Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

ELM327

NuMarvel wrote: »

This is what was inserted into the Constitution:
“Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.”

What's wrong with that?

Not to mention it was written on the ballot paper.
You don't have to be eagle eyed to read what is written on the page before checking the yes or no box!

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

Wasn't very responsible of you to vote without fully understanding what you were voting on.

eagle eye

NuMarvel wrote:

What's wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that.
I'm saying that I'm against abortion of a healthy fetus if the reason for it is irresponsibility.
As I've explained already there are plenty of drugs and other contraceptives available. Even after the fact you can sort yourself out before it gets to the stage that you are pregnant.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

eagle eye wrote: »

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

All that's in the constitution now is that the oireachteas (I.e. the dail and seanad) can legislate for the regulation of termination of pregnancy. They removed the constitutional right to life of the unborn, they did not insert a constitutional right to abortion or anything like that.

That is separate from the legislation, which allows for termination of pregnancy in the first trimester without distinction as to reason and under circumstances thereafter. That can be changed without a referendum, it's not in the constitution.

The wording of the amendment would have been right over that box you ticked in the polling booth, whatever about avoiding the media debate and missing the very widely broadcast details of the then proposed legislation, seriously probably read the actual voting slip in general. I mean sound for voting yes but I'm not even 100% sure you didn't accidentally vote no.

Mr. CooL ICE

eagle eye wrote: »

As I've explained already there are plenty of drugs and other contraceptives available.

Do you know what these drugs are and how they work?

eagle eye

amcalester wrote:

Wasn't very responsible of you to vote without fully understanding what you were voting on.

As it turns out now I was aware. I voted to repeal a law and nothing was put in it's place in the Constitution.

volchitsa

eagle eye wrote: »

As it turns out now I was aware. I voted to repeal a law and nothing was put in it's place in the Constitution.

So what's your problem then? It was made perfectly clear what legislation was planned for after a Repeal vote, wasn't it?

If it becomes clear that that legislation is throwing up problems, it can be changed. Because the detail of it is not in the constitution.

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

As it turns out now I was aware. I voted to repeal a law and nothing was put in it's place in the Constitution.

No, you weren't and it would appear that you are still not fully aware of what you voted for.

Not exactly being a responsible member of society now are you?

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with that.
I'm saying that I'm against abortion of a healthy fetus if the reason for it is irresponsibility.
As I've explained already there are plenty of drugs and other contraceptives available. Even after the fact you can sort yourself out before it gets to the stage that you are pregnant.

I'm sorry but its extremely frustrating to see the same ill thought out, throwaway "solutions" being suggested again and again as they were before the referendum.
"Just use a condom, Just put it put for adoption, Close your legs if you don't want a baby" et al were all trotted out repetitively before the referendum.

You suggested adoption as an option yesterday when you clearly have no knowledge of how adoption in this country even works, you have no answer as to why you think irresponsible people should be trusted to rear children they DO NOT want, you are happy to have these kids dumped in state care, and you clearly don't have a clue how contraceptives or the morning after pill works.

You care more about punishing irresponsible people than you do about the kind of lives these children will be born into.

Its a bit late in the day to be suggesting all these "alternatives" (that have all been proven unworkable) when your vote has already been cast and the outcome decided.
You really should have considered all this before May 25th.

eagle eye

volchitsa wrote:

So what's your problem then? It was made perfectly clear what legislation was planned for after a Repeal vote, wasn't it?
If it becomes clear that that legislation is throwing up problems, it can be changed. Because the detail of it is not in the constitution.

It appeared from what I was reading here that something had been put in the Constitution.
I was unhappy, and I still am, that somebody can abort a healthy fetus because they were highly irresponsible.
Like take a pill, use another contraceptive, take a morning after pill. No excuse for letting it go that far along.

Call me Al

eagle eye wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with that.
I'm saying that I'm against abortion of a healthy fetus if the reason for it is irresponsibility.
As I've explained already there are plenty of drugs and other contraceptives available. Even after the fact you can sort yourself out before it gets to the stage that you are pregnant.

People's contraception (regular and emergency!) fails. It happens.
That doesn't make them irresponsible.
So how do police your assessment of irresponsibility?
I heard some anti-repealers promoting the idea that in some cases women would have to go before a panel who would judge whether or not she was actually raped.
Is this the approach you would prefer for irresponsibility?

Mr. CooL ICE

eagle eye wrote: »

take a morning after pill

*sigh*

Do you know how the MAP works?

Grayson

eagle eye wrote: »

It appeared from what I was reading here that something had been put in the Constitution.
I was unhappy, and I still am, that somebody can abort a healthy fetus because they were highly irresponsible.
Like take a pill, use another contraceptive, take a morning after pill. No excuse for letting it go that far along.

You do know that in the US over half the women who get terminations were using contraceptives? Contraceptives are far from useless but they're far from perfect.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

It appeared from what I was reading here that something had been put in the Constitution.
I was unhappy, and I still am, that somebody can abort a healthy fetus because they were highly irresponsible.
Like take a pill, use another contraceptive, take a morning after pill. No excuse for letting it go that far along.

Contraceptives fail. All the time.
Taking the MAP makes no difference if you have already ovulated that month and is unsafe and dangerous to take on a regular basis.
Please educate yourself.

Why do you think irresponsible people make good, caring, stable parents to children they do not want?

Call me Al

eagle eye wrote: »

It appeared from what I was reading here that something had been put in the Constitution.
I was unhappy, and I still am, that somebody can abort a healthy fetus because they were highly irresponsible.
Like take a pill, use another contraceptive, take a morning after pill. No excuse for letting it go that far along.

MAP doesn't always work, especually if you've already ovulated.

wench

eagle eye wrote: »

It appeared from what I was reading here that something had been put in the Constitution.
I was unhappy, and I still am, that somebody can abort a healthy fetus because they were highly irresponsible.
Like take a pill, use another contraceptive, take a morning after pill. No excuse for letting it go that far along.

There are no perfect methods of contraception.
Even with "responsible" usage, some women will get pregnant.


https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm

eagle eye

Call me Al wrote:

Is this the approach you would prefer for irresponsibility?

No.
If you are irresponsible, like you didn't try and make sure it didn't happen the I don't think you should be allowed abort.
I don't think you should be policing it anymore than they have to put the reason on the form of how they got pregnant and why they want to abort.
If they are willing to lie about, that is their business.
Why on Earth you bring rape into this is beyond me. I've made it very clear what I'm against. I've made it clear that there are many good reasons for an abortion too.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

No.
If you are irresponsible, like you didn't try and make sure it didn't happen the I don't think you should be allowed abort.
I don't think you should be policing it anymore than they have to put the reason on the form of how they got pregnant and why they want to abort.
If they are willing to lie about, that is their business.
Why on Earth you bring rape into this is beyond me. I've made it very clear what I'm against. I've made it clear that there are many good reasons for an abortion too.

Or we could just trust the woman that she isn't in a position to have a child right now, not cast any judgement, and let her request a termination for the reasons she herself finds necessary, up till the 12 week mark.

There are no "good" and "bad" abortions.
It is what it is. It doesn't become something different if there happened to be contraception used, because there is the same end result.

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

No.
If you are irresponsible, like you didn't try and make sure it didn't happen the I don't think you should be allowed abort.
I don't think you should be policing it anymore than they have to put the reason on the form of how they got pregnant and why they want to abort.
If they are willing to lie about, that is their business.
Why on Earth you bring rape into this is beyond me. I've made it very clear what I'm against. I've made it clear that there are many good reasons for an abortion too.

Who gets to decide if she was "responsible" enough? What if contraception was used but didn't work, will you want to then know why it didn't work?

Was it user error, manufacturer defect etc. Your ideas are ridiculous and unworkable, and actually have no purpose other than making you feel better yourself.

Can we extend this to voting too? Have people in the polling station ask voters why they voted they way they did, and if they haven't voted responsibly their vote is not accepted.

seamus

eagle eye wrote: »

If you are irresponsible, like you didn't try and make sure it didn't happen the I don't think you should be allowed abort.

So now you're veering into idealism, not practicality.

You're entitled to that moral judgement, but you have to acknowledge that it's impossible to enforce a rule that says, "abortions only for responsible people".

It is possible to be entirely responsible and still have an unwanted pregnancy.

Sycamore Tree

What are the Iona nutters up to these days?

I hope they are doing lots of confessions to atone for all the lies they told during the referendum(s).

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

eagle eye wrote: »

No.
If you are irresponsible, like you didn't try and make sure it didn't happen the I don't think you should be allowed abort.
I don't think you should be policing it anymore than they have to put the reason on the form of how they got pregnant and why they want to abort.
If they are willing to lie about, that is their business.
Why on Earth you bring rape into this is beyond me. I've made it very clear what I'm against. I've made it clear that there are many good reasons for an abortion too.

Why bother with that exercise in complete futility? Make rape victims, people living in a domestic violence situation etc fill that out on a form just so that you can feel better that the bold girls having risky sex are very mildly inconvenienced by having to lie on the form?

Why are some reasons good enough for an abortion and others not? Because of the inherent humanity of the foetus? If so, where's the line? How physically I'll do you have to be for it to be worth a termination? If you get dragged into a field and raped does that get you as much as getting raped when you were passed out at a party? And how the Christ do you legislate for that?

If it's not the foetus then what is it?

Call me Al

eagle eye wrote: »

No.
If you are irresponsible, like you didn't try and make sure it didn't happen the I don't think you should be allowed abort.
I don't think you should be policing it anymore than they have to put the reason on the form of how they got pregnant and why they want to abort.
If they are willing to lie about, that is their business.
Why on Earth you bring rape into this is beyond me. I've made it very clear what I'm against. I've made it clear that there are many good reasons for an abortion too.

The reason I brought up the panel approach (rape was completely beside the point) suggested by anti-repeal campaigners is because it involves strangers sitting down making moral/value-judgements (which are invariably nothing to do with healthcare) on women who are requesting medical treatment.

dotsman

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

People who didnt like the brexit result want a second referendum.

Why wouldnt people who dont like the abortion result seek a second referendum.

Its equally absurd. I voted no.

It's not about people "not liking the brexit result" wanting a second referendum. It's about the fact that it won by only a tiny margin, with lots of uncertainty, unknowns and lies in the debate prior to the vote. In the 2.5 years since, a lot has happened, a lot more things have become clear a lot of lies have been exposed and there is now reason to believe that the result no longer reflects the current will of the people.

The people who "don't like the abortion result" don't want a second referendum. Nobody is asking for that - where did you get that crazy idea from? A second referendum would make no sense as there was a huge majority in favour of repeal, the people mostly knew and understood the topic they were voting on, and nothing has really changed in the 7 months since.

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

51.9% was enough to win.

The margin was irrelevant

The margin is extremely very relevant when it comes to determining the impact people changing their minds has. If a there are only 5 voters of a difference between win/loss of a referendum, then once 5 voters subsequently change their mind, their is an argument to be made that the result no longer reflects the democratic will of the people and another one should be held. If there are 5 million votes separating the sides, then you need to change 5 millions peoples minds (all in the same direction) before that argument can be made.

eagle eye

SusieBlue wrote:

There are no "good" and "bad" abortions. It is what it is. It doesn't become something different if there happened to be contraception used, because there is the same end result.

I think there is huge difference between being negligent and responsible.
If somebody uses contraception and it doesn't work I'm not against them having an abortion.
I'm against somebody who doesn't even try to prevent it happening from having an abortion.

Hotblack Desiato

eagle eye wrote: »

I think there is huge difference between being negligent and responsible.

You'll have to clarify your terminology a bit.

Going into a polling booth and voting to change the constitution, the fundamental legislative basis for the state, while having little or no clue about what it is you're actually voting on, would that be negligent or irresponsible?

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

I think there is huge difference between being negligent and responsible.
If somebody uses contraception and it doesn't work I'm not against them having an abortion.
I'm against somebody who doesn't even try to prevent it happening from having an abortion.

Why?

In both a pregnancy is being terminated.

gandalf

eagle eye wrote: »

I think there is huge difference between being negligent and responsible.
If somebody uses contraception and it doesn't work I'm not against them having an abortion.
I'm against somebody who doesn't even try to prevent it happening from having an abortion.

How do you prove that?

TBH it should be none of your business what another person does with regard to their own healthcare.

Most of us knew very well what we were asked to vote for and it was very clear what was being proposed as legislation if the 8th was repealed. That is what has been put in place (with the exception of the three day wait which I think is unnecessary).

eagle eye

amcalester wrote:

In both a pregnancy is being terminated.
Why?

I don't think there should be will nilly abortions.

gandalf

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think there should be will nilly abortions.

How do you police that? What are your metrics for a valid termination and an invalid one?

"Have you got your receipt for those condoms you said you used"....Nope sorry no abortion for you hussy!

:rolleyes:

NuMarvel

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think there should be will nilly abortions.

Of all the women who have spoken about their abortions, not one of them struck me as being "willy nilly" about it.

You may not agree with their reasons or circumstances, but that's far from being cavalier about having one.

Neyite

eagle eye wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with that.
I'm saying that I'm against abortion of a healthy fetus if the reason for it is irresponsibility.
As I've explained already there are plenty of drugs and other contraceptives available. Even after the fact you can sort yourself out before it gets to the stage that you are pregnant.

It's ironic that when voting, you were irresponsible, factually ignorant and blasé of the information freely available but went ahead and voted anyway. Then you turn around to lecture everyone on being more responsible, informed and careful when having sex. :pac: Just as well people don't shag the way you vote otherwise it would be the floodgates that the pro-life scum claimed will happen.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

New to the thread. Just wondering what people’s views were on the protests that took place outside a GP’s practice in Galway. Should they be able to do it?

My take on it is that they should have the right to stand there with their signs to the extent that they aren’t disrupting public order. They’re not being coercive or harrassing anyone. There just voicing opposition to an elective procedure they disagree with on a moral level. There’s nothing unruly about it.

And any girl or woman between the age of 10 and 60 will be scrutinised and probably harangued going into their GP by this shower of scumbags. Probably while wearing body-cams.

I've never had an abortion in my life. Nor do I ever see myself wanting to access one. Do I deserve my face plastered on their You-Tube propaganda just because I attend my GP for my thyroid or dodgy knee, merely because I am female and therefore have a potentially functioning womb? They can fcuk right off.

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think there should be will nilly abortions.

Thats not really a reason though.

You don't seem to have an objection to abortion itself, it's the reason the abortion is needed that causes you concern but you haven't articulated or expanded on that point.

It seems to me, from your posts on this thread, that your issue isn't really with abortion but the inequality that women now get to decide whether they become a parent but men don't have the same option.

eagle eye

gandalf wrote:

How do you police that? What are your metrics for a valid termination and an invalid one?

I don't want to 'police' it. I want a law in place that says you are not allowed to do it.
I've already explained what I'd like to see above.

gandalf

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't want to 'police' it. I want a law in place that says you are not allowed to do it.
I've already explained what I'd like to see above.

Sigh, how do you propose to have this "law" work? How do you prove that a person was "responsible" versus "negligent" (your words)? What burden of proof is there?

And yes if you put a "law" in place it has to be policed.

IMHO some people shouldn't be allowed to vote, guess which camp you're in.

eagle eye

amcalester wrote:

It seems to me, from your posts on this thread, that your issue isn't really with abortion but the inequality that women now get to decide whether they become a parent but men don't have the same option.

Women have plenty of options. Take a pill or use some other form of contraceptive. Take a pill afterwards.
Abortion of a fetus shouldn't be an option just because you were irresponsible.
I think I've made it quite clear, I'm not against a woman having an abortion if the contraceptive doesn't work so long as they were responsible enough to use one in the first place.

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

Women have plenty of options. Take a pill or use some other form of contraceptive. Take a pill afterwards.
Abortion of a fetus shouldn't be an option just because you were irresponsible.

But why not? It is an option for someone who was "responsible", so really what difference does it make?

The result of an abortion doesn't change depending on the reason for it, so why is the reason relevant.

What if the women was "irresponsible" but now has a life threatening condition, or a FFA, can she get an abortion or does her being "irresponsible" mean no abortion under any circumstances?

Is there a hierarchy, and if so what is it?

NuMarvel

eagle eye wrote: »

Women have plenty of options. Take a pill or use some other form of contraceptive. Take a pill afterwards.
Abortion of a fetus shouldn't be an option just because you were irresponsible.
I think I've made it quite clear, I'm not against a woman having an abortion if the contraceptive doesn't work so long as they were responsible enough to use one in the first place.

What you haven't made at all clear is how this would be practically translated into legislation. Nor do you seem especially interested in explaining how it would be done.

In any case, it's all moot. The law has been passed, and the contents are no surprise to anyone who was interested. They were known months in advance of the referendum, and there was a new headline every time a politician spoke about them.

You're welcome to campaign to change the law. But if you want any hope of being listened to, you're going to have to explain how your changes would be enforced.

Call me Al

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't want to 'police' it. I want a law in place that says you are not allowed to do it.
I've already explained what I'd like to see above.

But if you want a law then you want it policed. That's the whole point of the law. So how do you propose it's put into practice?
Filling out a form asking what methods did the woman use to prevent conception? Should they asked to provide evidence of this?

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

Women have plenty of options. Take a pill or use some other form of contraceptive. Take a pill afterwards.
Abortion of a fetus shouldn't be an option just because you were irresponsible.
I think I've made it quite clear, I'm not against a woman having an abortion if the contraceptive doesn't work so long as they were responsible enough to use one in the first place.

How would that be legally proven? How would the woman prove a condom was used?
Statements from her partner, maybe a reference of good character from her employer? Bank statements to prove she's a "responsible" person?

I've asked you several times now and you haven't answered, why are you so determined to weaponise innocent children into punishments to be bestowed onto their "careless" and "irresponsible" mothers?

Why do you think irresponsible, careless people who do not want a child would make a good parent?
Do you think its in the best interests of a child to be born to such a parent?

Why do you think its an acceptable fate to force a woman to gestate a pregnancy she does not want, just to dump the baby into foster care in the hope it may be "adopted" at best, or at worst, go through life stuck in the system?

None of these scenarios have the best interests of the child, woman, or society at heart, none.
Those scenarios satisfy your own personal morals on the issue and very little else.
Why should women you don't know have their choices restricted because you, a stranger they will never meet, don't agree with it?

dudara

eagle eye wrote: »

Women have plenty of options. Take a pill or use some other form of contraceptive. Take a pill afterwards.

Yes, we do have lots of options. And I’m going to let you in on a little secret. They don’t always work, no matter how diligent or careful you are.

Now, how do you propose to define someone being “negligent”? How you do propose that is defined in law so that it is clear and straightforward to understand?

And even if someone was negligent, or careless, are you comfortable with making them live with the results of that “mistake” for the next 18 years? Because that is what you are suggesting, an 18 year sentence.

eagle eye

amcalester wrote:

What if the women was "irresponsible" but now has a life threatening condition, or a FFA, can she get an abortion or does her being "irresponsible" mean no abortion under any circumstances?

These are all reasons why I voted to repeal the law.
I'm talking about a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who has been irresponsible.
And the policing is the medical practitioner. She has to fill out a form and that form decides if she is allowed to proceed. If somebody is willing to put lies on the form they can live with it.

Wrongway1985

Eagle Eye c'mon now reading your posts is prior election speak it's all been through before and the thoughts or arguments you've laid down are very suspect to come from someone who apparently voted Yes.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

These are all reasons why I voted to repeal the law.
I'm talking about a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who has been irresponsible.
And the policing is the medical practitioner. She has to fill out a form and that form decides if she is allowed to proceed. If somebody is willing to put lies on the form they can live with it.

Then it is essentially a pointless exercise.
Over the course of history women have been known to throw themselves down the stairs, drink bleach, stick coat hangers up themselves, commit suicide and in more recent times, order tablets on the internet and travel to other jurisdictions to terminate their pregnancies.

You think having to fill in and potentially lie on a form will phase them if they're in that desperate a situation they need to end their pregnancy?

Your whole idea just adds more humiliation and stress to what is already a difficult situation.
Contraception or no contraception makes absolutely no difference, the end result is the same.

Also interesting and disappointing to note your repeated blame of the woman, she didn't get pregnant by herself, what's the punishment for the equally "irresponsible" man in this scenario? Does he have to fill in any forms to prove he wasn't careless?

Mr. CooL ICE

eagle eye wrote: »

These are all reasons why I voted to repeal the law.
I'm talking about a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who has been irresponsible.
And the policing is the medical practitioner. She has to fill out a form and that form decides if she is allowed to proceed. If somebody is willing to put lies on the form they can live with it.

I've asked you multiple questions and you haven't answered. I understand that there are a lot of people posting questions to you. When so many people are talking to you, it's very hard to respond to everybody.

However, I'm after re-reading the last few pages and I noticed something. You haven't responded to anybody asking you a difficult question. You have been spouting the same rhetoric about "irresponsibility" and "morning after pill" and whatnot with zero substance. Seems to me that you're skipping these because you don't have the answers and not because there are too many posters replying to you.

So here is my opinion. I don't think you voted yes on May 25th. I think you are a No voter using debating tactics to make it look like you were deceived and lied to about the referendum. I think you are lying and I don't think you are worth responding to any more.

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

These are all reasons why I voted to repeal the law.
I'm talking about a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who has been irresponsible.
And the policing is the medical practitioner. She has to fill out a form and that form decides if she is allowed to proceed. If somebody is willing to put lies on the form they can live with it.

You'll still need guidelines for the doctor to follow, and you haven't given any indication on what these would be.

It all comes across as very curtain twitchy for no real purpose other than to make it more difficult for women to access medical treatment.

If I needed treatment, but could only access it if I met some made up moral criteria, I'd lie every single time. Wouldn't even think twice about it, because it makes no difference.

Lying doesn't result in someone else being denied the treatment I received, doesnt change the cost, the duration anything.

Asking the question is pointless and serves no purpose other than to appease people like you. And sure, who are you?

Calina

eagle eye wrote: »

These are all reasons why I voted to repeal the law.
I'm talking about a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who has been irresponsible.
And the policing is the medical practitioner. She has to fill out a form and that form decides if she is allowed to proceed. If somebody is willing to put lies on the form they can live with it.

In other words, pregnancy as punishment. You must really, really hate women.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

I've asked you multiple questions and you haven't answered. I understand that there are a lot of people posting questions to you. When so many people are talking to you, it's very hard to respond to everybody.

However, I'm after re-reading the last few pages and I noticed something. You haven't responded to anybody asking you a difficult question. You have been spouting the same rhetoric about "irresponsibility" and "morning after pill" and whatnot with zero substance. Seems to me that you're skipping these because you don't have the answers and not because there are too many posters replying to you.

So here is my opinion. I don't think you voted yes on May 25th. I think you are a No voter using debating tactics to make it look like you were deceived and lied to about the referendum. I think you are lying and I don't think you are worth responding to any more.

To be fair, I was out canvassing and there were plenty people who were voting Yes but weren't exactly delighted about it, for variations on the same reasoning eagle eye has. They didn't like the idea of abortion full stop, or didn't like the idea of "irresponsible" or "lifestyle" abortions. But they recognised the harm the 8th was causing and that it had to go. Most of them were considerably better informed though I have to say.

Like it or not without voters Like that the majority wouldn't have been close to as big as it was, and there are still LOTS of people in this country for whom the nitty gritty of abortion essentially boils down to judging women's sex lives.

Trust me I'm normally one who sees pro-life lies and scheming everywhere, but this honestly just seems like a bad debater with unsustainable positions on the issue. Pick any thread on boards and you'll find people avoiding direct questions and repeating themselves :pac:

ELM327

Elisabeth Wrong Stork wrote: »

To be fair, I was out canvassing and there were plenty people who were voting Yes but weren't exactly delighted about it, for variations on the same reasoning eagle eye has. They didn't like the idea of abortion full stop, or didn't like the idea of "irresponsible" or "lifestyle" abortions. But they recognised the harm the 8th was causing and that it had to go. Most of them were considerably better informed though I have to say.

Like it or not without voters Like that the majority wouldn't have been close to as big as it was, and there are still LOTS of people in this country for whom the nitty gritty of abortion essentially boils down to judging women's sex lives.

Trust me I'm normally one who sees pro-life lies and scheming everywhere, but this honestly just seems like a bad debater with unsustainable positions on the issue. Pick any thread on boards and you'll find people avoiding direct questions and repeating themselves :pac:

A lot of yes voters I know (eg my father's generation) would be yes voters because even though they don't like, want, or even want to discuss, abortion available in Ireland, the previous alternative was worse. Women dying, women not getting cancer treatment, x rays declined, women sent bleeding onto ships/planes to the UK.


I do accept that the huge YES majority included many who for whom abortion is still unpalatable but they recognised they did not have jurisdiction over those women's bodies.

volchitsa

eagle eye wrote: »

These are all reasons why I voted to repeal the law.
I'm talking about a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who has been irresponsible.
And the policing is the medical practitioner. She has to fill out a form and that form decides if she is allowed to proceed. If somebody is willing to put lies on the form they can live with it.

What's the point of doing it then? A law that is based on forcing people to lie to get what they feel they need, but with no sanctions for having lied just discredits the whole legal system.

Even the rather crazy US immigration forms where you're asked if you're a terrorist are (I suppose) based on the idea that if the person is caught out in a lie it makes it easier to deport them or whatever, rather than having to go through a court case for what may be some minor link to terrorism.