Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Trasna1

Hellrazer wrote: »

See I can do colour aswell!!!!!
The referendum was a definitive "Yes" The electorate has decided by a majority of 2 to 1 in favour of allowing abortion in the state.

I wish the No campaigners would just get over that. Sore losers anyone??

The sooner the better the law is in place to shut you lot up once and for all.

Womens rights won through in the end and I firmly believe that's what made the yes vote win in the end.No number of aborted fetus`posters could have swayed the referendum in favour of the no vote. The whole controlling women has been defeated regardless of whether you agree with abortion or not.

]

In a democracy the losing side is still allowed to protest the result.

Would you tell anti Trump or anti Brexit campaigners to shut up too? They lost as well, are they sore losers too? Should they just get over it?

Or are you so politically immature that you only call the side you don't agree with sore losers?

Achasanai

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Disagree boards.ie has a clear leaning when it comes to political and social debate.

So did the country, if the results were anything to go by.

ELM327

Trasna1 wrote: »

In a democracy the losing side is still allowed to protest the result.

Would you tell anti Trump or anti Brexit campaigners to shut up too? They lost as well, are they sore losers too? Should they just get over it?

Or are you so politically immature that you only call the side you don't agree with sore losers?

Yes.

ELM327

robarmstrong wrote: »

You were saying?

He was threadbanned from the other threads
I can only imagine it was for similar reasons.

Igotadose

Has the 8th been officially repealed now? I read somewhere that it could've happened on Tuesday, maybe the Uachtaran has to sign something?
Or is it still on the books?

pauldla

robarmstrong wrote: »

You were saying?

Revealing, perhaps, that 'all abortion is murder' is described as a 'tactic' rather than a principle.

Fighting Tao

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Did he say anywhere that he wanted to force a rape victim to carry a child?

If you want to beat somebody in argument, build up the strongest version of their argument and try to undermine that, rather than reducing and misrepresenting their position to one so extreme that very would agree with it in the first place.

Hey Mavis Warm Stranger. As I said, you misrepresented the poster I quoted. Do you still want to accuse me of misrepresenting? If so read the barbaric ideals he posted below. Hint, it is from the poster that I was replying to and it backs up what I was saying.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I don't see it as controlling women I see it as safeguarding a fetus they have all the control they want after that.

If I got a hammer and smashed a babies brains out I would be arrested and vilified.

Yet aborting a fetus is OK now just a few months earlier?




Laws are strange they change social and societal norms.

Years ago in the 1500's it was common place for royalty to give thier 13 year old daughter to some man.
Now that would be viewed as pedophilia.


Some societal changes are good but not this abortion thing.
To call it controlling seems strange to me.

Do people who get abortions not view the fetus as a life form at all?
I don't get it.
I know of a neighbour who miscarried and even went to the trouble of getting a little white coffin.

Obviously from the tone of this thread the vocal people who voted yes view the fetus as an inconvenience to thier body.

That should be got rid of like a pimple on yer @rse.

Unless the life of the mother is threatened I see it as an unnecessary act.

As I said in another post statistically some of those who voted yes must be unplanned pregnancies / unwanted pregnancies themselves.

So it was kind of like turkeys voting for Christmas... for some of them.

As I said before this is the start of the slippery slope.

I think a lot of the moderate yes votes will regret thier decision in 10
/ 20 / 30 years to come.People have made thier beds now this is the start of the slow slide toward eugenics, gender based abortion, maybe even colour of eyes / hair in years to come.

The hipster generation have spoken.

I ME ME ME MINE as the Beatles

So what you are saying is back in the 1500’s paedophelia was acceptable and it is no longer accepted now.

Locking women up and forcing them through pregnancy was also acceptable to some in the past and is no longer acceptable now.

Do you see how things have changed? I hope that you feel the paedophila is wrong. Most of the world does. Just like locking up women and forcing them to have babies is wrong and thankfully Ireland decided it was wrong to do that.

.......

This post has been deleted.

7aubzxk43m2sni

kenmc wrote: »

Wait. What? Their decisions have not been taken into account? No voters are still perfectly free to CHOOSE not to have an abortion. Their rights have not been impacted in the slightest after the 8 was destroyed, and their right of CHOICE has finally been extended to all.

He didn't say that though did he?

He said no voters are all being dismissed as backwards without any nuance in their arguments being taken into account.

Similar to how every single Trump voter is a "deplorable", and look at the ridiculous levels of divisiveness in America now.

ELM327

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

He didn't say that though did he?

He said no voters are all being dismissed as backwards without any nuance in their arguments being taken into account.

Similar to how every single Trump voter is a "deplorable", and look at the ridiculous levels of divisiveness in America now.

A no vote is backwards. It's a misogynistic attempt to control the bodies of women, imposing your beliefs on them.


I'm a trump supporter and that "deplorable" comment won trump the election.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Hey needwater. As I said, you misrepresented the poster I quoted. Do you still want to accuse me of misrepresenting? If so read the barbaric ideals he posted below. Hint, it is from the poster that I was replying to and it backs up what I was saying.

He's clearly very passionate about his beliefs. At the same time I see no reference to rape victims having to carry children.

7aubzxk43m2sni

ELM327 wrote: »

A no vote is backwards. It's a misogynistic attempt to control the bodies of women, imposing your beliefs on them.


I'm a trump supporter and that "deplorable" comment won trump the election.

Or... depending on your perspective, it could be seen as a noble attempt to save the life of an unborn child. Your refusal to acknowledge the existence of that point of view is frankly ridiculous.


... I don't even know where to start

How can you be such a hardcore liberal on here, calling for the shaming of no voters etc, and then on the other hand be a trump supporter?

Additionally, calling anti-trump protesters / anti-brexit protesters sore losers is the height of immaturity.

ELM327

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Or... depending on your perspective, it could be seen as a noble attempt to save the life of an unborn child. Your refusal to acknowledge the existence of that point of view is frankly ridiculous.


... I don't even know where to start

How can you be such a hardcore liberal on here, calling for the shaming of no voters etc, and then on the other hand be a trump supporter?

Additionally, calling anti-trump protesters / anti-brexit protesters sore losers is the height of immaturity.

You cannot impose your beliefs on others. That only exists in such democratic countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China etc


If you want to "save a life" then go get pregnant and don't have an abortion.



I am a trump supporter and have been since the early days. Even if I don't support the misogyny I admire his actual policies. I'm actually a right wing conservative in most issues - I don't support the interference of big governent in anything. I favour low taxes, low welfare/state support, no state interference in the free market, and no state interference in private lives. The last part is why I'm a hardline pro repeal.


Your last comment re immaturity is quite frankly equal measure of obstreporous and risible... as such it shall receive the response it warrants. None.

tretorn

Abortions are now being considered as part of maternity care and the Government plans to cover the full cost.
Harris has never looked so happy and Leo cant believe how much the child benefit will go down. They havent stopped beaming since Saturday.
We can now convince ourselves abortions are miscarriages and its all great.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

it's very unlikely the no campaign is going to simply go away because the law is introduced. they aren't going to simply get over it or shut up. that isn't how democracy works.



women's rights won through in the end only in relation to the issue of the medically necessary abortions which were not covered under POLDPA and which should have been. women's rights in general have been upheld in ireland for a long time now thankfully. for the controling women to have been defeated there would have had to have been controling of women on a whole scale basis, which while ireland was once a place where such happened, it hasn't been a place where such happened for a long long time.

That's funny, I remember MANY posts of yours over the last few months where you conceded that women's rights were only mostly upheld, but not fully, during pregnancy.
I remember so clearly because every time you said it (which was many times), I replied saying "mostly upheld" wasn't good enough.
I can quote them if you wish.

So firstly, lets just clear that up by confirming that women's rights in Ireland were in fact not upheld before the 8th was repealed.

Secondly, what has changed your mind, seeing as you believed the opposite to be true up until recently?

7aubzxk43m2sni

ELM327 wrote: »

You cannot impose your beliefs on others. That only exists in such democratic countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China etc


If you want to "save a life" then go get pregnant and don't have an abortion.



I am a trump supporter and have been since the early days. Even if I don't support the misogyny I admire his actual policies. I'm actually a right wing conservative in most issues - I don't support the interference of big governent in anything. I favour low taxes, low welfare/state support, no state interference in the free market, and no state interference in private lives. The last part is why I'm a hardline pro repeal.


Your last comment re immaturity is quite frankly equal measure of obstreporous and risible... as such it shall receive the response it warrants. None.

Sorry, just had to google obstreporous there, took a minute.

We're not getting anywhere with out discussion, and for sure we won't achieve anything in a discussion about Trump, so i suggest we leave it at that.

With all due respect, I would just like to say that you should perhaps be open to a change in ideas. You seem fairly radical in most of your beliefs, and more power to you, but perhaps read about the actual consequences of such measures, and be open to the idea that you might not be 100% correct about everything, despite your conviction.

fxotoole

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

" Ruth Coppinger says she will try to get rid of the 72-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion when the bill comes to the Dáil. "

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ruth-coppinger-to-seek-to-remove-insulting-72-hour-wait-for-abortion-845721.html

Well it didn,t take long for Ruth Coppinger to look to make changes to the planned legislation post referendum win, she could of being more upfront pre referendum that she would seek changes to get rid of the 72 hour pause period but didn,t , it shall be interesting to see what other changes others will try to make .

Shall also be interesting to see what changes the No side try to make to the proposed legislation. They should have been more upfront about this before the referendum :rolleyes:

It's a democracy for chrissake. We all knew the legislation was not set in stone and that it was subject to discussion/ammendment when we voted on it.

7aubzxk43m2sni

fxotoole wrote: »

Shall also be interesting to see what changes the No side try to make to the proposed legislation. They should have been more upfront about this before the referendum :rolleyes:

It's a democracy for chrissake. We all knew the legislation was not set in stone and that it was subject to discussion/ammendment when we voted on it.

I think the no side were very upfront about their intentions throughout the campaign.

Cupcake_Crisis

tretorn wrote: »

Abortions are now being considered as part of maternity care and the Government plans to cover the full cost.
Harris has never looked so happy and Leo cant believe how much the child benefit will go down. They havent stopped beaming since Saturday.
We can now convince ourselves abortions are miscarriages and its all great.

Actually the figure of €300 is being suggested atm. Although that’s ludicrous and won’t make it through legislation imo.

ELM327

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Sorry, just had to google obstreporous there, took a minute.

We're not getting anywhere with out discussion, and for sure we won't achieve anything in a discussion about Trump, so i suggest we leave it at that.

With all due respect, I would just like to say that you should perhaps be open to a change in ideas. You seem fairly radical in most of your beliefs, and more power to you, but perhaps read about the actual consequences of such measures, and be open to the idea that you might not be 100% correct about everything, despite your conviction.

I might not be correct about everything.
But my belief is in individual autonomy and the ability to make good (or bad) decisions and not have them made for you.


It's not my jurisdiction to tell you not to smoke for instance, even though you shouldnt and the idea disgusts me. But I respect your right trumps mine (pardon the pun) as it's your body.

SusieBlue

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Or... depending on your perspective, it could be seen as a noble attempt to save the life of an unborn child. Your refusal to acknowledge the existence of that point of view is frankly ridiculous.


... I don't even know where to start

How can you be such a hardcore liberal on here, calling for the shaming of no voters etc, and then on the other hand be a trump supporter?

Additionally, calling anti-trump protesters / anti-brexit protesters sore losers is the height of immaturity.

A noble attempt to save an unborn child's life, yet at the expense of the wishes of the woman carrying the child, just so they can feel good about themselves?

Happily going against what the person actually carrying and caring for the subsequent child wants, because they feel its their business?

The problem was that they wanted to "save lives" at all costs.
Born, but to a drug addict mother.
Born, but to a home with domestic violence.
Born, but into a life of poverty.
Born, but only for a matter of minutes, in excruciating pain, due to an FFA.
Born, but to a mother who already has several children she can't cope with, and into a life of neglect.
Born, but with a life limiting condition that will cause pain and suffering.
Born, but homeless, and living on the streets.
Born, but to a mother who has been left disabled/long term impacted by carrying the pregnancy and giving birth.
Born, but to a mother suffering from epilepsy/diabetes/sciatica who will never be the same again.

But, at least the forced birthers get to say they "saved" a life, right?

7aubzxk43m2sni

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Actually the figure of €300 is being suggested atm. Although that’s ludicrous and won’t make it through legislation imo.

In what way is it ludicrous?

Cupcake_Crisis

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

In what way is it ludicrous?

Because it puts it out of reach for a lot middle/working class women. The women who were most negatively affected by the cost of having to go to England.

7aubzxk43m2sni

SusieBlue wrote: »

A noble attempt to save an unborn child's life, yet at the expense of the wishes of the woman carrying the child, just so they can feel good about themselves?

Well no, not so they can feel good about themselves, so that an unborn child does not die "unnecessarily".

I personally agree that it is better for the child to not be born into a lot of the situations you listed.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Because it puts it out of reach for a lot middle/working class women. The women who were most negatively affected by the cost of having to go to England.

If it's covered by the medical card is the problem solved?

Cupcake_Crisis

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

If it's covered by the medical card is the problem solved?

And for those who don’t have a medical card?

fxotoole

tretorn wrote: »

Abortions are now being considered as part of maternity care and the Government plans to cover the full cost.
Harris has never looked so happy and Leo cant believe how much the child benefit will go down. They havent stopped beaming since Saturday.
We can now convince ourselves abortions are miscarriages and its all great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwSts2s4ba4

ELM327

SusieBlue wrote: »

A noble attempt to save an unborn child's life, yet at the expense of the wishes of the woman carrying the child, just so they can feel good about themselves?

Happily going against what the person actually carrying and caring for the subsequent child wants, because they feel its their business?

The problem was that they wanted to "save lives" at all costs.
Born, but to a drug addict mother.
Born, but to a home with domestic violence.
Born, but into a life of poverty.
Born, but only for a matter of minutes, in excruciating pain, due to an FFA.
Born, but to a mother who already has several children she can't cope with, and into a life of neglect.
Born, but with a life limiting condition that will cause pain and suffering.
Born, but homeless, and living on the streets.
Born, but to a mother who has been left disabled/long term impacted by carrying the pregnancy and giving birth.
Born, but to a mother suffering from epilepsy/diabetes/sciatica who will never be the same again.

But, at least the forced birthers get to say they "saved" a life, right?

I find to have a discussion about the topic we need to suspend our disbelief and engage on the higher topic.
Of course what you have said goes without saying but someone who has the opposite belief will never understand the consequences of their belief on others, the harm they are causing (and have caused since 1983), the number of maternal deaths they caused, the number of enforced pregnancies resulting in harm to the mother (like the scenarios you mention).... what about the girl in granard (and the likely thousands like her) who were raped by priests or family members... yet under the 8th rape was never a constitutional reason for rape. Nor was incest.


Those people on the loveboat side have a lot to answer for... with their "compassion". They ironically said it best themselves, "real compassion doesn't kill". Perhaps they should have looked at themselves with that line first.

Captain Obvious

ELM327 wrote: »

You cannot impose your beliefs on others. That only exists in such democratic countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China etc


If you want to "save a life" then go get pregnant and don't have an abortion.

That is such a nonsense argument. We impose collective beliefs on people all the time. They are called laws.

kunst nugget

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Because it puts it out of reach for a lot middle/working class women. The women who were most negatively affected by the cost of having to go to England.

It will surely be covered by the medical card. I'm having trouble believing that middle class women would struggle to scrape together €300.