Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

eagle eye

Elisabeth Wrong Stork wrote:

Women having crisis pregnancies, miscarriages, fertility treatment, FFA pregnancies, and people who for all sorts of reasons might want privacy enter family planning clinics. They're a clear attempt to intimidate and shame people who are going through a very difficult and emotional (not to mention hormonal) time, and for whom "Just ignore them" is deeply stupid, glib advice. Regardless of their effectiveness, they're despicable in intent.

I'm fully with you on this. If they get no reaction you'll see their numbers fall though.
I know it's a difficult time for lots of women too. If you can do what I'm saying you'll feel proud of yourself afterwards. As I said head up and don't make eye contact with any of them which is telling them they are beneath you.

eagle eye

ELM327 wrote:

Too bad as that's what the people voted for.

Unfortunately I voted for it without knowing.

ELM327 wrote:

I don't agree with you having the right to smoke, but my disagreement is not enough to impinge on your autonomy in your own home. Same here. You don't get to control women. It's not 1940 anymore bud.

I don't smoke.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm fully with you on this. If they get no reaction you'll see their numbers fall though.
I know it's a difficult time for lots of women too. If you can do what I'm saying you'll feel proud of yourself afterwards. As I said head up and don't make eye contact with any of them which is telling them they are beneath you.

The only way to facilitate and adequately care for women in the above scenarios is to allow the 12 week limit.
Making vulnerable, distressed women jump through hoops to prove their case is in no ones best interest and actually causes abortions to happen at later gestations.

Skylinehead

eagle eye wrote: »

Unfortunately I voted for it without knowing.

Well that's your problem, it was fairly clearly laid out.

It's done now.

ELM327

eagle eye wrote: »

Unfortunately I voted for it without knowing.


I don't smoke.

You should have informed yourself before voting.
It's not as if the government published the legislation before the referendum.... oh wait..






PS: Whether you smoke or not is irrelevant, the analogy holds. You have the right to do so, regardless of my opinion.

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

Unfortunately I voted for it without knowing.

Plenty of ways for you to have kept yourself informed, there were leaflets, banners websites, literature etc. Nobody who couldn't bother their arse to read up on the issue should be allowed vote.

Or, you know, it's none of my business why you voted the way you did.

eagle eye

amcalester wrote:

Plenty of ways for you to have kept yourself informed, there were leaflets, banners websites, literature etc. Nobody who couldn't bother their arse to read up on the issue should be allowed vote.

I thought it was just a vote to repeal the law that was in place. I didn't need to read anything to know that it had to go.

amcalester wrote:

Or, you know, it's none of my business why you voted the way you did.

I want a responsible society. Getting an abortion just because a person was irresponsible is just wrong imo.
What would you say if the girl wanted to keep the child and the father said he was just irresponsible that night get and wanted no part in paying for the upbringing of the child?

ELM327

eagle eye wrote: »

I thought it was just a vote to repeal the law that was in place. I didn't need to read anything to know that it had to go.


I want a responsible society. Getting an abortion just because a person was irresponsible is just wrong imo.
What would you say if the girl wanted to keep the child and the father said he was just irresponsible that night get and wanted no part in paying for the upbringing of the child?

I'd say he should be allowed a legal opt out, but that's a different issue.
(As a male)

eagle eye

ELM327 wrote:

I'd say he should be allowed a legal opt out, but that's a different issue. (As a male)

I'm sure you'll find that many who are pro irresponsible people getting an abortion are against the father getting away without child support.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

I thought it was just a vote to repeal the law that was in place. I didn't need to read anything to know that it had to go.


I want a responsible society. Getting an abortion just because a person was irresponsible is just wrong imo.
What would you say if the girl wanted to keep the child and the father said he was just irresponsible that night get and wanted no part in paying for the upbringing of the child?

The alternative is forcing parenthood on (as you said) "irresponsible" people who can't even be trusted to take a pill.
Do you believe this to be in the best interests of an innocent child? Do you believe someone that irresponsible, and who also does not want a child, would make a good parent?
Is that fair on the baby? Or do we only want to punish the irresponsible parent mother?

Honestly all this was done to death several times over before May 25th.

eagle eye

SusieBlue wrote:

The alternative is forcing parenthood on (as you said) "irresponsible" people who can't even be trusted to take a pill. Do you believe this to be in the best interests of an innocent child? Do you believe someone that irresponsible, and who also does not want a child, would make a good parent? Is that fair on the baby? Or do we only want to punish the irresponsible parent mother?

There are lots of people out there looking to adopt.
I hate even saying that because I feel like I'm one of those no campaigners and I'm far from it.
I don't accept irresponsibility as a good enough reason for abortion.

SusieBlue wrote:

Honestly all this was done to death several times over before May 25th.

I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it.
A big error on my part.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

There are lots of people out there looking to adopt.
I hate even saying that because I feel like I'm one of those no campaigners and I'm far from it.
I don't accept irresponsibility as a good enough reason for abortion.


I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it.
A big error on my part.

There isn't, people are having fewer children than ever, some even opting to have none.The demand isn't there like it was in the 80's and before to have a big family.
Its almost impossible to adopt in this country (hence the thousands of children stuck in our foster care system), it takes years if its successful at all, by which time the child will have spent many years stuck in the system.
The system can barely cope with the children it currently has in its care.

In 2016 (most recent statistics), there were 5 babies adopted in this country. Five . This information is all freely available on the CSO website online.


I think its incredibly cruel to force a woman to see through a pregnancy she does not want just to dump the child in foster care.
Its illogical and barbaric and has neither the best interests of the woman, child, or society at heart.

ELM327

eagle eye wrote: »

There are lots of people out there looking to adopt.
I hate even saying that because I feel like I'm one of those no campaigners and I'm far from it.
I don't accept irresponsibility as a good enough reason for abortion.


I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it.
A big error on my part.

I accept that you do not believe you are one of the fanatical anti-choice/pro life groups. However your line of posting here would imply that you are on that side of the fence, the fact that you feel your opinions or beliefs somehow trump the woman's right to bodily autonomy


I don't agree with willy nilly abortion but it's not my right to tell another person what they can or can't do with their body.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

eagle eye wrote: »

There are lots of people out there looking to adopt.
I hate even saying that because I feel like I'm one of those no campaigners and I'm far from it.
I don't accept irresponsibility as a good enough reason for abortion.


I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it.
A big error on my part.

In all seriousness, that legislation can be changed by an oireachteas with a mandate, the 8th couldn't. Surely even from your perspective the current situation is better than pre-repeal? If not, you can speak to your councillors and TDs about it.

However, not just the content of the legislation but the rationale behind it were laid out in the reports from the relevant assemblies before the referendum, plenty of people went in feeling like you do and came out understanding how impossible and frankly crazy headed it is to try and differentiate between "good" and "bad" aabortions. I'm sure someone can link you to the relevant bits of the reports.

Mr. CooL ICE

eagle eye wrote: »

There are lots of people out there looking to adopt.
I hate even saying that because I feel like I'm one of those no campaigners and I'm far from it.
I don't accept irresponsibility as a good enough reason for abortion.


I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it.
A big error on my part.

Ok, I'll ask it this way. How do you legislate to prevent abortion access to people who were "irresponsible"? Lie detector tests? Think actual legislation. Something to be put in law. Nobody from the pro life campaign was able to put forward anything that was remotely workable.

And why do you bring up responsibility? How do you define it? How do you measure it? Does a cheap condom breaking meaning the couple was irresponsible for not paying for a reputable brand of condom? Does an extra strong condom breaking or a condom falling off mean they were irresponsible for riding too vigorously?

You also mention "pills for both before and after". If you know anything about the morning after pill, you'd know that it doesn't work if ovulation has occurred. And you can't take the MAP needlessly because it will completely mess with your cycle.

Seriously, there were endless debates going for a long time before May 25th and every avenue was brought up. Repealing the 8th and legislating for unrestricted access up to 12 weeks was widely regarded as the most acceptable solution.

PuppyMcPupFace

eagle eye wrote: »

Unfortunately I voted for it without knowing.


I don't smoke.

If you voted "without knowing" despite the mounds of information available, that is your hard lines.

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

I thought it was just a vote to repeal the law that was in place. I didn't need to read anything to know that it had to go.


I want a responsible society. Getting an abortion just because a person was irresponsible is just wrong imo.
What would you say if the girl wanted to keep the child and the father said he was just irresponsible that night get and wanted no part in paying for the upbringing of the child?

That depends, did he do everything possible to avoid getting the girl pregnant? Did he wear a condom?

Can he prove that to a committee who will decide based on how responsible he was whether he can opt out?

Sean.3516

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.

ohnonotgmail

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.

Certainly not new to abortion threads in general though. They have no business harassing women who are going for a legal medical procedure.

SusieBlue

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.

They may not be disrupting public order per se, but I’m sure they are causing distress to those who have to see them, not to mention how intimidating and offensive they are being to patients of the clinic who may need access to abortion services.

They have no right to oppose or object to a legal medical procedure another private citizen is having.
It’s not their business and not their place.
If they feel that strongly about it they should focus on their ‘grassroots’ campaign to overthrow the referendum.
Not harass vulnerable women and couples.

It’s just more self righteous arrogance from the LoveBoats gang. They really are pathetic.

gandalf

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.

Absolutely not. These people are scum, the only reason they are there is to intimidate and bully those who are attending the practice and those who work there. Harris needs to get legislation in place that outlaws this sort of crap immediately.

Annasopra

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.

They are harassing people entering the clinic. Minister Harris should legislate for exclusion zones ASAP.

sabat

eagle eye wrote: »

I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it.
A big error on my part.

The "debate" was deliberately staged in this manner to divide the electorate into two camps and obfuscate the true nature of what occurred in the referendum. You were either a baby murderer or a religious whackjob-the middle ground were harangued and marginalised and rational, systematic analysis of what was being voted on became impossible.
It's actually astonishing how little attention was paid to the new article in the constitution-I would guess that a large percentage of yes voters (maybe as much as half or more) weren't even aware of its existence.
To all those yes voters who are about to go through my post history and write something like "you lost, get over it" ask yourself this:
If a new government with an overall majority was elected tomorrow and decided to criminalise abortion what new "rights" gained in the referendum would prevent them from doing so?
If you asked 1000 yes voters whether women won the right to have an abortion in the referendum how many would agree?
If as you all concur abortion is a medical procedure then why does a specific medical procedure appear in a country's constitution? Is there any other example of this anywhere in the world? (Some mention general health rights but nothing like this.)
As soon as the pro-life groups organise their strategy properly and get some serious legal minds on the case I could see the new article being thrown out sharpish, whatever about repealing the 8th amendment.

Hotblack Desiato

You don't have a clue. A part of the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. The current article cannot be "thrown out".

Hotblack Desiato

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.

Didn't get the desired response on A&A so decided to start scuttering the exact same posts on here?

padd b1975

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

They are harassing people entering the clinic. Minister Harris should legislate for exclusion zones ASAP.

Any footage of this available?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

sabat wrote: »

The "debate" was deliberately staged in this manner to divide the electorate into two camps and obfuscate the true nature of what occurred in the referendum. You were either a baby murderer or a religious whackjob-the middle ground were harangued and marginalised and rational, systematic analysis of what was being voted on became impossible.
It's actually astonishing how little attention was paid to the new article in the constitution-I would guess that a large percentage of yes voters (maybe as much as half or more) weren't even aware of its existence.
To all those yes voters who are about to go through my post history and write something like "you lost, get over it" ask yourself this:
If a new government with an overall majority was elected tomorrow and decided to criminalise abortion what new "rights" gained in the referendum would prevent them from doing so?
If you asked 1000 yes voters whether women won the right to have an abortion in the referendum how many would agree?
If as you all concur abortion is a medical procedure then why does a specific medical procedure appear in a country's constitution? Is there any other example of this anywhere in the world? (Some mention general health rights but nothing like this.)
As soon as the pro-life groups organise their strategy properly and get some serious legal minds on the case I could see the new article being thrown out sharpish, whatever about repealing the 8th amendment.

There aren't any rights in the constitution to stop a government with a mandate to do so criminalizing abortion; as was discussed in these threads in the lead up to the referendum, Yes voters by and large were able to tell from the 30 year shítshow of the 8th being in place that the constitution was not the place for this issue. Go back through my posts, or any of the frequent yes posters, you'll see.

I agree that the constitution is not the place for a medical procedure, however back in the 80s Irish voters overwhelmingly decided to put one in there, at a time when abortion was already strictly prohibited by legislation. The referendum last year was a much belated and probably imperfect attempt to rectify that awful mistake, and unlike the wooly, badly worded 8th amendment this one leaves room for legislation to reflect the values of the voters if they change, without having to have another referendum. It's also worded so as not to lead to the headaches and complications for doctors, lawyers, judges, legislators etc that the 8th did.

Ideally yes, all of this could have happened without going near the constitution but that ship sailed 30 years ago.

Not really seeing the "gotcha" you seem to think you have there mate.

Deebles McBeebles

#1. Galway Edition (I'm assuming this will be a regular thing from here on)
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/anti-abortion-protesters-picket-gp-practice-in-galway-1.3747064

What are ye at lads? Is it just to shame any women using the clinic or is the end-game to get a second referendum?

orourkeda1977

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.

victor8600

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.

There is a difference between the Brexit result (51.9% for Leave) and the abortion referendum result (66.4% for allowing it). In the former case, a re-vote may actually change the outcome.

Mr. Incognito

I respect anyones views.

I disrespect anyone seeking to foist their views onto others.

Raheem Euro

Not very impressive, just seven die-hards.
A cold snap should see the back of them.

biko

The people had their chance and voted according to what they think is best (right or wrong according to anyone's personal opinion doesn't matter)

orourkeda1977

victor8600 wrote: »

There is a difference between the Brexit result (51.9% for Leave) and the abortion referendum result (66.4% for allowing it). In the former case, a re-vote may actually change the outcome.

51.9% was enough to win.

The margin was irrelevant

gctest50

Sheeeeeeeeeeet wrote: »

They're entitled to protest.

They got their vote n lost badly - they need to get over it

victor8600

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

What are ye at lads? ..

I think those must be some unemployed wasters. Don't they have a job to go to? Or kids to look after?

riffmongous

They should be allowed protest of course but I don't think directly outside a GP is appropriate in this case and they should be moved on

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Merged

McMurphy

Dafuq is Willy Frazer doing (3rd from the right) campaigning against abortion clinics down here.

dudara

They’re impacting everyone who is going to visit that GP practice. They don’t know who is going in to access abortion services. Imagine going in for a regular check-up or prescriptions and having to deal with that sh*te.

seamus

Raheem Euro wrote: »

Not very impressive, just seven die-hards.
A cold snap should see the back of them.

I guarantee you at least half these pricks are American students in NUIG doing philosophy or "Celtic Studies" paid for by their church back home.

SusieBlue

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.

If they don't like it, they aren't obliged to have one, they aren't compulsory.

They need to leave the women and couples who are attending clinics to procure a legal, medical procedure alone (not to mention the other patients attending for non abortion services) and stop harassing them.
They should start lobbying their TD's about the legislation if they are truly passionate about their cause.

I don't think that's the case though, they just seem to be out to harass and intimidate vulnerable people and feel entitled to shove their self entitled, irrelevant opinions on others.

PopePalpatine

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Dafuq is Willy Frazer doing (3rd from the right) campaigning against abortion clinics down here.

There's no hard border obstructing any women from NI attending our clinics, that's why.

NuMarvel

eagle eye wrote: »

I thought it was just a vote to repeal the law that was in place. I didn't need to read anything to know that it had to go.

Did it not occur to to you that if you repeal an old law, then there would probably be a new one to replace it?

I can understand if you're opposed to the specifics of the new law, but I'm at a loss to understand how you thought that there would be no change after the referendum. Particularly when you seem to agree that there had to be some kind of change afterwards.

ELM327

NuMarvel wrote: »

Did it not occur to to you that if you repeal an old law, then there would probably be a new one to replace it?

I can understand if you're opposed to the specifics of the new law, but I'm at a loss to understand how you thought that there would be no change after the referendum. Particularly when you seem to agree that there had to be some kind of change afterwards.

And the intended legislation was published in national media before the election

eagle eye

NuMarvel wrote:

I can understand if you're opposed to the specifics of the new law, but I'm at a loss to understand how you thought that there would be no change after the referendum. Particularly when you seem to agree that there had to be some kind of change afterwards.

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

ELM327

eagle eye wrote: »

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

There is nothing in the constitution except what you directly approved with your vote and written on the ballot paper.
"The state will legislate..."

NuMarvel

eagle eye wrote: »

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

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?

volchitsa

eagle eye wrote: »

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

All that was inserted this time is a clause saying that the government is entitled to legislate to allow abortion. That was made necessary precisely because of the legal precedents created over 35 years of a constitutional ban, not all of which will have been voided with the removal of 40.3.3.

Mr. CooL ICE

eagle eye wrote: »

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

I call bullsh1t on this. I simply cannot believe anybody who voted could have been this ignorant on the topic.

The Referendum Commission distributed a leaflet to every single home in the country outlining exactly what the referendum entailed. Here is the copy in PDF format. See page 5:

On 25th May 2018 you are being asked whether or not to delete the present Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and replace it with a new Article.

The PRESENT Article 40.3.3:
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right. This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state. This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

The PROPOSED new Article 40.3.3
Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.