything about people traveling to other countries to do something that is legal there, even if it is murdering the unborn. modern medicine does have quite an idea of when a woman's life will be at risk. proper sex education and free contraception + a bann on abortion in ireland bar medical necessity is the best way to reduce abortions as having to travel and fund one's abortion themselves is quite likely to be a deterrent to some.end of the road wrote: »if the child was born and then the mother killed it, she would be shamed and called a murderer. why does that suddenly become wrong because the child is unborn?
You were saying?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement