safe zones around abortion providers

The Bishop Basher

VinLieger wrote: »

They weren't for social reasons, if your going to quote the statistics quote them correctly, they were for Mental health reasons

Why is no one tackling the mental health epidemic then ?

Nearly a third of these women are under 22 and yet I can’t find any other instance of a mental health issue that targets that demographic quite so specifically.

It’s an odd one..

ELM327

Rennaws wrote: »

Why is no one tackling the mental health epidemic then ?

Nearly a third of these women are under 22 and yet I can’t find any other instance of a mental health issue that targets that demographic quite so specifically.

It’s an odd one..

We also need to tackle the rape epidemic, the lack of sexual education epidemic, the culture of shame epidemic and above all the "my choice should be for everyone else too" epidemic - one which you and your ilk seem particularly afflicted by

The Bishop Basher

ELM327 wrote: »

We also need to tackle the rape epidemic, the lack of sexual education epidemic, the culture of shame epidemic and above all the "my choice should be for everyone else too" epidemic - one which you and your ilk seem particularly afflicted by

You didn’t answer the question though..

What is this epidemic, why does it specifically target women in their early 20’s and what are they doing to resolve it ?

Is it cured by abortion ?

ELM327

Rennaws wrote: »

You didn’t answer the question though..

What is this epidemic, why does it specifically target women in their early 20’s and what are they doing to resolve it ?

Is it cured by abortion ?

Did I not?

ELM327 wrote: »

We also need to tackle the rape epidemic, the lack of sexual education epidemic, the culture of shame epidemic and above all the "my choice should be for everyone else too" epidemic - one which you and your ilk seem particularly afflicted by

amcalester

Rennaws wrote: »

You didn’t answer the question though..

What is this epidemic, why does it specifically target women in their early 20’s and what are they doing to resolve it ?

Is it cured by abortion ?

What epidemic? You were the first person to use that word on this thread.

Hitman3000

Rennaws wrote:

Why is no one tackling the mental health epidemic then ?

Surely your concern should be addressed to the British government?

fishy_fishy

screamer wrote: »

If people's own conscience will allow them to abort a baby or fetus or whatever you wish to label it, I don't see how protestors would make any difference TBF. And I also don't see people protesting either, it's a done deal abortion will just become part of life (excuse the pun) in Ireland.

Abortion already is part of life in Ireland, it just requires foreign travel.

Protesters are a real threat. The no campaign behaved disgracefully outside maternity hospitals during the referendum campaign. Their UK and US counterparts behave disgracefully outside clinics there. There's no reason to believe they'll behave in any other manner, and so there's every reason to insist they be unable to protest around hospitals and gp clinics and wherever else will be providing abortion services.

iguana

RobertKK wrote: »

They show the birthing process on TV with explicit video images of the baby exiting the woman - nothing wrong with it perfectly natural, but apparently an abortion which is perfectly fine we are told by supporters of abortion services, but it can't be shown on TV and is something that should be supported but not seen according to its advocates. If it is perfectly fine then it shouldn't be a big deal to show an abortion on TV.
Then people could protest if deemed necessary based on video footage...

Except if people could actually see an abortion it would almost certainly have the opposite effect that you think it would. I've always been pro-choice, but when I was younger I'd have been the type of pro-choicer who didn't like the idea of abortion. Then I had a series of miscarriages in my late 20s and early 30s, that happened in the exact way that an abortion pill would work and my view changed completely. The days of absolute physical agony of the miscarriage along with the passing of what literally was just a tiny, tiny clump of cells. Something that may have emotionally felt like 'my baby' but I could be under no illusion was 'a baby' because it very, very clearly wasn't. The 'baby' was nothing more than my emotional attachment, I was bereaved, for a woman who didn't want to be pregnant the relief would be enormous.

Anyone seeing that would have nothing but sympathy for the woman going through so much pain to pass something so utterly insignificant at that stage. Nobody would be under the slightest illusion whatsoever that the embryo could think or feel anything whatsoever. Nor would they be under the illusion that a woman would choose to suffer through the pain and indignity of it all willy nilly instead of making sensible contraceptive choices.

So go ahead, show a woman in agony for 3 to 4 days. Show her loosing far more blood and uterine lining than is normal. Show her blood pressure and iron levels fall off a cliff and make her feel like crap for weeks or even months as her body slowly gets back to normal. And show the appleseed-bottlecap sized, blobby sea-monkey type thing that comes out. People would be lining up to make her cups of tea, not condemning her.

The Bishop Basher

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Surely your concern should be addressed to the British government?

Well no not really. This is boards where we discuss things and given we’re about to introduce a “medical treatment” that has been widely available in the UK for many years it would seem pertinent to ask some questions about their data and how the stats relate to this mental illness that appears to be afflicting nearly 200,000 women a year over there.

For starters, 85% of them are single. Why ?

They also fit into a very consistent age demographic which rises sharply in their early 20’s and tapers off from mid 20’s. Again, why ?

The instance of the disease has risen steadily since the introduction of abortion in the UK. It doesn’t seem to have existed prior to that or at least wasn’t recorded as such. Why ?

It also seems to have a high instance of reoccurrence given that nearly 40% of these women have already had an abortion and were obviously not cured the first time which also begs the question, why repeat an ineffective treatment ?

Why is this rate of reoccurrence steadily rising ?

And why are we introducing something so clearly ineffective for this mental health issue ?

And all of this without even getting into a discussion around the potential for follow on mental health issues following the procedure.

I have no issue at all with abortion being legal, safe and easily accessible when medically necessary to protect the mother. I’m asking about the 97% of abortions carried out every year in the UK on “mental health” grounds..

lawred2

judeboy101 wrote: »

How constitutional is it to ban peaceful protest in public places. I think anyone who stands outside an abortion clinic has a right to do so, so long as they do not get violent or impede movement. I also think it's a scumbag move, but that's a personal opinion. My worry is gov could expend this 'safe zone' idea to a lot of areas, shutting down legit protests.

pfffft

asif

Hitman3000

Rennaws wrote:

Well no not really. This is boards where we discuss things and given we’re about to introduce a “medical treatment†that has been widely available in the UK for many years it would seem pertinent to ask some questions about their data and how the stats relate to this mental illness that appears to be afflicting nearly 200,000 women a year over there.

Again you are asking questions that relate to a different jurisdiction to further your own agenda, but are completely irrelevant to this country.

ELM327

Rennaws wrote: »

Well no not really. This is boards where we discuss things and given we’re about to introduce a “medical treatment” that has been widely available in the UK for many years it would seem pertinent to ask some questions about their data and how the stats relate to this mental illness that appears to be afflicting nearly 200,000 women a year over there.

For starters, 85% of them are single. Why ?

They also fit into a very consistent age demographic which rises sharply in their early 20’s and tapers off from mid 20’s. Again, why ?

The instance of the disease has risen steadily since the introduction of abortion in the UK. It doesn’t seem to have existed prior to that or at least wasn’t recorded as such. Why ?

It also seems to have a high instance of reoccurrence given that nearly 40% of these women have already had an abortion and were obviously not cured the first time which also begs the question, why repeat an ineffective treatment ?

Why is this rate of reoccurrence steadily rising ?

And why are we introducing something so clearly ineffective for this mental health issue ?

And all of this without even getting into a discussion around the potential for follow on mental health issues following the procedure.

I have no issue at all with abortion being legal, safe and easily accessible when medically necessary to protect the mother. I’m asking about the 97% of abortions carried out every year in the UK on “mental health” grounds..

You cannot say "mental health". Mental health is a real issue and imbeciles like you are part of the stigma problem.


The rest of your post is tripe as you are asking questions based on the english system. This is not england.


They do not have abortion on demand. They have abortion up to 24 weeks once you tick a box. The box states mental health but in reality this is a legacy of the way the law was introduced. It was a token to the anti abortion groups to state it wouldnt be abortion on demand. Which technically it isnt, but in practice it is.


In Ireland we will have abortion on demand, up to 12 weeks. So instead of using the UK stats - which are of little relevance here due to different parameters - wait until safe free and legal abortions happen in Ireland then use those statistics to invalidate your own arguments.

Hector Bellend

Maybe it's just me but isn't there a delicious irony about the idea of safe zones around clinics that are designed to end the lives of unwanted babies.

ELM327

Hector Bellend wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but isn't there a delicious irony about the idea of safe zones around clinics that are designed to end the lives of unwanted babies.

At least you are eponymous.

lawred2

Hector Bellend wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but isn't there a delicious irony about the idea of safe zones around clinics that are designed to end the lives of unwanted babies.

it's just you

Hector Bellend

ELM327 wrote: »

At least you are eponymous.

The old personal insult. I take it you have nothing better to offer.

SusieBlue

Rennaws wrote: »

Well no not really. This is boards where we discuss things and given we’re about to introduce a “medical treatment” that has been widely available in the UK for many years it would seem pertinent to ask some questions about their data and how the stats relate to this mental illness that appears to be afflicting nearly 200,000 women a year over there.

For starters, 85% of them are single. Why ?

They also fit into a very consistent age demographic which rises sharply in their early 20’s and tapers off from mid 20’s. Again, why ?

The instance of the disease has risen steadily since the introduction of abortion in the UK. It doesn’t seem to have existed prior to that or at least wasn’t recorded as such. Why ?

It also seems to have a high instance of reoccurrence given that nearly 40% of these women have already had an abortion and were obviously not cured the first time which also begs the question, why repeat an ineffective treatment ?

Why is this rate of reoccurrence steadily rising ?

And why are we introducing something so clearly ineffective for this mental health issue ?

And all of this without even getting into a discussion around the potential for follow on mental health issues following the procedure.

I have no issue at all with abortion being legal, safe and easily accessible when medically necessary to protect the mother. I’m asking about the 97% of abortions carried out every year in the UK on “mental health” grounds..

The arguments you just made were done to death over a plethora of threads over the course of about 18 months before the referendum. The vast majority of the public didn't buy into the hateful scaremongering.
You lost. Get over it.

And as for the bolded, that simply sums up your entire position. Its none of your business why they're single, stop trying to slut shame women you don't even know.

amcalester

Rennaws wrote: »

Well no not really. This is boards where we discuss things and given we’re about to introduce a “medical treatment” that has been widely available in the UK for many years it would seem pertinent to ask some questions about their data and how the stats relate to this mental illness that appears to be afflicting nearly 200,000 women a year over there.

For starters, 85% of them are single. Why ?

They also fit into a very consistent age demographic which rises sharply in their early 20’s and tapers off from mid 20’s. Again, why ?

The instance of the disease has risen steadily since the introduction of abortion in the UK. It doesn’t seem to have existed prior to that or at least wasn’t recorded as such. Why ?

It also seems to have a high instance of reoccurrence given that nearly 40% of these women have already had an abortion and were obviously not cured the first time which also begs the question, why repeat an ineffective treatment ?

Why is this rate of reoccurrence steadily rising ?

And why are we introducing something so clearly ineffective for this mental health issue ?

And all of this without even getting into a discussion around the potential for follow on mental health issues following the procedure.

I have no issue at all with abortion being legal, safe and easily accessible when medically necessary to protect the mother. I’m asking about the 97% of abortions carried out every year in the UK on “mental health” grounds..

There's a lot of stupid in this post. A lot.

The Bishop Basher

ELM327 wrote: »

You cannot say "mental health". Mental health is a real issue and imbeciles like you are part of the stigma problem.

You lose me when you start name calling..

Why do you guys always revert to anger and name calling.

I’m out..

Hitman3000

Rennaws wrote:

I’m out..

Mind the door....

Grayson

Rennaws wrote: »

For starters, 85% of them are single. Why ?

I'm taking it you have a problem with single people having sex. Otherwise why even mention that they are single?



And as for the OP and safe zones, I'm all for them. The people who "protest" outside them aren't protesters, they are there to harass the patients and staff. They are nasty, vile people who take joy in being absolute cnuts.

If people want to protest, then work away. Plan a march, get garda permission and have a nice walk on a sunny day. But don't target women who are vulnerable at the worst possible time. It's not about protesting it's about causing pain.

Grayson

Rennaws wrote: »

Why do you guys always revert to anger and name calling.

If you think being called an imbecile is bad, you should check out the video's of protesters in Belfast. And check out the ones in the US where they use megaphones at point blank range to scream at women.

Bob24

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Psychological violence

Over the years I have several times felt uneasy about protesters against the fur coats shop at the Trinity end of Grafton Street.

It could definitly also be classified as psychological violence. Shaming the shop owners and customers alike on a very recurrent basis, preventing them from operating as a normal store (on several occasions I’ve seen them having to close their metal curtain as protester were standing and shouting literally just a step away from the shop window). It also is social violence as it is clearly affecting their business and their personal lives.

So if psychological violence (through words or recurring presence at a specific location) is to be banned these activists (and many others) should also be shut down.

The problem is that in both cases (this one and abortion protests), protesters will see it as a violation of freedom of speech and justify their actions based on moral beliefs.

As a society we can find it acceptable or not, but at least we need to be consistant in the way we deal with it, and not apply double standards depending on which side of the moral fence we sit on related to a specific issue (which is very hard and which is why I would myself be against laws to restrict this type of protests at specific locations or related to specific topics, and prefer laws which remain neutral in terms of the location/topic and more generally define where the right to protest ends and where the right to be protected from public shaming starts in a way which can be applied to all situations).

ELM327

Hector Bellend wrote: »

The old personal insult. I take it you have nothing better to offer.

when people add rubbish and inflammatory tripe about deh ded bebbehs then it will be met in kind.
When you have reached the mental age where you are able to carry a discussion then I will entertain you.

ELM327

Rennaws wrote: »

You lose me when you start name calling..

Why do you guys always revert to anger and name calling.

I’m out..

Couldnt give a crap to be honest.
You want to restrict women's rights and stigmatise mental health and expect respect in return? Good luck with that.


Edit: I have received a ban and card for the post earlier.
This is the second time these people have gotten me zealously acted upon.
I must stop falling for it.

Kimbot

ELM327 wrote: »

when people add rubbish and inflammatory tripe about deh ded bebbehs then it will be met in kind.
When you have reached the mental age where you are able to carry a discussion then I will entertain you.

MOD And when you have reached the age to hold a civil discussion I will think about letting you post in this thread again but for now you are thread banned so dont post in this thread again.

_Dara_

Dole Scrounging Vegan Crossfitter wrote: »

According to this nutjob, 97% of pregnancies end in abortion.

That clip remains hilarious.

erica74

Rennaws wrote: »

You can put away the faux confusion.

Not one poster on this thread has said they’re desperate to see an abortion.

That’s entirely of your own imagination.

I would have though the point being made was fairly obvious, that said if you need it explained I’m sure someone will oblige.

Meow.

Hector Bellend wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but isn't there a delicious irony about the idea of safe zones around clinics that are designed to end the lives of unwanted babies.

Absolutely delicious, nom nom.

Rennaws wrote: »

I’m out..

Yipee.

If there's one thing I've learned across all of the threads on here relating to abortion it's that if end of the road likes a post, it can go in the bin.

It's also interesting that the antichoice crowd still remain completely and utterly close minded. How embarrassing for them.

The Bishop Basher

Grayson wrote: »

If you think being called an imbecile is bad, you should check out the video's of protesters in Belfast. And check out the ones in the US where they use megaphones at point blank range to scream at women.

I’ve been called much much worse and I have a thick skin but I do expect that we play the ball and not the man in these debates.

I would in no way condone the kind of behavior you describe by the way, by either side on any issue.

But ELM123 also made 2 very incorrect assumptions about me which is the only reason I’m responding..

Firstly I voted in favour of repealing the 8th so I have no desire to “restrict women’s rights”.

And secondly, I spent 12 years battling severe and crippling anxiety. I was open and honest with everyone around me from the outset, long before it was trendy to talk about these issues. I don’t need any lectures from anyone on stigmatizing the mentally ill. I’ve lived it.

Both are backed up by my posting history.

My original point, maybe badly made, was actually in relation to the level of dishonesty in this disussion and the wider debate in making this out to be primarily a health issue when for the vast majority of people it is actually a contraceptive issue.

That was all.

Hitman3000

Rennaws wrote:

My original point, maybe badly made, was actually in relation to the level of dishonesty in this disussion and the wider debate in making this out to be primarily a health issue when for the vast majority of people it is actually a contraceptive issue.

Actually you picked figures from a different jurisdiction to suggest that abortion is for the majority of people a contraceptive issue perhaps it is but these figures do not apply to Ireland. Doesn't apply as there are no figures for unrestricted abortion in Ireland yet and to the best of my knowledge those seeking an abortion up to 12 weeks are not required to give reasons.

Hannibal_Smith

Rennaws wrote: »

My original point, maybe badly made, was actually in relation to the level of dishonesty in this disussion and the wider debate in making this out to be primarily a health issue when for the vast majority of people it is actually a contraceptive issue.

That was all.

But the point is, the reasons why a woman might want an abortion are none of your business.

There maybe instances where contraception has failed. There maybe instances where no contraception was used. But if the woman does not want to continue with the pregnancy why is that anyone else's business?

Kimbot

erica74 wrote: »

If there's one thing I've learned across all of the threads on here relating to abortion it's that if end of the road likes a post, it can go in the bin.

MOD This is a dig towards another poster, cut it out before bans are issued. Now everybody can we get back on to topic please or else the thread is been closed off.

Billgirlylegs

judeboy101 wrote: »

How constitutional is it to ban peaceful protest in public places. I think anyone who stands outside an abortion clinic has a right to do so, so long as they do not get violent or impede movement. I also think it's a scumbag move, but that's a personal opinion. My worry is gov could expend this 'safe zone' idea to a lot of areas, shutting down legit protests.

It isn't constitutional to ban protests.
Do we know who is trying to ban protests?
Presumably, you (or I ) can't protest everywhere or anywhere
Anyway what is the protest against?
And what is an abortion clinic?
Where is there one so I can see what it looks like?

Maybe I can protest about people who are hanging about outside abortion clinics, whatever and wherever they are.

I think you might be overestimating the abilities of our Government generally to enforce a police state.

The Bishop Basher

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Actually you picked figures from a different jurisdiction to suggest that abortion is for the majority of people a contraceptive issue perhaps it is but these figures do not apply to Ireland.

Well they're the closest we have and we compare ourselves to them in all sorts of ways. We were certainly happy enough to reference them at times when debating in favour of repeal so I see no reason to diverge from that now.

SusieBlue wrote: »

stop trying to slut shame women you don't even know.

Well it's the first time i've ever been accused of doing that..

Maybe it's because I have 2 daughters but i really really dislike that word. I cringe when i hear it and I never use it myself.

That aside, with our first being very much a surprise when we were young, clueless and carefree, i'd be the last person to judge anyone in that regard.

It seems in your rush to virtue signal, you completely missed the point of my post but that's ok.. I'm not looking to find agreement.

I just wasn't prepared to let your scurrilous accusation go without reply.

amcalester

Rennaws wrote: »

It seems in your rush to virtue signal, you completely missed the point of my post but that's ok.. I'm not looking to find agreement.

I think we've all missed the point of your posts.

Initially you claimed that 97% of abortions were "social abortions", that was a lie.

Then you tried to introduce the idea that there was a mental health epidemic in the UK among young women.

After that you seemed to suggest that abortion was being used in the UK to treat mental illness.

You're all over the place and just throwing mud hoping some of it will stick, no wonder people are missing the point.

SusieBlue

Rennaws wrote: »

Well it's the first time i've ever been accused of doing that..

Maybe it's because I have 2 daughters but i really really dislike that word. I cringe when i hear it and I never use it myself.

That aside, with our first being very much a surprise when we were young, clueless and carefree, i'd be the last person to judge anyone in that regard.

It seems in your rush to virtue signal, you completely missed the point of my post but that's ok.. I'm not looking to find agreement.

I just wasn't prepared to let your scurrilous accusation go without reply.

Why else would you be bringing up a womans relationship status unless its to cast judgment on it? What relevance does it have? Why are you questioning it?

Idle Passerby

Rennaws wrote: »

Maybe it's because I have 2 daughters but i really really dislike that word. I cringe when i hear it and I never use it myself.
.

What age are your daughters? Have a chat with them on the subject when they reach an age to be able to form their own opinions and get pregnant, and like many many others you might finally change your tune when someone you love presents an alternative argument and you can no longer continue to see women who get abortions as an anonymous hoard.

The Bishop Basher

Idle Passerby wrote: »

What age are your daughters? Have a chat with them on the subject when they reach an age to be able to form their own opinions and get pregnant, and like many many others you might finally change your tune when someone you love presents an alternative argument and you can no longer continue to see women who get abortions as an anonymous hoard.

They’re 16 and 20. We had many great discussions in the lead up to the referendum. One of them was in favour, one of them not. I respect both of their views equally as they did mine. We all differ to some degree and that’s ok.

Back on topic, I’m very nervous about safe zones for anything. It smacks of the language used by illiberals in college campus’s up and down Canada and the US and the further away we stay from that crazy self entitled ideology the better..

People will always disagree with each other to some degree but that needn’t lead to anger or disharmony.

Unfortunately this does seem to be less and less the case though.

We already have laws in place to protect citizens accessing these services should it become necessary but who’s ever going to know why someone’s visiting a GP’s surgery..

Protesting would be pointless and safe zones set a precedent I wouldn’t like to see set..

Grayson

Rennaws wrote: »

They’re 16 and 20. We had many great discussions in the lead up to the referendum. One of them was in favour, one of them not. I respect both of their views equally as they did mine. We all differ to some degree and that’s ok.

Back on topic, I’m very nervous about safe zones for anything. It smacks of the language used by illiberals in college campus’s up and down Canada and the US and the further away we stay from that crazy self entitled ideology the better..

People will always disagree with each other to some degree but that needn’t lead to anger or disharmony.

Unfortunately this does seem to be less and less the case though.

We already have laws in place to protect citizens accessing these services should it become necessary but who’s ever going to know why someone’s visiting a GP’s surgery..

Protesting would be pointless and safe zones set a precedent I wouldn’t like to see set..

Safe spaces in college are different. Non protest zones like this are actually more of a right wing thing. Bush labeled the free speech zones. Areas away from convention halls where people can protest.

But as I said, it won't be protesting. It'll be harassment of women who are availing of a medical service. Many will be in a very delicate state of mind.

This is what it's like in Belfast. I think very few in this thread want to see something similar.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/we-christened-your-dead-baby-belfast-clinics-anti-abortion-marie-stopes

Hitman3000

Rennaws wrote:

Well they're the closest we have and we compare ourselves to them in all sorts of ways. We were certainly happy enough to reference them at times when debating in favour of repeal so I see no reason to diverge from that now.

Actually the no campaign was happy to reference the UK throughout the entire debate although entirely on a scaremongering platform,but it again it's not relevant to Ireland despite your constant attempts to suggest it is. Whether you see no reason or not to divirge is immaterial. You are attempting to compare apples with oranges. The referendum is over the lies and b.s. wasn't bought by 66% of the voters who turned out, move on. Anyway this thread is about a proposed inclusion in legislation to keep the cave dwellers and mysognists away from vulnerable women. Surely that is reasonable.

Outlaw Pete

Idle Passerby wrote: »

Have a chat with them on the subject when they reach an age to be able to form their own opinions and get pregnant, and like many many others you might finally change your tune when someone you love presents an alternative argument and you can no longer continue to see women who get abortions as an anonymous hoard.

Why are you presuming that his daughters will have prochoice views when they reach a certain age? Many Irish women are prolife.

Some examples:





To those that will predictably be set to reply with something like: 'Yeah, well, they lost the vote and so suck it up' etc: I suggest rereading this post and the one I'm replying to.

The Bishop Basher

Grayson wrote: »

But as I said, it won't be protesting. It'll be harassment of women who are availing of a medical service. Many will be in a very delicate state of mind.

Agreed and we have existing laws to deal with harassment.

If those laws aren’t fit for purpose let’s change them.

Setting up harassment free zones might be a form of compromise but the right to peacefully protest is a cornerstone of any legitimate democracy and chipping away at that sets a dangerous precedent particularly given the illiberal movement and it’s desire to shut down any form of debate or free speech on any issue that goes against the agenda..

WinnyThePoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why are you presuming that his daughters will have prochoice views when they reach a certain age? Many Irish women are prolife.

Some examples:





To those that will predictably be set to reply with something like: 'Yeah, well, they lost the vote and so suck it up' etc: I suggest rereading this post and the one I'm replying to.

It was landslide victory wasn't it?.

kylith

For all the people who don’t agree with this buffer zone.

Imagine you are a woman between the ages of, say, 16 and 45.

Imagine you are going to your GP for, IDK, a smear test, or boil ointment, or a chesty cough.

You are greeted at the entrance by a hoard of people shoving pictures of foetuses in your face and calling you a murderer.

Now, is that fair? Because that is what it will be like without buffer zones because, and I apologise in advance for yelling, WE WILL NOT HAVE ABORTION CLINICS. Medical abortions will be handled by GPs, later term ones in maternity hospitals. There is no way of telling if a woman is going in for abortion pills or medication for a heart condition. There are also going to be approx 2 women a week, if conscientious objection is allowed, so good luck spotting them. Protest is pointless because you’re not going to be aiming it at the right people no matter what.

_Dara_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why are you presuming that his daughters will have prochoice views when they reach a certain age? Many Irish women are prolife.

Some examples:





To those that will predictably be set to reply with something like: 'Yeah, well, they lost the vote and so suck it up' etc: I suggest rereading this post and the one I'm replying to.

Seriously, you went googling for photos of No campaigning young women, as if people wouldn’t know they exist otherwise? Idle Passerby didn’t say that that poster’s daughters would definitely be pro-choice. But based on what we currently know, they will be much more likely to be pro-choice than pro-life as things stand. Maybe there’ll be a swing towards pro-life becoming more popular in twenty years time. I’d bet on that not happening though. In the youth categories, far far more women (and men) voted Yes. It wasn’t even close.

Outlaw Pete

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It was landslide victory wasn't it?.

Did you miss the following? I added it specifically as I knew there'd replies such as yours:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

To those that will predictably be set to reply with something like: 'Yeah, well, they lost the vote and so suck it up' etc: I suggest rereading this post and the one I'm replying to.

end of the road

kylith wrote: »

For all the people who don’t agree with this buffer zone.

Imagine you are a woman between the ages of, say, 16 and 45.

Imagine you are going to your GP for, IDK, a smear test, or boil ointment, or a chesty cough.

You are greeted at the entrance by a hoard of people shoving pictures of foetuses in your face and calling you a murderer.

Now, is that fair? Because that is what it will be like without buffer zones because, and I apologise in advance for yelling, WE WILL NOT HAVE ABORTION CLINICS. Medical abortions will be handled by GPs, later term ones in maternity hospitals. There is no way of telling if a woman is going in for abortion pills or medication for a heart condition. There are also going to be approx 2 women a week, if conscientious objection is allowed, so good luck spotting them. Protest is pointless because you’re not going to be aiming it at the right people no matter what.

in all honesty, do you think that a buffer zone is really going to stop the type of people who would protest from protesting given they are commited enough to go that far in the first place?

Outlaw Pete

_Dara_ wrote: »

Seriously, you went googling for photos of No campaigning young women

Nope, posted them before... it's quite common for users to speak as if all women are prochoice.

as if people wouldn’t know they exist otherwise?

Well, the user was speaking in a manner that could easily be inferred as him not believing such women existed.

Idle Passerby didn’t say that that poster’s daughters would definitely be pro-choice.

He implied it with the following remark:

Idle Passerby wrote: »

What age are your daughters? Have a chat with them on the subject when they reach an age to be able to form their own opinions and get pregnant, and like many many others you might finally change your tune when someone you love presents an alternative argument and you can no longer continue to see women who get abortions as an anonymous hoard.

kylith

end of the road wrote: »

in all honesty, do you think that a buffer zone is really going to stop the type of people who would protest from protesting given they are commited enough to go that far in the first place?

If there is a buffer zone then they have to stay outside that or can be legally removed. This means that every woman of age will not be hassled.

_Dara_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nope, posted them before... it's quite common for users to speak as if all women are prochoice.



Well, the user was speaking in a manner that could easily be inferred as him not believing such women existed.



He implied it with the following remark:

With around 8 out of 10 voters under 25 voting yes in the referendum, it’s a pretty safe assumption for now that there will be pro-choice females close to the poster.