Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

ohnonotgmail

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Reducing all anti-abortion advocates to people with an "anti-woman bias" is simplistic and reductive.

Many women voted against abortion - are they anti-women too?

Have you considered that perhaps some no voters are concerned for what they consider the life of the unborn, rather than hating women in general and voting no for the sake of oppressing them further?

I'm more concerned with the fact that they supported an amendment that has done harm to women over the last 35 years and totally failed in what it actually set out to do which was ban abortion. That sort of simple-mindedness is not to be admired.

7aubzxk43m2sni

SusieBlue wrote: »

You literally just took 1 line out of her whole post completely out of context. And then you wonder why people get frustrated with you.

He quoted several parts of her posts and responded to each, and as far as I can see did not misrepresent anything quoted?

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I dont think he is as clever as he thinks. People have seen through him. I've been a FF voter all my life. never again.

Water John

Elm, its more nuanced than your saying, in relation to politicians. Without Billy Kelleher +2 other FF, who proposed the 12 weeks, along with Michael Martin's intervention, this Referendum would probably have not got to first base.
I contrast, our Minister for Ag, just let out a whisper, which nobody heard that he would be voting Yes, about a week before the vote.
In contrast the 8th would never have been there, except for Charlie Haughey.

ELM327

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Reducing all anti-abortion advocates to people with an "anti-woman bias" is simplistic and reductive.

Many women voted against abortion - are they anti-women too?

Have you considered that perhaps some no voters are concerned for what they consider the life of the unborn, rather than hating women in general and voting no for the sake of oppressing them further?

The life of the unborn is a moot point as Irish terminations happened every day, of every week, of every month, of every year.

In effect this referendum was to reduce Ireland's abortion limit from 24 weeks to 12, and allow women to have the procedure at home. Ending the blood flow in ryanair or irish ferries toilets.


Any woman who voted no needs their head examined.

ArmaniJeanss

I wouldn't have a problem with politicians who voted No and/or campaigned for No.

But I'd have a big issue with those who voted against having the referendum at all back when the Bill was going through the Dail. That was extremely anti-democratic of them.

ELM327

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont think he is as clever as he thinks. People have seen through him. I've be a FF voter all my life. never again.

+1
Never again. Many years and elections of voting FF. Gone. And I can't imagine i'm the only one.

Water John wrote: »

Elm, its more nuanced than your saying, in relation to politicians. Without Billy Kelleher +2 other FF, who proposed the 12 weeks, along with Michael Martin's intervention, this Referendum would probably have not got to first base.
I contrast, our Minister for Ag, just let out a whisper, which nobody heard that he would be voting Yes, about a week before the vote.
In contrast the 8th would never have been there, except for Charlie Haughey.

The referendum was brought about by Enda Kenny and the citizens assembly.

Hotblack Desiato

Kumejima wrote: »

Just to explain it from a No voters perspective. Most of us believe the unborn child is a human being. A living child. No lesser worth than a 1 year old toddler.

The experiences of Irish women and couples who experience miscarriage proves that to be false. Nobody in society, the health system or even in the church really acts as if they believe an embryo is equivalent to a toddler. There are no autopsies, funerals, blessings, sacraments, gravestones, or homicide investigations for dead embryos.

The other reason the comparison with a baby is ridiculous is that, obviously, a baby is no longer inside a woman's body and entirely dependent on it and affecting that woman's health. Any competent adult can take care of it, and it happens often enough that someone other than the mother does.

Water John

Martin took a big, political risk. If No won, he was gone, as leader of FF.
Don't be reconstructing what he did, through the prism, of hindsight.

SusieBlue

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

He quoted several parts of her posts and responded to each, and as far as I can see did not misrepresent anything quoted?

No, he replied to 1 line out of her long post, and then quoted someone else (also out of context, but anyway).

7aubzxk43m2sni

SusieBlue wrote: »

No, he replied to 1 line out of her long post, and then quoted someone else (also out of context, but anyway).

What did he misrepresent from her post?

kunst nugget

ELM327 wrote: »

+1
Never again. Many years and elections of voting FF. Gone. And I can't imagine i'm the only one.

FF have always been the main political party that's been most heavily pro-life and you're only deciding to not vote for them now?

iguana

kunst nugget wrote: »

Why are you targeting her in particular? There were plenty of politicians that adopted a pro-life stance. The pro-choice side won and I'm delighted with that but deciding to name and shame politicians that didn't agree with that stance is tacky imo.

What about those who voted against having a referendum? Whatever about politicians who decided to vote in a different way to the majority. But those who voted against the democratic process are an absolute disgrace. They thought there was a chance the public might vote in a way they didn't like so they sought to prevent the public from voting.:mad:

Ineedaname

Igotadose wrote: »

Just watched the Simon Harris interview with Claire Byrne. He said the Medical council needs to do something about this, that is, they need to clarify their guidelines regarding referring women to doctors who will perform an abortion if the doctor being asked will not. To me, this means the guidelines aren't in place yet. Probably they will be, I imagine the medical council knows they have something to do here. I expect nothing changes until the legislation's proposed at least, if not passed.

On another note, I've found 3 links showing lawyers, psychiatrists and doctors that have come out against repeal: (these are from anti-repeal sites)

https://www.save8.ie/statement-by-lawyers/
https://www.save8.ie/statement-from-psychiatrists/
https://www.dublindeclaration.com/signatories/

(note that the dublindeclaration's a bit more subtle than the other links)

I don't see why referring a patient for an abortion is any different to referring them for any other treatment. They are obligated to provide the best medical advice they can. If they refuse then they are not fit to practice.

SusieBlue

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

What did he misrepresent from her post?

Are you just here to pick apart other peoples posts or have you anything constructive to add besides your endless criticism?

ELM327

kunst nugget wrote: »

FF have always been the main political party that's been most heavily pro-life and you're only deciding to not vote for them now?

All political parties have been publicly pro life (except labour - who I would never vote for) until fairly recently.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

From what I've read, the doctors failed to realise that she was in danger of dying from sepsis.

It's obvious to anyone that a woman with a dying pregnancy and an open cervix for a period of days is at serious risk of sepsis.

Once they realised this, they performed an abortion

No they did not. They waited for the heartbeat to stop. She expelled the dead foetus naturally before they could remove it.

The symptoms of sepsis are identical to that of pregnancy so its difficult to diagnose.

Nonsense.

It cannot be said with certainty that an earlier abortion would have saved her life.

Sepsis killed her
The sepsis was caused by waiting for days for her to miscarry, instead of carrying out an abortion which in her situation is best medical practice
They waited for days because there was still a foetal heartbeat, and they believed that under the 8th amendment they had to. There was no legislation in place at the time saying otherwise.

Join the dots.

I'm 100% pro repeal and pro choice

I'm the King of Siam.

but I do think her death has been used as a political tool.

You're damn right that it's been used as a campaigning point, it's a shame on the Irish people that we (or our parents) voted for laws which allowed this to happen, it's a shame which had to be prevented from happening ever again.

This is the conclusion I came to not too long ago when I did a bit of research.

Clearly you didn't do much, or only did it on anti-choice propaganda sites.

Water John

I think Minister Harris made it clear, that refusal to refer, would be breaking the law. We'll see how many really stay with their stance?

The Legend Of Kira

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

While Mary didn,t specify her views on abortion in her election leaflets, prior to the last general election all candidates were asked to complete/take part an online survey on whichcandidate.ie to give their views on the various issues some candidiates took part in that online survey while others didn,t . Mary took part in that online survey & gave her reply to the issue of abortion " as only when the mothers life is at risk from illness or suicide " .

Link is provided to Mary,s profile from whichcandidate.ie .

http://whichcandidate.ie/events/5/constituencies/48/candidates/296

Is this the same survey the pro life campaign organised and published the results of on their site also, or a different survey?

7aubzxk43m2sni

SusieBlue wrote: »

Are you just here to pick apart other peoples posts or have you anything constructive to add besides your endless criticism?

Does that mean he did not quote her out of context or misrepresent her argument?

Apologies if you feel like I am not adding to the discussion.

The point I initially wanted to make before we got distracted is that we should be cautious in what happens next. Naming and shaming every no voter is not a good course.

You are entitled to vote for someone based on their vote in the referendum, no one is disputing that.

Likewise if you want to choose a different GP because of their views on abortion, you are entitled to do so.

What I think is problematic is the proposition that every no voter (including politicians, doctors and solicitors??) should be smeared and discredited, because they are women haters or oppressors. We are going in the direction of silencing everyone with a dissenting option, and that is rather worrying.

Furthermore the refusal to engage in conversation with people (online or otherwise) based on their views is not productive in the slightest. We achieve nothing if we surround ourselves with people of the same opinion and bask in our superiority over the "others" on the other side.

The yes campaign won, I would propose that the next step for those who wish to remain involved in the process would be to work to ensure that the legislation that goes through regarding abortion is solid.

Wrongway1985

kunst nugget wrote: »

FF have always been the main political party that's been most heavily pro-life and you're only deciding to not vote for them now?

Healy-Raes, Mattie McGrath ex FF

gormdubhgorm

No sign of this thread been terminated yet will be interest to see how many weeks it is given.....

The fun and games are really going to start now with the legislation.

All the different agendas will be pitted against each other from the yes side.

The genie is out of the bottle and people should be careful for what they wish for.

The way some are going on you would swear abortion is as simple as changing the colour of your hair.

"A woman's place is in the revolution" etc is one of the more annoying slogans I saw.

On the other hand the Catholic church has done themselves no favours in the debate either.

With the likes of Bishop's offering confessions for those who voted yes!

Both hardliners on the yes and no side of this debate annoyed me if I am honest.

It is was not as simple as yes or no.

There was little nuance in the whole thing.

Personally I ended up voting no not because 'I don't trust women' but because I don't trust the legislature.

Millions will now have to be spend getting organised training from countries that already have abortion, couselling etc

If the country cannot even get smear tests right what will happen with abortion?

I was veering slightly towards yes (savita case in particular), when a conversation with a yes campaigner(at the door) made me a definite no!



The Yes Canvasser and Me

Me: I was thinking about the Savita case main reason to vote yes


However, I don't get this give women the choice they already have choices.

If your mother had the choice you might not be here to have the choice!


Yes Canvasser: That's hypotetical


Me: I am also worried about Downs Syndrome, designer abortions, - ethical questions like that

Also what is wrong with adoption as a choice.

I have had longer recoveries from surgeries then 9 months (which is true) and look at the joy it would bring others?



Yes Canvasser: We are not there to give children to others...adoption laws are difficult



Me: OK... I have a relation who adopted his son and he is doing very well for himself now.

He would not have got that chance if he was aborted.



Yes Canvasser: When I was pregnant I was in so much pain only for my mother....


Me: But it is only 9 months!


Yes Canvasser: (face like thunder) that is very patronising (closed the door and stormed off)

Then it hit me...

It got me thinking on the two extremes

Yes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters

A hopeful elimination of consequence - looking for a quick fix

Individualist - mé féin



No - Selfless Act - put up with pain to bring another life into the world (unless a threat to the life of the mother)

Thinking of others rather then yourself.

Dealing with consequences to actions.


That is what it boiled down to for me in it's simplest terms

kunst nugget

ELM327 wrote: »

All political parties have been publicly pro life (except labour - who I would never vote for) until fairly recently.

But suddenly it's an issue for you?

I've always voted Labour based on their stance on social issues…

Movementarian

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

For those who blame the death of Savita Halappanaver on the Eight Amendment, how do you explain this medical neglegence settlement?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/medical-negligence-case-taken-by-savita-halappanavars-widower-settled-out-of-court-34526609.html

A medical negligence case being taken by the widower of Savita Halappanavar has been settled out of court.

The case, which was being taken by Praveen Halappanavar against the HSE and obstetrician Katherine Astbury was due to begin tomorrow in the High Court.

However, a source has told the Irish Independent the case was settled late last week.

And this article in The Irish Examiner?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/savitas-death-is-not-about-abortion-it-is-about-medical-negligence-247993.html

The fact is, a finding of medical negligence is an extremely difficult outcome, and I wonder how many people are even aware of its relevance in the case of Savita Halappanavar? Her medical team were perfectly entitled to terminate her pregnancy; as it transpires, they were actually at fault for NOT having done so.

For the 100th time, the HSE report clearly states that 'concerns about the law affected the judgement of the medical team'. Its there in black and white, the 8th amendment directly impacted the care she was given. It was medical negligence yes for sure but it was influenced by the law in place. Its not hard to grasp.

robarmstrong

There is nothing democratic about voting to retain a constitutional amendment that would force women to remain pregnant (at least in this country) despite the likes of rapists, abusive partners, FFA, uterine abnormalities, issues with mental health being extremely valid reasons for abortion (of which a lot of no voters *from my experience here* would agree were valid reasons bar maybe the mental health) purely because what was proposed didn't suit or sit well with certain individuals.

There is nothing democratic about retaining a constitutional amendment that forces medical professionals to wait until a woman is on death's door to grant her an abortion she needs.

The 8th should have never been brought into place, we shouldn't have been voting on repealing or retaining it, we should have been banding together to come up with appropriate, solid legislation, but unfortunately it didn't go that way.

Hotblack Desiato

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

That is very different to shaming politicians for their stance.

You can only shame someone for their stance if their stance is shameful, so you sorta torpedoed your own argument there.

I don't think it's shameful for a politician to be anti-choice provided they're upfront about it so voters are aware. If they get elected then it's reasonable for them to express their view in the Oireachtas (not ridiculous filibustering or obstruction though) provided that they accept there is a majority opposing their view.

It's important that pro-choice voters elect only pro-choice TDs, as the incoming abortion legislation could be tightened or overturned in future by a Dail vote. Unlikely I'd say, but possible.

SusieBlue

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Does that mean he did not quote her out of context or misrepresent her argument?

Apologies if you feel like I am not adding to the discussion.

The point I initially wanted to make before we got distracted is that we should be cautious in what happens next. Naming and shaming every no voter is not a good course.

You are entitled to vote for someone based on their vote in the referendum, no one is disputing that.

Likewise if you want to choose a different GP because of their views on abortion, you are entitled to do so.

What I think is problematic is the proposition that every no voter (including politicians, doctors and solicitors??) should be smeared and discredited, because they are women haters or oppressors. We are going in the direction of silencing everyone with a dissenting option, and that is rather worrying.

Furthermore the refusal to engage in conversation with people (online or otherwise) based on their views is not productive in the slightest. We achieve nothing if we surround ourselves with people of the same opinion and bask in our superiority over the "others" on the other side.

The yes campaign won, I would propose that the next step for those who wish to remain involved in the process would be to work to ensure that the legislation that goes through regarding abortion is solid.

He did quote her out of context, because he removed 5-6 lines of the post which explained her position on it, specifically regarding Savita and the No sides unyielding propensity to deny the 8th had any hand in her death.

I think you are overstating things here.
This isn't a movement to smear every single person with pro-life views.

GP's are in a position of trust, that trust is compromised if doctor/patient priorities don't align.
TD's and politicians represent us in government. I couldn't and wouldn't vote for someone whose views are the polar opposite to mine.

Beyond that, I don't really care if my hairdresser or butcher or colleague in work is Pro-Life, its irrelevant. It has no bearing on my life.
Their views are their own and I respect their right to hold them, it only becomes a problem when those views impact my life.

In your regards to comments about online - I've been posting on this topic here for at least the last 2 years.
I'm not afraid to have my views challenged.
What I do have a problem with is misrepresenting someone's point by quoting 1 line out of a post, failure to back up arguments, and people posting with no proof of their claims.
Unfortunately these threads can be rife with people doing all of the above.

.......

This post has been deleted.

robarmstrong

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters
A hopeful elimination of consequence
Individualist - mé féin

Wrong, big time.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No - Selfless Act - put up with pain to bring another life into the world (unless a threat to the life of the mother)
Thinking of others rather then yourself.
Dealing consequences to actions.


That is what it boiled down to for me in it's simplest terms

I think you're confusing simplest terms with outright ignorance.

I'm sure plenty of women who have to endure tremendous pain and suffering along with the mental toll of a pregnancy would be very grateful for your little "ah shur it's only 9 months" spiel.

kunst nugget

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Then it hit me...

It got me thinking on the two extremes

Yes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters
A hopeful elimination of consequence
Individualist - mé féin



No - Selfless Act - put up with pain to bring another life into the world (unless a threat to the life of the mother)
Thinking of others rather then yourself.
Dealing consequences to actions.


That is what it boiled down to for me in it's simplest terms

If you want to make the decision to go ahead with the selfless act, I applaud you and that's your choice. I've never believed that what I would choose to do should mean I should stand in the way of what others choose to do.

swampgas

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It got me thinking on the two extremes

Yes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters
A hopeful elimination of consequence
Individualist - mé féin



No - Selfless Act - put up with pain to bring another life into the world (unless a threat to the life of the mother)
Thinking of others rather then yourself.
Dealing consequences to actions.


That is what it boiled down to for me in it's simplest terms

Hahaha - really?

So unless a woman is prepared to sacrifice her autonomy, health, happiness and possibly her life, she's being selfish?

Are all the women in your life expected to put themselves last? I guess they're also expected to make the sandwiches.

LorelaiG

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No sign of this thread been terminated yet will be interest to see how many weeks it is given.....

The fun and games are really going to start now with the legislation.

The genie is out of the bottle and people should be careful for what they wish for.

The way some are going on you would swear abortion is as simple as changing the colour of your hair.

"A woman's place is in the revolution" etc is one of the more annoying slogans I saw.

On the other hand the Catholic church has done themselves no favours in the debate either.

With the likes of Bishop's offering confessions for those who voted yes.

Both hardliners on the yes and no side of this debate annoyed me if I am honest.

It is was not as simple as yes or no.

There was little nuance in the whole thing.

Personally I ended up voting no not because 'I don't trust women' but because I don't trust the legislature.

You don't need to trust the legislature, in countries like Canada abortion is legal up to term. What happens there is the same as anywhere else in the world, the stats are the same, 92% of abortions happen before 12 weeks and the rest are for threat to the health/life of the mother or for FFA. Women do not go around demanding abortions after being pregnant for 4/5/6 months just because.

Millions will now have to be spend getting organised training from countries that already have abortion, couselling etc

I'm sorry but you're wrong, no extra training will have to be provided to anyone, the pills are already dispensed in this country. The doctors know the risks, side effects etc.

For abortions after 12 weeks and up to viability an ERPC will be performed, which is what already happens in Irish hospitals if there's a late term miscarriage anyway, after viability a live birth will take place so induction or ceserean. No extra training required by anybody.


If the country cannot even get smear tests right what will happen with abortion.
That wasn't this country, it was labs in the US... the way it was handled when it was discovered was the problem

I was veering slightly towards yes (savita case in particular), when a conversation with a yes campaigner made me a definite no!

Me: I was thinking about the Savita case main reason to vote yes

However, I don't get this give women the choice they already have choices.

If your mother had the choice you might not be here to have the choice!

Yes Canvasser: That's hypotetical

Me: I am also worried about Downs Syndrome, designer abortions, - ethical questions like that

Also what is wrong with adoption as a choice.

I have had longer recoveries from surgeries then 9 months (which is true) and look at the joy it would bring others?



Yes Canvasser: We are not there to give children to others...adoption laws are difficult



Me: OK... I have a relation who adopted his son and he is doing very well for himself now.

He would not have got that chance if he was aborted.



Yes Canvasser: When I was pregnant I was in so much pain only for my mother....


Me: But it is only 9 months!


Yes Canvasser: (face like thunder) that is very patronising (closed the door and stormed off)

Then it hit me...

It got me thinking on the two extremes

Yes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters
A hopeful elimination of consequence
Individualist - mé fein



No - Selfless Act - put up with pain to bring another life into the world (unless a threat to the life of the mother)
Thinking of others rather then yourself.
Dealing consequences to actions.


That is what it boiled down to for me in it's simplest terms

The rest of your post is just a load of nonsense. The Yes campaigner was right, nobody should be forced to remain pregnant, against their will so they can give someone else the joy of a child. Adoption is not always an option. Pregnancy is not just 9 months of 'little pains' it can leave women with life long complications.

Why should the consequence of having sex = having to raise a child for 18+ years?

SusieBlue

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters
A hopeful elimination of consequence
Individualist - mé féin

Are you not concerned with your own body and your own choices?
How is that selfish? Does everyone not care about themselves?
Precious children should not be weaponised into consequences for people who don't want to be parents. How insulting.

No - Selfless Act - put up with pain to bring another life into the world (unless a threat to the life of the mother)
Thinking of others rather then yourself.
Dealing consequences to actions.

For some people having an abortion IS taking responsibility.
There is nothing selfless about having a baby you do not want, cannot afford to feed, and cannot look after.
Exactly whose benefit (this "thinking of others") is it in for me to have a baby I do not want? Who are these "others"?

Hitman3000

gormdubhgorm wrote:

Personally I ended up voting no not because 'I don't trust women' but because I don't trust the legislature.

Don't buy it.... just be honest you were No, no matter what. Blaming the legislature is an excuse and easily seen through.

ohnonotgmail

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No sign of this thread been terminated yet will be interest to see how many weeks it is given.....

The fun and games are really going to start now with the legislation.

All the different agendas will be pitted against each other from the yes side.

The genie is out of the bottle and people should be careful for what they wish for.

The way some are going on you would swear abortion is as simple as changing the colour of your hair.

"A woman's place is in the revolution" etc is one of the more annoying slogans I saw.

On the other hand the Catholic church has done themselves no favours in the debate either.

With the likes of Bishop's offering confessions for those who voted yes!

Both hardliners on the yes and no side of this debate annoyed me if I am honest.

It is was not as simple as yes or no.

There was little nuance in the whole thing.

Personally I ended up voting no not because 'I don't trust women' but because I don't trust the legislature.

Millions will now have to be spend getting organised training from countries that already have abortion, couselling etc

If the country cannot even get smear tests right what will happen with abortion.

I was veering slightly towards yes (savita case in particular), when a conversation with a yes campaigner(at the door) made me a definite no!



The Yes Canvasser and Me

Me: I was thinking about the Savita case main reason to vote yes


However, I don't get this give women the choice they already have choices.

If your mother had the choice you might not be here to have the choice!


Yes Canvasser: That's hypotetical


Me: I am also worried about Downs Syndrome, designer abortions, - ethical questions like that

Also what is wrong with adoption as a choice.

I have had longer recoveries from surgeries then 9 months (which is true) and look at the joy it would bring others?



Yes Canvasser: We are not there to give children to others...adoption laws are difficult



Me: OK... I have a relation who adopted his son and he is doing very well for himself now.

He would not have got that chance if he was aborted.



Yes Canvasser: When I was pregnant I was in so much pain only for my mother....


Me: But it is only 9 months!


Yes Canvasser: (face like thunder) that is very patronising (closed the door and stormed off)

Then it hit me...

It got me thinking on the two extremes

Yes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters
A hopeful elimination of consequence
Individualist - mé féin



No - Selfless Act - put up with pain to bring another life into the world (unless a threat to the life of the mother)
Thinking of others rather then yourself.
Dealing with consequences to actions.


That is what it boiled down to for me in it's simplest terms

Dealing with consequences to actions.

Even after you lost you still continue with the slut-shaming.

Mavis Warm Stranger

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Does that mean he did not quote her out of context or misrepresent her argument?

Apologies if you feel like I am not adding to the discussion.

The point I initially wanted to make before we got distracted is that we should be cautious in what happens next. Naming and shaming every no voter is not a good course.

You are entitled to vote for someone based on their vote in the referendum, no one is disputing that.

Likewise if you want to choose a different GP because of their views on abortion, you are entitled to do so.

What I think is problematic is the proposition that every no voter (including politicians, doctors and solicitors??) should be smeared and discredited, because they are women haters or oppressors. We are going in the direction of silencing everyone with a dissenting option, and that is rather worrying.

Furthermore the refusal to engage in conversation with people (online or otherwise) based on their views is not productive in the slightest. We achieve nothing if we surround ourselves with people of the same opinion and bask in our superiority over the "others" on the other side.

The yes campaign won, I would propose that the next step for those who wish to remain involved in the process would be to work to ensure that the legislation that goes through regarding abortion is solid.

Well certain retain groups have no issue pointing out politicians who will vote no or yes and telling people who to vote for, so I'm assuming you don't want the yes side to do the same on the basis to be on the higher moral ground?

Doctors who voted no and/or do not wish to abide by the law in relation to referring to another doctor ot practice should be listed publicly so people have a choice to decide if they wish to attend their practices or not simply on the grounds of knowing if their doctor holds their own personal beliefs in higher regard than the health of their patients.

ELM327

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Don't buy it.... just be honest you were No, no matter what. Blaming the legislature is an excuse and easily seen through.

We trust the legislature for everything else that matters in life but not for this?


Hogwash

retro:electro

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yes - Selfish Act - MY body - MY choice - it was all MY, MY, MY, on the posters

You’re dead right.

They should have read my body your choice.

Whatever were we thinking.

:rolleyes:

Shurimgreat

@gormdubh.

I wouldn't waste my time on this thread. Many from the No side have been shouted down and told to stop posting, give up, etc because they lost.

It has become a yes side circle jerk and thank fest and my advice would be to leave them to it.

Grayson

swampgas wrote: »

Hahaha - really?

So unless a woman is prepared to sacrifice her autonomy, health, happiness and possibly her life, she's being selfish?

Are all the women in your life expected to put themselves last? I guess they're also expected to make the sandwiches.

Honestly, that post looked like it was done by the same guys who did these two.

Hitman3000

Shurimgreat wrote:

I wouldn't waste my time on this thread. Many from the No side have and been shouted down and told to stop posting because they lost, etc.

How can anyone be shouted down on this thread? If you post disingenuous comments you are going to get called out regardless of your stance in the referendum.

Grayditch

That may be the poster that swung the campaign...

7aubzxk43m2sni

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You can only shame someone for their stance if their stance is shameful, so you sorta torpedoed your own argument there.

I don't think it's shameful for a politician to be anti-choice provided they're upfront about it so voters are aware. If they get elected then it's reasonable for them to express their view in the Oireachtas (not ridiculous filibustering or obstruction though) provided that they accept there is a majority opposing their view.

It's important that pro-choice voters elect only pro-choice TDs, as the incoming abortion legislation could be tightened or overturned in future by a Dail vote. Unlikely I'd say, but possible.

I used the terminology used by previous posters, specifically "naming and shaming". I would argue that whther someone's stance is shameful or not depends on your perspective, so i didn't torpedo anything.

It interesting that you used "anti-choice", is pro-life an inaccurate description? Would you appreciate being labelled "anti-life" by a no voter?

As far as I can tell, nobody has argued that pro choice voters should not vote for pro choice TDs

robarmstrong

Shurimgreat wrote: »

@gormdubh.

I wouldn't waste my time on this thread. Many from the No side have been shouted down and told to stop posting, give up, etc because they lost.

It has become a yes side circle jerk and thank fest and my advice would be to leave them to it.

Rubbish.

If you post absolute bollocks on a thread in AH you are fully expected to be called out for said bollocks.

There's a difference between getting called out for talking shite and being shouted down, stop posting, etc.

gormdubhgorm

swampgas wrote: »

Hahaha - really?

So unless a woman is prepared to sacrifice her autonomy, health, happiness and possibly her life, she's being selfish?

Are all the women in your life expected to put themselves last? I guess they're also expected to make the sandwiches.

Those type of comments are not helpful is as silly as the "women's place is the revolution" slogan.

The strong muscular female arm on the poster (ironically aping soviet russia)

Silly stuff in my eyes

It is not putting yourself last it is thinking of the greater good rather then a selfish quick fix act, which is likely to cause more trouble in the long run.

An abortion cannot be undone but a child can be adopted or fostered.

Which could bring happiness to another woman/man/same sex couple whatever.

The consequences of abortion are far more finite.

It is feigning strength, choice etc...there are other choices.

When it comes down to it is a SELFISH act.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

How can anyone be shouted down on this thread? If you post disingenuous comments you are going to get called out regardless of your stance in the referendum.

Can't post logical factual posts, is called on them, out comes victim card. Same tactic used by other posters as in the threads prior to the vote.

pleas advice

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Even after you lost you still continue with the slut-shaming.

...

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You can only shame someone for their stance if their stance is shameful, so you sorta torpedoed your own argument there..

7aubzxk43m2sni

SusieBlue wrote: »

He did quote her out of context, because he removed 5-6 lines of the post which explained her position on it, specifically regarding Savita and the No sides unyielding propensity to deny the 8th had any hand in her death.

I think you are overstating things here.
This isn't a movement to smear every single person with pro-life views.

GP's are in a position of trust, that trust is compromised if doctor/patient priorities don't align.
TD's and politicians represent us in government. I couldn't and wouldn't vote for someone whose views are the polar opposite to mine.

Beyond that, I don't really care if my hairdresser or butcher or colleague in work is Pro-Life, its irrelevant. It has no bearing on my life.
Their views are their own and I respect their right to hold them, it only becomes a problem when those views impact my life.

In your regards to comments about online - I've been posting on this topic here for at least the last 2 years.
I'm not afraid to have my views challenged.
What I do have a problem with is misrepresenting someone's point by quoting 1 line out of a post, failure to back up arguments, and people posting with no proof of their claims.
Unfortunately these threads can be rife with people doing all of the above.

Apologies, I thought he had quoted someone else. You are correct that the full context of her post was not quoted.
That said - his response was not invalid, he merely raised the point that many women voted no.


And solicitors? Should, as one poster stated earlier, a list of solicitors against repeal be compiled so that everyone can avoid them too?

I appreciate that you are prepared to defend your views, however others have clearly stated that they are adding certain no voters to their ignore list, which is what I am referring to.

Additionally, I was asked whether I voted no in the referendum, and clarification as to the relevance of my vote has not been offered.

Hitman3000

gormdubhgorm wrote:

When it comes down to it is a SELFISH act.

I think this is your true reason to vote NO. You see abortion as a selfish act. Do you allow for any justification or is it still selfish no matter what?