Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

BenEadir

Deleted User wrote: »

What we're getting is abortiion on demand.

Correct, that's what the people have voted for 2-1 so hopefully our elected politicians will get on with legislating for what the people have instructed them to facilitate.

SusieBlue

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Very measured post lochlach.
Having also known women who suffered miscarriage or are unable to conceive, the lack of regard some people show for the foetus up to 12 weeks must seem particularly cruel. These women would give anything to have a 12 week viable healthy foetus.
Another reason why sensitivity is required.

Sorry but that’s a cop out.
We all have a story.
We all have our own issues. We have all gone through something that will have shaped our view on this referendum.
Other women having fertility issues or experiencing losses have no relevance. I say this as someone who has had a loss myself.
It all still isn’t a legitimate reason to take a choice away from someone else.

BenEadir

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Very measured post lochlach.
Having also known women who suffered miscarriage or are unable to conceive, the lack of regard some people show for the foetus up to 12 weeks must seem particularly cruel. These women would give anything to have a 12 week viable healthy foetus.
Another reason why sensitivity is required.

Some women have a healthy foetus up to 12 weeks and for a range of reasons don't want it and conversely other women want a healthy foetus up to 12 weeks and don't have one. That is a cruel situation for both cohorts but preventing access to abortion for the former group won't improve the situation of the latter one bit.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

That's the funny thing. You can be sure that these pricks look at Bressie doing a men's mental health campaign and scoff at it being some pansy SJW bull and Bressie is some cuck asshole.

Then the next week they'll be crying about feminism and asking why nobody cares about men.

Yeah but that's because their real men init.

They appear to have the same attitude I used to encounter when working pub doors, I'm real hard and I'll do x and y to ya, 99.99% of the time just pure mouth and no trousers and bitch and moan about other people being let in.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

except we weren't ignoring the health and rights and life of pregnant women. it was for our genuine care for them, and our genuine care for the unborn, that we voted no, because we believe that much much better legislation could have been provided that would specifically deal with the hard cases. you are right though, there is no point in going over old ground as we all stand by our decisians.

so please tell us how you would have provided a much much better way to legislate.
Its easy to shout you can do better, with you have no idea what better is

Wrongway1985

AllForIt wrote: »

Hatred for women? What utter nonsense.

I saw posts on social media by men saying their vote came down to some feminists view that men should not be voting on the issue so voted No out of spite. Very much a small minority but ya not consuming the question and voting out of distain for women, awful.

Shurimgreat

DubInMeath wrote: »

True religion didn't drive all no voters, some were just driven by a hatred for women as can be seen by some of the posters on the threads before the refurendum, others because it does sit with their conservative world view, again as shown by some of the posters on the threads, and others because they just didn't want it in Ireland but were fine exporting it.

May well be some no posters who would have voted yes for just the hard cases if presented, but hey the company you keep as they say, and the fact that those running the campaign were never going to support abortion for the hard cases, as per their press release that included that rape victims should be forced to carry to term.

Ignoring the fact the Iona institute fairly much demand to be included in all debates where possible, look at their outrage at steen not being added to the RTE debate Cora Sherlock pulled out of, who are the liberals and the trade unionist you mentioned?

FFS! Its like banging your head off a wall trying to talk to people like you.
The vast majority if not all of No voters don't hate women.
They are standing up for the rights of the unborn. Nothing to do at all with hating women.
To show how utterly ridiculous you sound, many many women voted against this referendum. And 50% of foetuses would one day be born as female babies if allowed to be born.
If I was to take your logic I could say "why do women want to terminate female foetuses?" And in truth 50% would be. A great day for female empowerment alright, terminating healthy female foetuses.

These are all complex issues but to say something like its because some No voters hate women is ridiculous and a bit childish.

Liberalised abortion has led to appalling female infanticide in places like India and China with tens of millions of females missing from the population. But hey as long as adult women can abort healthy foetuses I guess that's progress and we should all just get behind it.

The optics of the cheering in the last few days has been disgraceful imo.

SusieBlue

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

I saw posts on social media by men saying their vote came down to some feminists view that men should not be voting on the issue so voted No out of spite. Very much a small minority but ya not consuming the question and voting out of distain for women, awful.

More than one male poster on Boards said they were voting No just because of how passionate I was for the Yes vote.
He even went as far as to say ‘well done, because of you...’ etc.
The most recent one was the night of the Late Late show debate.
Absolutely bizarre behavior!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What we're getting is abortion on demand.

Yes.

Lochlach you make some great points but we have *always* had "abortion on demand".

Anyone that could afford one and wanted one went to England. And Ireland got to pretend to itself that it wasnt happening.

We are just facing up to it now.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

so please tell us how you would have provided a much much better way to legislate.
Its easy to shout you can do better, with you have no idea what better is

something along the lines of the current POLDPA i reccan would have been something i could support. the POLDPA deals with extreme cases as it stands but something along it's line that wouldn't have to consider the 8th i believe would have been worth considering.

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Yes.

Lochlach you make some great points but we have *always* had "abortion on demand".

Anyone that could afford one and wanted one went to England. And Ireland got to pretend to itself that it wasnt happening.

We are just facing up to it now.

we didn't have abortion on demand legally availible in ireland though. having to travel to england doesn't equal ireland having abortion on demand given we are 2 separate countries with different legislation and different government and structures.

Shurimgreat

SusieBlue wrote: »

More than one male poster on Boards said they were voting No just because of how passionate I was for the Yes vote.
He even went as far as to say ‘well done, because of you...’ etc.
The most recent one was the night of the Late Late show debate.
Absolutely bizarre behavior!

He's a nut just like many nuts on the other side.
I've noticed your propensity to continually misrepresent No voters by the way as being all nutcases, devoid of humanity and so on.
You don't know all No voters or their motives.

The lack of tolerance from the Yes side is deeply ironic given their calls for tolerance recently. Tolerance works both ways.

captbarnacles

Shurimgreat wrote: »

FFS! Its like banging your head off a wall trying to talk to people like you.
The vast majority if not all of No voters don't hate women.
They are standing up for the rights of the unborn. Nothing to do at all with hating women.
To show how utterly ridiculous you sound, many many women voted against this referendum. And 50% of foetuses would one day be born as female babies if allowed to be born.
If I was to take your logic I could say "why do women want to terminate female foetuses?" And in truth 50% would be. A great day for female empowerment alright, terminating healthy female foetuses.

These are all complex issues but to say something like its because some No voters hate women is ridiculous and a bit childish.

Liberalised abortion has led to appalling female infanticide in places like India and China with tens of millions of females missing from the population. But hey as long as adult women can abort healthy foetuses I guess that's progress and we should all just get behind it.

The optics of the cheering in the last few days has been disgraceful imo.

Not as ridiculous as you. Where do the 'unborn' reside usually?

The cheering is in fine and normal - not one person is cheering abortion - they are cheering they have the ultimate right to make decisions about their body and not the state.

You lost. Legislation will be brought in and you will never think of it again.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

gctest50

Shurimgreat wrote: »

......

The lack of tolerance from the Yes side is deeply ironic given their calls for tolerance recently.

Tolerance works both ways.

Nothing wrong with being intolerant towards intolerance

Much how you'd deal with racism

SusieBlue

Shurimgreat wrote: »

He's a nut just like many nuts on the other side.
I've noticed your propensity to continually misrepresent No voters by the way as being all nutcases, devoid of humanity and so on.
You don't know all No voters or their motives.

The lack of tolerance from the Yes side is deeply ironic given their calls for tolerance recently. Tolerance works both ways.

No, you’re actually wrong there, I speak of my personal anecdotal experiences with No voters as I find them.

And it’s funny that you noticed my ‘propensity’ to do so, I don’t recall seeing you on any abortion threads here before last week.

And if you had followed the last thread, you’d see that I had a very positive experience when LoveBoth campaigners called to my door, I found them to be friendly, respectful and polite and I posted the same when it happened.
So yeah. You’re wrong.

Shurimgreat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

FFS! Its like banging your head off a wall trying to talk to people like you.
The vast majority if not all of No voters don't hate women.
They are standing up for the rights of the unborn. Nothing to do at all with hating women.
To show how utterly ridiculous you sound, many many women voted against this referendum. And 50% of foetuses would one day be born as female babies if allowed to be born.
If I was to take your logic I could say "why do women want to terminate female foetuses?"

These are all complex issues but to say something like its because somd No voters hate women is ridiculous and a bit childish.

Really your post above sounds like you don't like to accept reality of what was posted during the threads before the vote and the attitute some men have. And it appears from your posts that your having a bit of a hard time accepting the result and are just thinking of scenarios today as you said yourself, that you might have wanted to research and educate yourself on because they were already discussed in the site, in the debates and on social media I believe as I've no time for facebook or twitter.

I'm well aware some women voted for retain my own cousin was one but she's deeply religious and voted no for SSM and divorce, one friend also voted no because she just didn't want to see it happen in Ireland

Still waiting on your liberals and trade unionist for retain who were bypassed in favour of Iona for the debates apologies if you've already posted them, since I've written this.

Shurimgreat

BenEadir wrote: »

Some women have a healthy foetus up to 12 weeks and for a range of reasons don't want it and conversely other women want a healthy foetus up to 12 weeks and don't have one. That is a cruel situation for both cohorts but preventing access to abortion for the former group won't improve the situation of the latter one bit.

As I said the optics of the cheering looks appalling given the sensitivity around the subject of the unborn. This referendum was completely different to marriage equality with complex difficult sensitive issues. It was deeply devisive. And then you had a rent a mob cheering at count centres as if Ireland had won the soccer world cup.
I can only put it down to immaturity.

SusieBlue

Shurimgreat wrote: »

As I said the optics of the cheering looks appalling given the sensitivity around the subject of the unborn. This referendum was completely different to the marriage inequality with complex difficult sensitive issues. It was deeply devisive. And then you had a rent a mob cheering at count centres as if Ireland had won the soccer world cup.
I can only put it down to immaturity.

If you don’t understand by now why people are celebrating, you never will.
It’s already been explained to you but you refuse to acknowledge it.
It isn’t about the unborn. It’s not about abortion.
It’s about the removal of a draconian law that has caused nothing but pain and suffering.

Loafing Oaf

DubInMeath wrote: »

Shurimgreat wrote: »

FFS! Its like banging your head off a wall trying to talk to people like you.
The vast majority if not all of No voters don't hate women.
They are standing up for the rights of the unborn. Nothing to do at all with hating women.
To show how utterly ridiculous you sound, many many women voted against this referendum. And 50% of foetuses would one day be born as female babies if allowed to be born.
If I was to take your logic I could say "why do women want to terminate female foetuses?"

These are all complex issues but to say something like its because somd No voters hate women is ridiculous and a bit childish.

Really your post above sounds like you don't like to accept reality of what was posted during the threads before the vote and the attitute some men have. And it appears from your posts that your having a bit of a hard time accepting the result and are just thinking of scenarios today as you said yourself, that you might have wanted to research and educate yourself on because they were already discussed in the site, in the debates and on social media I believe as I've no time for facebook or twitter.

I'm well aware some women voted for retain my own cousin was one but she's deeply religious and voted no for SSM and divorce, one friend also voted no because she just didn't want to see it happen in Ireland

Still waiting on your liberals and trade unionist for retain who were bypassed in favour of Iona for the debates apologies if you've already posted them, since I've written this.

Trade unionist is David beg I believe

c montgomery

Are abortions going to be provided for free in cases where the pregnancy is without issue ? Maybe on the medical card?

retro:electro

Shurimgreat wrote: »

As I said the optics of the cheering looks appalling given the sensitivity around the subject of the unborn. This referendum was completely different to marriage equality with complex difficult sensitive issues. It was deeply devisive. And then you had a rent a mob cheering at count centres as if Ireland had won the soccer world cup.
I can only put it down to immaturity.

It’s one day worth of celebrating. I’m sure you’ll get over it. People feel like they’ve contributed to something monumental. Also you don’t know the reasons why some people were celebrating. Maybe they have personal reasons. It was one day of people feeling they made a difference, got drunk and had a bit of craic. It’s not like from now on every time a woman has an abortion there’s going to be a piss up at Dublin castle.

Shurimgreat

captbarnacles wrote: »

Not as ridiculous as you. Where do the 'unborn' reside usually?

The cheering is in fine and normal - not one person is cheering abortion - they are cheering they have the ultimate right to make decisions about their body and not the state.

You lost. Legislation will be brought in and you will never think of it again.

The "You lost" immature response. It wasn't me who lost. I have quite a happy life.
Those who lost are the victims of unrestricted abortion. They lost.

Shurimgreat

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Trade unionist is David beg I believe

I didnt see where he asked the question. Like all posters its hard to balance keeping up with this thread and normal life. But yes Begg is the trade unionist.

BenEadir

c montgomery wrote: »

Are abortions going to be provided for free in cases where the pregnancy is without issue ? Maybe on the medical card?

Why not? Should abortion only be available to those who can afford it privately?

c montgomery

BenEadir wrote: »

Why not? Should abortion only be available to those who can afford it privately?

Yes, like any other unnecessary procedure.

uck51js9zml2yt

Fred Swanson wrote: »

They won't go away whilst their American funders are still sending them money to promote whatever agenda they desire.

This chestnut about Iona funding.
Amnesty was accused of getting funding from Soros for its repeal campaign. I don't hear you shouting about that.

It's was like the yes voters exercised about No posters near the polling stations. They didn't complain about the yes posters on the same lamp posts.

SusieBlue

c montgomery wrote: »

Yes

Back to wanting to punish those on low incomes then, I see.
Would you not wager that those who can’t afford to pay for such services are perhaps those in most dire need of it?

Shurimgreat

gctest50 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with being intolerant towards intolerance

We're not talking about racism but thank you for your contribution.

c montgomery

SusieBlue wrote: »

Back to wanting to punish those on low incomes then, I see.
Would you not wager that those who can’t afford to pay for such services are perhaps those in most dire need of it?

Yawn, you dont know the answer then. Thats ok, I'll find out tomorrow.

gctest50

Shurimgreat wrote: »

We're not talking about racism but thank you for your contribution.

Yes, mod

gctest50

Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: »

......

It's was like the yes voters exercised about No posters near the polling stations. They didn't complain about the yes posters on the same lamp posts.

Which posters on lamp posts had the medical images again ?

The ones that showed some "no" voters what the campaigners were really like and caused them to change their mind ?

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Trade unionist is David beg I believe

Thanks.

He's retired as head of ictu, what union does he still hold membership with, do you know, can't find mention of it so far with a quick search as Mandate etc voiced their support for repeal.

But yes as a former head of the ICTU he didn't support repeal from what I did find.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/brendan-howlin-clashes-with-ex-ictu-boss-begg-over-referendum-1.3502938

Hotblack Desiato

spoonerhead wrote: »

Crumlin getting a 82% yes shows the decency in this area. We are a hard working area that’s been blighted by a minority. Proud to be part of such great people.

Aithnar cara i gcruat

As a Crumlin native it sickened my hole to see what they did at Bernadettes putting "pro-life" posters at the polling station entrance. It didn't seem to sway anyone but it just makes the RCC look like tools who want to threaten people.

Which they are

uck51js9zml2yt

gctest50 wrote: »

Which posters on lamp posts had the medical images again ?

None of the ones I saw around the station I worked at.

AtomicHorror

c montgomery wrote: »

Yes, like any other unnecessary procedure.

The medical community considers it a necessary- sometimes critical- procedure. Your disagreement with that isn't really relevant, unless you're a medic.

timthumbni

Well done. As a ni unionist I wish we should do the same.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

we didn't have abortion on demand legally availible in ireland though. having to travel to england doesn't equal ireland having abortion on demand given we are 2 separate countries with different legislation and different government and structures.

Its a short hop away and if it wasnt available this would have been settled years ago. (similar to our pretence of neutrality)

I dont like abortion, I had a close friend at college who went to England and regretted it greatly afterward. It is my one small and currently very unfashionable story.

But the 8th amendment is unworkable, we cannot legislate to force women to do what they do not want to do.
It is also just not possible to legislate into the constitution of the country for all possible situations that women and doctors may face.

Shurimgreat

DubInMeath wrote: »

Thanks.

He's retired as head of ictu, what union does he still hold membership with, do you know, can't find mention of it so far with a quick search as Mandate etc voiced their support for repeal.

But yes as a former head of the ICTU he didn't support repeal from what I did find.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/brendan-howlin-clashes-with-ex-ictu-boss-begg-over-referendum-1.3502938

He's a lifelong trade unionist and about as far removed from iona as you could get. Well spoken too. I would have liked to see him invited on to speak on rte and tv3 including debates. I guess he wasn't box office enough or enough of a hate figure to make for good tv.

Shurimgreat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I didnt see where he asked the question. Like all posters its hard to balance keeping up with this thread and normal life. But yes Begg is the trade unionist.

Here you go.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107116425&postcount=3741

I think we're still waiting on you to provide proof for your earlier statement that the rules around access to abortion in the UK are constantly abused.

Outlaw Pete

reubenreuben wrote: »

Why are you so concerned about women who you don't even know?
Does it give you a feeling of power and satisfaction that you can decide what women should do with their own bodies.

Your ad hominem laden question makes no sense. Rephrase it without the implied insult and I'll happily address it.

The people have spoken so you are in a minority.

Aye, which is why I said:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A wrong does not become right simply because a majority support it.

Triceratops Ballet

Shurimgreat wrote:

As I said the optics of the cheering looks appalling given the sensitivity around the subject of the unborn. This referendum was completely different to marriage equality with complex difficult sensitive issues. It was deeply devisive. And then you had a rent a mob cheering at count centres as if Ireland had won the soccer world cup. I can only put it down to immaturity.

You can view it however you want, I'm sure the pro lifers would have made sure to pack out Dublin Castle too had they won and would have cheered their victory just as loud despite the repercussions of their actions, I wouldn't have been happy they won but they'd have had a right to celebrate the victory.

The result is the culmination of 35 years of campaigning for some, I personally went to the castle, I've been attending protests about the 8th and writing to my TD's about the issue since my teens, why shouldn't I be happy that it's paid off, and we as a nation have progressed? when you've been committed to a cause for so long it's natural to want to celebrate when you succeed. Begrudging that is sour grapes.
I don't celebrate abortion, I hope no one I know has to go through that, I wish those I know who have travelled in the past never had to, but I am grateful that if someone I know needs to they can now avail of abortion here, where they belong, surrounded by people who know and support them and free of stigma and shame. That's worth celebrating in my book.

Shurimgreat

DubInMeath wrote: »

Here you go.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107116425&postcount=3741

I think we're still waiting on you to provide proof for your earlier statement that the rules around access to abortion in the UK are constantly abused.

Yep here you go.

lifecharity.org.uk/news-and-views/abortion-law-facts

98% of abortions in the UK are carried out under Ground C.

In other studies a large number of abortions are carried out for "socio-economic" reasons. A crossover between the two in other words. Would you consider socio-economic reasons to equate to mental health grounds?

c montgomery

c montgomery wrote: »

Yes, like any other unnecessary procedure.

Sorry to break it to you, but yes your taxes are going to be spent on providing this often necessary service when required as I'd say will be covered under the medical card for those that require it.

Shurimgreat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Yep here you go.

lifecharity.org.uk/news-and-views/abortion-law-facts

98% of abortions in the UK are carried out under Ground C.

In other studies a large number of abortions are carried out for "socio-economic" reasons. A crossover between the two in other words. Would you consider socio-economic reasons to equate to mental health grounds?

No I mean actual scientific facts not pro life propaganda, this one was proven to be bs if you were reading the threads before the vote.

c montgomery

DubInMeath wrote: »

Sorry to break it to you, but yes your taxes are going to be spent on providing this often necessary service when required as I'd say will be covered under the medical card for those that require it.

My question is still unanswered, in healty pregnancy will abortions be provided free of charge.

c montgomery

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The medical community considers it a necessary- sometimes critical- procedure. Your disagreement with that isn't really relevant, unless you're a medic.

Thanks but my question was about healthy pregnancy not one considered necessary.

Triceratops Ballet

c montgomery wrote:

My question is still unanswered, in healty pregnancy will abortions be provided free of charge.

We don't know that yet. I posted previously that for people on med cards they will possibly be covered in the same way as other gp services and for those who pay gp expenses themselves they will probably continue to do so.
I imagine that emergency terminations for ffa or threat to the mother will be part of standard maternity services and depending if the patient is public or private will be billed accordingly

c montgomery

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

We don't know that yet. I posted previously that for people on med cards they will possibly be covered in the same way as other gp services and for those who pay gp expenses themselves they will probably continue to do so.
I imagine that emergency terminations for ffa or threat to the mother will be part of standard maternity services and depending if the patient is public or private will be billed accordingly

Thank you.

pleas advice

DubInMeath wrote: »

No I mean actual scientific facts not pro life propaganda, this one was proven to be bs if you were reading the threads before the vote.

do you deny that it is de facto abortion on request in Britain?

Overheal

Shurimgreat wrote: »

And some people believe that ending the life of a healthy viable non hard case foetus is also cruel. You need to learn to respect this opinion too. I know you don't however.
So your point about tolerance is massively ironic. I hope you get that.

You’re constantly on here belittling people and generalizing them for opinions you don’t like so this post is rich.