Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

FingerDeKat

end of the road wrote: »

. we were extending the view that it is wrong to kill except in extreme circumstances, to the unborn.

removing a clump of cells isn't killing anything...I'm not a murder when I get a tooth removed. If you were truley anti-choice you'd be fighting to remove the right to travel, for irish women , for an abortion.


but like all the no-side you're a hyprocit...just as long as it's not in my backyard you don't give a fuk about the welfare of irish women.


But now (ironically) the anti choice side have no choice in what Irish women do with their bodies.


Suck it up and move on. We're coming for your schools and the controls you have over Irish health care so get busy.

end of the road

FingerDeKat wrote: »

removing a clump of cells isn't killing anything...I'm not a murder when I get a tooth removed.

i would disagree, it's not a clump of cells.

FingerDeKat wrote: »

If you were truley anti-choice you'd be fighting to remove the right to travel, for irish women , for an abortion.

i don't have time to campaign for things sadly. lots of issues i care about, but i have no time to protest or march or campaign in relation to any of them. that's life unfortunately.

FingerDeKat wrote: »

but like all the no-side you're a hyprocit...just as long as it's not in my backyard you don't give a fuk about the welfare of irish women.

i do care, very much so.

FingerDeKat wrote: »

But now (ironically) the anti choice side have no choice in what Irish women do with their bodies.

we never did, because women could always do what they want with their bodies. it is women ending the life of the unborn for any reason which is our concern. also we aren't anti-choice, as that would be impossible.

FingerDeKat wrote: »

Suck it up and move on. We're coming for your schools and the controls you have over Irish health care so get busy.

couldn't care a less, i am in full support of the church being removed from the schools and hospitals. all though it's going to be interesting as to how the government will actually do it, something tells me it won't be as simple as one may think.

Timberrrrrrrr

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I'd answer but would be accused of repetition by certain posters. I believe it was discussed at the start of the thread and I gave my input then.

Rape commitees?

Timberrrrrrrr

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Not inconsistent at all.
I and most other No siders have been consistent all along. They oppose freely available abortion in this country in all but the most extenuating of circumstances. Extenuating includes lack of consent in the pregnancy, FFA, serious risk to mothers life, and extreme mental distress.
Healthy fetuses are a possibility when it comes to extreme mental distress, rape and often with a serious risk to the mothers life.
So yes, consistent re extenuating cases.
(That's probably my last post for the evening btw).

Man has sex with a woman

Man uses condom as woman does not wish to get pregnant.

Condom breaks.

Woman gets pregnant

= lack of consent to pregnancy.

Shurimgreat

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Man has sex with a woman

Man uses condom as woman does not wish to get pregnant.

Condom breaks.

Woman gets pregnant

= lack of consent to pregnancy.

Rape and lack of consent in the pregnancy.
Christ, do I have to spell everything out for you people?
It seems so.

As for the guys condom snapping, tough sh*t. If the guy was any type of man, he'd look after the raising of his child.

I hope there's legislation in future to tackle fly by night "dads".

Shurimgreat

FingerDeKat wrote: »

removing a clump of cells isn't killing anything...I'm not a murder when I get a tooth removed. If you were truley anti-choice you'd be fighting to remove the right to travel, for irish women , for an abortion.


but like all the no-side you're a hyprocit...just as long as it's not in my backyard you don't give a fuk about the welfare of irish women.


But now (ironically) the anti choice side have no choice in what Irish women do with their bodies.


Suck it up and move on. We're coming for your schools and the controls you have over Irish health care so get busy.

You know a thread has run its course when you get angry shouty posters like you skipping right to the end of the thread to aggressively post.
You also sound like a re-reg of a similarly aggressive shouty poster I earlier put on ignore.

Shurimgreat

OK definitively last post as this thread has taken up far more of my time than I thought would.

For all you unrestricted abortion lovers out there, say hello to one of your victims.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-44357373

I hope you are mighty proud of yourselves.

astrofool

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You know a thread has run its course when you get angry shouty posters like you skipping right to the end of the thread to aggressively post.
You also sound like a re-reg of a similarly aggressive shouty poster I earlier put on ignore.

To be fair, it ran it's course when the landslide yes vote occurred.

Since then, the No side has become even more hypocritical in it's stance (of course others will have noticed you repeat the same arguments ad infinitum, except worry about repetition when asked to provide a practical solution to any of your positions, that doesn't fall apart immediately).

astrofool

Shurimgreat wrote: »

OK definitively last post as this thread has taken up far more of my time than I thought would.

For all you unrestricted abortion lovers out there, say hello to one of your victims.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-44357373

I hope you are mighty proud of yourselves.

A failed 8th month (illegal) abortion somehow sums up your entire argument? Really? At the risk of repeating yourself, please show how this definitively sums up your position (while also being OK with the right to travel as a primary part of that positon, apparently).

ohnonotgmail

Shurimgreat wrote: »

OK definitively last post as this thread has taken up far more of my time than I thought would.

For all you unrestricted abortion lovers out there, say hello to one of your victims.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-44357373

I hope you are mighty proud of yourselves.

sling mud and run away. It is the No way.

FingerDeKat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

OK definitively last post as this thread has taken up far more of my time than I thought would.

For all you unrestricted abortion lovers out there, say hello to one of your victims.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-44357373

I hope you are mighty proud of yourselves.

Ah don't go !! you never answered any questions.....


Was it you that mouthed off about rape comittee's??

FrancieBrady

astrofool wrote: »

To be fair, it ran it's course when the landslide yes vote occurred.

Since then, the No side has become even more hypocritical in it's stance (of course others will have noticed you repeat the same arguments ad infinitum, except worry about repetition when asked to provide a practical solution to any of your positions, that doesn't fall apart immediately).

You got it in one. Looked in to see what was happening in the thread and it's the same tired guilt tripping argument that he/she was expounding a week ago.

The people have spoken, time to move on.

Mumha

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Lots of posts here and not enough time to answer them all.

The Yes side continue to bring up mother and baby homes. These homes are all extinct because of A. Abortion and the like and B. Wider families no longer feel ashamed about single mothers which of course is a positive thing. Church, state and the people worked together in olden days in Ireland. Famillies dumped babies and mothers in these homes to get rid of them.

So some simple questions to the faux outrage church haters on here, from an athiest.

Were you married in a church? YES
Are your kids babtised? YES
Did they make their communion? YES
Are they confirmed? NEXT MARCH
Do you regularly attend church occasions such as for taking these sacraments? NO
Or do you stay true to your church hating principles and stay well clear of the church? THAT'S THE MISTAKE YOU ARE MAKING.

I'm not expecting too many answers. Its possible to justify anything these days by hating the church. All I am expecting is even more faux outrage which if it could be harnessed would power Ireland for generations. The level of fake and likely hypocritical outrage is amusing at this stage.

I suspect I could summarize most answers as follows by the way:
I post on boards.ie saying I hate the church yet I attend significant church occasions. Once they are over I go back to hating the church.

You don't seem to get it. Most people actually like the idea of the church, but hate the assholes running it into the ground. Unfortunately when the good people walked away or were silenced, it left a controlling layer of RWNJs. It's a touch of Fianna Fail during the dark, Haughey Henchmen years. Una Voce !

So I'm happy to use them as they use us, even better that it pisses them off.

Overheal

Shurimgreat wrote: »

OK definitively last post as this thread has taken up far more of my time than I thought would.

For all you unrestricted abortion lovers out there, say hello to one of your victims.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-44357373

I hope you are mighty proud of yourselves.

Your anecdotal story here is of a mother who wanted the baby, but was forced into abortion in the most bizarre and unethical of circumstances in which the pregnant woman’s mother, a nurse, pressured her to do it out of shame and conspired with an abortionist to circumvent the law and medical regulations to do it.

As you must surely realize, this is beyond an extraordinary circumstance, and by no means indicative of the viewpoint of people who support Choice and the regulation and provision of safe abortions. This was the antithesis of choice. I’m not sure what you hope to achieve by sharing this story in such an argumentative fashion other than to exhibit your stunning ignorance of (and disinterest in understanding even on a basic level) the viewpoint of others.

Graces7

Delighted
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0605/968418-referendum-challenge-high-court/

Graces7

Mumha wrote: »

You don't seem to get it. Most people actually like the idea of the church, but hate the assholes running it into the ground. Unfortunately when the good people walked away or were silenced, it left a controlling layer of RWNJs. It's a touch of Fianna Fail during the dark, Haughey Henchmen years. Una Voce !

So I'm happy to use them as they use us, even better that it pisses them off.

:rolleyes: Meaningless hypocrisy.

FrancieBrady

Graces7 wrote: »

:rolleyes: Meaningless hypocrisy.

The legal equivalent of a 'huff'?

ancapailldorcha

Graces7 wrote: »

Delighted
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0605/968418-referendum-challenge-high-court/

Of course you are. As long as you get to push that hateful ideology of yours, who cares about democracy? Fortunately, these are doomed to fail.

ELM327

Graces7 wrote: »

Delighted
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0605/968418-referendum-challenge-high-court/

Has absolutely no bearing.
Since this article from yesterday, in the intervening time another 10-12 Irish women have had abortions.


Soon they will be able to have them in Ireland. Thanks to a slam dunk 2:1 majority, with only 21% of the eligible electorate voting no.


I'm delighted for you, and people like you.

Overheal

Graces7 wrote: »

Delighted
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0605/968418-referendum-challenge-high-court/

Why? Do you think the result is illegitimate, or do you accept the outcome of the referendum (even if you don’t like the result)?

pitifulgod

Graces7 wrote: »

Delighted
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0605/968418-referendum-challenge-high-court/

Reminded of the time where the plumber challenged marriage referendum with no basis.

ELM327

It doesn't matter, they can put in all the challenges they want.
Sands of time are a'changing and social liberty is riding in amidst waves of progress and compassion, via a 2:1 majority.

So much so, that we could give them an extra half a million votes. That's 500,000 votes. From nowhere. And the no side would still lose by over 200,000.

As we say in soccer, it was a trouncing.

FingerDeKat

Graces7 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0605/968418-referendum-challenge-high-court/

Tbh it's just another example of religious fukwits being..eh well..fukwits.

seamus

Yeah, unlikely for any of those 3 to go anywhere. Ms Jordan's is obviously paranoid nonsense.

The other two comments about RefCom's information may have merit, but I'm going to trust that the panel of legal experts in RefCom are considerably more thorough than a music teacher and a retired civil servant.
Comments by politicians are irrelevant; politicians are permitted to speak in favour of one side, just not with government money.

Ultimately it's the court doesn't necessarily have to decide if the claims are legit, but whether they have any significant bearing on the outcome of the referendum. Where it may have affected the outcome enough to influence the end result, then the court must decide on the veracity of the claims.

So virtually all of these challenges will fail on the first part.

If RefCom has failed in its duty or a politician has broken referendum rules, that's a separate issue.

robarmstrong

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course you are. As long as you get to push that hateful ideology of yours, who cares about democracy? Fortunately, these are doomed to fail.

Like a failed podiatrist grave robber.

Just can't take de feet.

Achasanai

Shurimgreat wrote: »

This has been answered elsewhere on the thread.
35 years and nothing from the Yes side either.
Fine Gael and Fianna Fail who had the political power came up with nothing until Savita died and only then with the public outcry did they get interested.
So save us the nonsense.
The only ones with power enough to introduce a referendum was FG and FF. But they sat on their hands for 35 years.
Harris and Varadkar said there wouldn't be any new legislation or a referendum for another 35 years if this one was defeated. They are in government FFS. Shows you how much they care about getting it right. They were quite content to wait another 35 years. Except they weren't. They LIED.

'Nonsense', eh? The irony here is probably wasted on you.



Two parties that were fervent supporters of the 8th, one of which remains so (albeit divided on the matter, with its leader speaking against the party sentiment) and the other that was a supporter of it until a few years ago (and is still somewhat divided on the issue, although not as much as FF). That you hold up FF & FG as the Yes supporters of the last 35 years shows either your deep ignorance on the matter or a desperate attempt at revision.



The Yes side was a grassroots campaign that has been in action for 35 years, eventually gaining the support of key members of the main political parties, leading to significant amendments in our constitution. You mention the most recent (again, as that suits your argument) but you forget that we have been placing amendments in our constitution since shortly after 1983 in order to deal with what was a deeply, deeply flawed and shítty law. These are the examples of the Yes side that has been working since 1983 that you have conveniently decided not to focus on, as it doesn't suit your argument.

spookwoman

One thing I've notice with the no side is this referendum and the fact that they lost has brought out the worst in some. Reminds me of Bilbo in the Lord of the Rings.

sabat

Achasanai wrote: »

The Yes side was a grassroots campaign that has been in action for 35 years...

... eventually gaining the support of key members of the main political parties.

I'm not saying that there weren't many smaller groups and individual activists involved in the repeal campaign through the years but I don't think describing it as "grassroots" in the traditional understanding of the word is accurate-particularly over the last couple of years when there was very controlled, centralised strategy and messaging managed by people well-connected to the levers of government, media and academia.

The sudden epiphanies experienced by Varadkar, Martin, Harris et al who had claimed to be pro-life had nothing to do with their concern for women but were the result of seeing opinion polls showing how far ahead repeal was.

Achasanai

sabat wrote: »

I'm not saying that there weren't many smaller groups and individual activists involved in the repeal campaign through the years but I don't think describing it as "grassroots" in the traditional understanding of the word is accurate-particularly over the last couple of years when there was very controlled, centralised strategy and messaging managed by people well-connected to the levers of government, media and academia.

The sudden epiphanies experienced by Varadkar, Martin, Harris et al who had claimed to be pro-life had nothing to do with their concern for women but were the result of seeing opinion polls showing how far ahead repeal was.

Well, I allowed for the fact that the major political players had their road to Damascus moment, but there have been groups and people engaged in firstly opposing the 8th and then campaigning against it, for the last 35 years. Maybe the term 'grassroots' is wrong here, but I think you got my point.

eeepaulo

sabat wrote: »

I'm not saying that there weren't many smaller groups and individual activists involved in the repeal campaign through the years but I don't think describing it as "grassroots" in the traditional understanding of the word is accurate-particularly over the last couple of years when there was very controlled, centralised strategy and messaging managed by people well-connected to the levers of government, media and academia.

The sudden epiphanies experienced by Varadkar, Martin, Harris et al who had claimed to be pro-life had nothing to do with their concern for women but were the result of seeing opinion polls showing how far ahead repeal was.

Asked what factors influenced their vote, 43% cited people's personal stories as covered in the media; 34% experiences of people they knew; 10% campaign posters; 7% direct contact with campaigners; and 24% "other" factors.

I don't think it gets any more grass roots than listening to people's personal stories and people they knew. I listened and heard the stories.

I'm not sure where you've been but we had a citizen's assembly then the joint committee, that's when the TDs started supporting the removal of the eighth. They looked at the findings.