Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Hitman3000

freshpopcorn wrote:

I set up a fake facebook page to follow the real No/Yes people. From what I could tell Ciara is real. She is very religious and often goes live talking about her views!

She accused John Delaney (of the FAI) of inciting rape against Maria Steen on one of the Irish Times articles. Some lad posted a screen shot of her allegation on her FB page. I think the woman is slightly unhinged.

fxotoole

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Bat**** crazy is still fitting though.

She's also an anti-fluoridation nut job. Look at her photos.

Geniunely unhinged.

darem93

Odhinn wrote: »

O shes a live wire allright....

https://www.facebook.com/ciara.sherlock.50

..unless "The Lord" is a polling company.

I absolutely love the comment she made about being in a war against Facebook because they "removed" her 'Vote No' profile picture. It didn't take long for someone to point out that she set the length of time herself to have the Twibbon on her profile picture haha.

Billy86

Odhinn wrote: »

O shes a live wire allright....

https://www.facebook.com/ciara.sherlock.50

..unless "The Lord" is a polling company.

The last few days have been interesting... I hope I'm wrong but like I was worried was going to happen it appears the fanatics are determined to try and make this a lasting wedge issue to try and build upon. It's going to be something to keep a very close eye on in the next year or two.

Zubeneschamali

fxotoole wrote: »

Geniunely unhinged.

I really like this tweet:

<snip>

Zubeneschamali

Billy86 wrote: »

It's going to be something to keep a very close eye on in the next year or two.

If for no other reason, they are absolutely hilarious.

fxotoole

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I really like this tweet:

https://twitter.com/sherlockciara/status/1000376242393186304

Comments are hilarious though, ROFL

Fighting Tao

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I really like this tweet:

https://twitter.com/sherlockciara/status/1000376242393186304

I hope it's not on anyones hands. It would be a life sentence if found guilty of killing a child.

I do like to think that she thought "Ah screw this. Talking about babies is old hat and people aren't responding to the lies. Lets raise the age to children in order to shock people."

I do wonder how she managed to take a photo without using her hands like that. It is some skill.

Billy86

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If for no other reason, they are absolutely hilarious.

So were the 'Tea Party' in the US in 2008. Now they've literally taken absolute control of every area of the government, more than any party has had in 90-odd years in that country.

Now we're not nearly in the broken, divided state that the US is of course, but then again the US (while worse than we currently are) were not on that level either.

Odhinn

fxotoole wrote: »

She's also an anti-fluoridation nut job. Look at her photos.

Geniunely unhinged.

O Yeah.

The Holy Spirit revealed to me a good while ago that I had Jewish blood...but it was confirmed to me again on St. Patrick's weekend. I am descended from the tribe of the Lion of Judah.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156220918548554&set=pb.698653553.-2207520000.1527513293.&type=3&theater

laugh

We're all going to hell, yay:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholics-who-voted-yes-should-consider-confession-says-bishop-1.3511127

Zubeneschamali

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I do wonder how she managed to take a photo without using her hands like that. It is some skill.

GoPro strapped to your head while doing kitchen abortions with a carving knife.

Apparently.

Fighting Tao

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

GoPro strapped to your head while doing kitchen abortions with a carving knife.

Apparently.

:eek:

Please don't invite me over for a coffee.

It wasnt me123

Odhinn wrote: »

Is that a real account or a fake? Because she seems bat shit insane, tbh.
https://www.facebook.com/ciara.sherlock.50

Is she related to Cora Sherlock. Its a mad fb account

ohnonotgmail

It seems the campaign to unseat Ronan Mullen from his NUI senators seat has begun.

Odhinn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It seems the campaign to unseat Ronan Mullen from his NUI senators seat has begun.

Not before time.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It seems the campaign to unseat Ronan Mullen from his NUI senators seat has begun.

Good.

To be fair he was unwittingly an asset for the Yes side. He came across terrible.

iora_rua

Apparently, the Bishop of Elfin reckons that any Catholics who voted ‘yes’ should go to confession! Article in Irish Times I believe.

kunst nugget

I think that's a terrible idea tbh. If he doesn't get to see out his term, he gets to make the claim that the liberals have silenced him. If he gets to stay on, he'll hang himself with his own fúckwittery.

ohnonotgmail

iora_rua wrote: »

Apparently, the Bishop of Elfin reckons that any Catholics who voted ‘yes’ should go to confession! Article in Irish Times I believe.

Kevin Doran is always good for a giggle.

mcmoustache

Billy86 wrote: »

So were the 'Tea Party' in the US in 2008. Now they've literally taken absolute control of every area of the government, more than any party has had in 90-odd years in that country.

Now we're not nearly in the broken, divided state that the US is of course, but then again the US (while worse than we currently are) were not on that level either.

I think that the Irish electorate is better inoculated against these ultra conservative types. I also think that these ultra conservative types know this which is why they hid the religious stuff from their message. They knew it wouldn't fly so they pretended to be about health-care. They did the same in the marriage referendum by going on about gay adoption instead of going full leviticus.

B0jangles

mcmoustache wrote: »

I think that the Irish electorate is better inoculated against these ultra conservative types. I also think that these ultra conservative types know this which is why they hid the religious stuff from their message. They knew it wouldn't fly so they pretended to be about health-care. They did the same in the marriage referendum by going on about gay adoption instead of going full leviticus.

I was thinking that maybe the fact that Ireland is small helped - you could probably tell people from somewhere like rural Kentucky a pile of hugely exaggerated horror stories about how awful New York City is and they might believe you because they've never been there themselves, but if you tried that in Ireland you'd probably just have people saying something like :


"Dublin's a hotbed of open sodomy and licenciousness is it? Can't say I saw anything like that when I was up there myself last month, and Mary's eldest has been living up that way for the last twenty years and she seems to be doing grand."

mcmoustache

kunst nugget wrote: »

I think that's a terrible idea tbh. If he doesn't get to see out his term, he gets to make the claim that the liberals have silenced him. If he gets to stay on, he'll hang himself with his own fúckwittery.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Kevin Doran is always good for a giggle.

He's right though, from a Catholic point of view at least. Their house, their rules and all that.

Anastasia_

mcmoustache wrote: »

I think that the Irish electorate is better inoculated against these ultra conservative types. I also think that these ultra conservative types know this which is why they hid the religious stuff from their message. They knew it wouldn't fly so they pretended to be about health-care. They did the same in the marriage referendum by going on about gay adoption instead of going full leviticus.

I think this is exactly where the no campaign went wrong. Being headed up by Iona? With them and the RCC preaching on about support for women in crisis pregnancies while simultaneously providing absolutely none?

In there whole campaign I saw 3 doctors speak for them. Only one of these sat on a debate panel. He then proceeded to tell Peter Boylan to 'go back to school'. If anyone took him seriously as a professional after that they should question themselves.

I agree that they attempted to mask their religious background, but they did so horrifically and it really backfired against them. If they had a panel of experts, doctors and legal professionals who weren't in any way involved with religion it would have floated much better.

They seemed to throw forward anyone who would stick - I'm still not sure what Declan Ganley's relevance is here. He's not a medical or legal professional, nor is he an elected representative. Same with McGuirk, the Sherlocks and the Ascoughs.

I voted yes for reasons already discussed in the thread, but looking back at the campaign now I am realising just how much of a complete mess the no side were.

Billy86

mcmoustache wrote: »

I think that the Irish electorate is better inoculated against these ultra conservative types. I also think that these ultra conservative types know this which is why they hid the religious stuff from their message. They knew it wouldn't fly so they pretended to be about health-care. They did the same in the marriage referendum by going on about gay adoption instead of going full leviticus.

As the campaign progressed they moved a long way beyond healthcare, to be fair. The open embracing of 'alternative facts' and refusing to even attempt to back up any of their facts (followed by consistently screaming bias when called on it, like when banned from the AH threads for failing to do so) was evident throughout much of their campaign.

It's true that we're not as bad a the US by any stretch, but look across Europe in the last 3-4 years also for similar examples. Thankfully the tide is turning back in many places, so hopefully we don't get caught up, but we shouldn't be complacent against it either.

Zubeneschamali

Anastasia_ wrote: »

If they had a panel of experts, doctors and legal professionals who weren't in any way involved with religion it would have floated much better.

For that to be possible, they would have to be on the side that might get backing from a panel of non-religious experts, doctors and legal professionals.

The Yes side, for example.

swampgas

Anastasia_ wrote: »

I think this is exactly where the no campaign went wrong. Being headed up by Iona? With them and the RCC preaching on about support for women in crisis pregnancies while simultaneously providing absolutely none?

In there whole campaign I saw 3 doctors speak for them. Only one of these sat on a debate panel. He then proceeded to tell Peter Boylan to 'go back to school'. If anyone took him seriously as a professional after that they should question themselves.

I agree that they attempted to mask their religious background, but they did so horrifically and it really backfired against them. If they had a panel of experts, doctors and legal professionals who weren't in any way involved with religion it would have floated much better.

They seemed to throw forward anyone who would stick - I'm still not sure what Declan Ganley's relevance is here. He's not a medical or legal professional, nor is he an elected representative. Same with McGuirk, the Sherlocks and the Ascoughs.

I voted yes for reasons already discussed in the thread, but looking back at the campaign now I am realising just how much of a complete mess the no side were.

Or maybe there just weren't any sensible reasons to oppose repealing the 8th? Maybe the people that were put forward, bad and all as they were, were the best that could be found?

There seems to be a sense that a better case could have been put for retaining the 8th. I honestly don't think there was.

There is a religious overhang here, with the strongly held notion by many that abortion is a terrible terrible thing that must only be allowed in the most restricted of circumstances. The only arguments I have heard for this POV have been straight out religious or from a pseudo-religious "life is sacred" perspective.

I think Ireland has moved to a far more secular, nuanced view of abortion, those still fighting against abortion don't seem to realise just how much the country has moved on without them.

seamus

Anastasia_ wrote: »

I voted yes for reasons already discussed in the thread, but looking back at the campaign now I am realising just how much of a complete mess the no side were.

Because basically anyone with any relevant expertise and who had looked at the issue, was on the "Yes" side.

The "No" side were left with retired doctors who'd been anti-abortion all their life, and anti-abortion activists who had qualified in law, but never really practiced.

Even one debate took a point from a young barrister on the pro-life side in regards to "alternative wordings", who then proceeded to hide behind his hand while another legal expert demolished the argument. I suspect that barrister had been hired as a legal professional and was therefore obliged to put the best foot forward, even if he didn't agree with it.

Odhinn

mcmoustache wrote: »

He's right though, from a Catholic point of view at least. Their house, their rules and all that.

Alas, Kev seems to think the whole island is their house, and them days are gone.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Word will get around the locality.

My own wife was warned by friends/workmates to stay far, far away from Prolife ObGyn Monaghan in Ballinasloe more than 20 years ago.

Word getting round is one thing, but its not going to help when in an emergency situation you suddenly find your GP won't refer you because of their personal beliefs.

Nettle Soup

laugh wrote: »

We're all going to hell, yay:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholics-who-voted-yes-should-consider-confession-says-bishop-1.3511127

Oh Catholic Church of Rome, please keep saying stuff like that. I love it.
It exposes the nonsense. Keep going, we are listening

Catholics who voted Yes should consider confession, says Bishop
Kevin Doran says he believes Catholics who backed repeal of the Eighth committed a sin

retro:electro

We are all eternally damned and cursed according to the Westboro Baptist Church nuts. Their Tweet is pretty graphic, before anyone decides to check it out.

pauldla

iora_rua wrote: »

Apparently, the Bishop of Elfin reckons that any Catholics who voted ‘yes’ should go to confession! Article in Irish Times I believe.

So if you don’t go to confession, that means you don’t get to spend eternity with Ronan Mullen & co.?

I’m not seeing a problem, to be honest.

The Legend Of Kira

I voted no, I said before in the past I could of voted for reform or an amendment of the 8th to allow for certain cases such as rape & when there,s no chance or survival outside the womb, but Id vote no to a straight repeal which I did.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102854890&postcount=287

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105024158&postcount=18

That said with the referendum being passed by the high per % that it passed by I accept the outcome result to quote a phrase " the people have spoken " .

Certain things which I think damaged the no side were (1) the Icbr group having banner displays outside maternity hospitals was always going to cost a lot of votes for the no side. (2) In different radio + tv debates whenever the question of abortion in cases of rape was asked to a no speaker besides having no real answer to the question no one was willing to say publicly there can be exceptions made for such cases with an amendment to the 8th but not a repeal, the fact no one was willing to make an argument to allow for exceptions in what,s termed as the hard cases may of came across as " going too far " to undecided voters.

Lastly some well known yes campaigners who contested elections in the past, are showing intolerance by calling for various speakers on the no side to be no platformed by media outlets post referendum result .

Billy86

retro:electro wrote: »

We are all externally damned and cursed according to the Westboro Baptist Church nuts. Their Tweet is pretty graphic, before anyone decides to check it out.

I thought they'd be happy, some aborted foetuses would have grown up into those fags they keep telling us God hates so much?

spookwoman

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Welcome to the club, Spook! :pac: :pac:

Its like listening to a broken record with them how many times has 97% of abortions in uk is for "social reasons". It comes up very 10 or so pages we counter and they bring up another rehashed excuse and it goes on and on

Taytoland

The no side didn't have as good propaganda as the yes side. They should have been more graphic with signs, had the Catholic church invest money into the campaign, tell as many half truths as possible, try to divide people in someway, try to find a way which will almost make the referendum not only about abortion but something else too which will tighten it up and not be a runaway winner. 

They failed to make it as close as possible. No political or religious divide to help the no side.

PopePalpatine

Billy86 wrote: »

I thought they'd be happy, some aborted foetuses would have grown up into those fags they keep telling us God hates so much?

But some others could have grown up to commit hate crimes, so it's swings and roundabouts.

.......

This post has been deleted.

mcmoustache

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I voted no, I said before in the past I could of voted for reform or an amendment of the 8th to allow for certain cases such as rape & when there,s no chance or survival outside the womb, but Id vote no to a straight repeal which I did.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102854890&postcount=287

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105024158&postcount=18

That said with the referendum being passed by the high per % that it passed by I accept the outcome result to quote a phrase " the people have spoken " .

Certain things which I think damaged the no side were (1) the Icbr group having banner displays outside maternity hospitals was always going to cost a lot of votes for the no side. (2) In different radio + tv debates whenever the question of abortion in cases of rape was asked to a no speaker besides having no real answer to the question no one was willing to say publicly there can be exceptions made for such cases with an amendment to the 8th but not a repeal, the fact no one was willing to make an argument to allow for exceptions in what,s termed as the hard cases may of came across as " going too far " to undecided voters.

Lastly some well known yes campaigners who contested elections in the past, are showing intolerance by calling for various speakers on the no side to be no platformed by media outlets post referendum result .

That's a pretty solid analysis of the no campaign. The problem is that they were kind of locked into that position. These people are all hard-core catholics so they can't really allow abortion under any circumstance. They don't actually want exceptions to the ban on abortions.

I'd argue that had the No-types proposed an amendment as you described prior to the Citizen's Assembly's proposal, I suspect that it would have passed and taken the wind out of the sails of the Repeal campaign. Due to their inability to compromise, they've ended up with something worse from their point of view than what could have been achieved.

retro:electro

....... wrote: »

[*]People should practice outercourse rather than intercourse.

Ah the old dry humping argument. That was gas. And bum sex. Don’t forget about the dude who recommended bum sex.

ohnonotgmail

retro:electro wrote: »

Ah the old dry humping argument. That was gas. And bum sex. Don’t forget about the dude who recommended bum sex.

I really do think he was on to something though

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Taytoland

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Has pope Frankie made any statement?

Pope Francis, the first Protestant pope ever. He's as much of a Catholic as me, which is not at all.

ohnonotgmail

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the vatican is wisely staying out of it. They are letting Kevin Doran run point.

Fighting Tao

Taytoland wrote: »

The no side didn't have as good propaganda as the yes side. They should have been more graphic with signs, had the Catholic church invest money into the campaign, tell as many half truths as possible, try to divide people in someway, try to find a way which will almost make the referendum not only about abortion but something else too which will tighten it up and not be a runaway winner. 

They failed to make it as close as possible. No political or religious divide to help the no side.

You mean "The no side didn't tell the truth like the yes side".

erica74

Taytoland wrote: »

The no side didn't have as good propaganda as the yes side. They should have been more graphic with signs, had the Catholic church invest money into the campaign, tell as many half truths as possible, try to divide people in someway, try to find a way which will almost make the referendum not only about abortion but something else too which will tighten it up and not be a runaway winner. 

They failed to make it as close as possible. No political or religious divide to help the no side.

Shoulda woulda coulda

The yes side "won" because more people voted yes.

Taytoland wrote: »

They should have been more graphic with signs

I'm not sure how more graphic the No side could have gotten with their posters. "Aborted foetuses" on posters outside our maternity hospitals? Was that not graphic enough for you?

spookwoman

Graces7 wrote: »

Not quite sure of the nuances of your words? In the Didache, 1st century Christian teaching, abortion is forbidden,

BUT it is not an exclusively religious common sense ideal of course. Simple humanity and respect for life.

You left a good bit out of the history of the church and abortion. The church was often in favor of abortion through the centuries. I've added the link for you to read as well.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

4th Century BCE TO 1st Century CE Abortion accepted by most
Many beliefs most followed the belief of "delayed ensoulment" of Aristotle. This latter event, called "ensoulment," was believed to occur at 40 days after conception for male fetuses, and 90 days after conception for female fetuses.
Early in the 1st century CE, a well-known Jewish philosopher -- Philo of Alexandria -- (20 BCE - circa 47 CE) wrote on infanticide and abortion, 2 condemning non-Jews of other cultures and religions for the widespread, unjustified practices.

2nd Century CE TO 4th Century CE Abortion accepted by most
With the exception of Judaism, most or all of the competing religions allowed women to have abortions and allowed parents to kill new-born babies by strangulation or exposing them as methods of population control.

5th TO 16th Century CE Accepted by most
St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment." Augustine had little influence over the beliefs of Orthodox Christianity. They retained their original anti-abortion stance.

Starting in the 7th century CE not accepted by the west
a series of penitentials were written in the West. These listed an array of sins, with the penance that a person must observe as punishment for the sin. Certain "sins" which prevented conception had particularly heavy penalties

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216): Abortion accepted
He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

Pope Stephen V (served 885-891) Abortion not accepted
wrote in 887 CE: "If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old." "Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz."

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216): Abortion accepted
He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) Abortion Accepted
also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) Abortion Not accepted
issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.

Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) Abortion Accepted
revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days (about 17 weeks) into pregnancy.

17th TO 19th Century CE Abortion not accepted.

Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to "the fetus."


for anyone saying its not a foetus even the church referred to the unborn as a foetus


Just because you believe and follow the beliefs of imaginary invisible man floating in the clouds does not mean everyone has to live by those rules as well. you also have to remember this is the 21st century and not everyone is catholic or even follows a religion.

I know you are no longer of child bearing age so please explain to me how someone else having an abortion will affect you, howover the years you have helped women in crises pregnancies, have supported any of them financially, have you adopted any of their children?

Fighting Tao

spookwoman wrote: »

You left a good bit out of the history of the church and abortion. The church was often in favor of abortion through the centuries. I've added the link for you to read as well.

What was posted include an abortion of convenience. The parts that she doesn't like are taken out.

Omackeral

Graces7 wrote: »

So? Quality not quantity.. and who cares then

Omackeral wrote: »

Quantity is basically the only thing that matters in a referendum, sorry to break it to you.

Graces7 wrote: »

And a third of the population is a sizaeble NO!

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It’s over! The People who we all voted in will now legislate.

Graces7 wrote: »

Wanna bet?

Poor Graces7 is still struggling with the whole democracy thing I see.