Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

RobertKK

fergus1001 wrote: »

good riddance

myself and the other half went through this which was very difficult for both of us, the mention of pro life rubbish on the radio would reduce her to tears, the pain they cause to people is cruel

The prolife campaign is not gone away, I would think regrouping is a better word.

Loafing Oaf

RobertKK wrote: »

It shows the extremism of some who wanted exclusion zones was all hysteria.

I never thought protests would materialise on any significant scale after the introduction of abortion services, but I don't believe it was 'hysterical' to anticipate that they would, given the strength of hardline pro-lifery in this country until very recently.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

The prolife campaign is not gone away, I would think regrouping is a better word.

Interesting that you decided to ignore the pain expressed in the post you quoted. I've always said that the pro-life side do not care about the women involved. Thank you for helping to prove that point.

Faugheen

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Interesting that you decided to ignore the pain expressed in the post you quoted. I've always said that the pro-life side do not care about the women involved. Thank you for helping to prove that point.

They don't give a ****e about the women involved.

Hence why they want to restrict their healthcare here and **** them off on a plane instead.

You have absolute scummy pricks like Ronán Mullen fuelling a Christian agenda based on 'beliefs' and with no sense of humanity. He's a horrible human being.

robman60

Faugheen wrote: »

They don't give a ****e about the women involved.

Hence why they want to restrict their healthcare here and **** them off on a plane instead.

You have absolute scummy pricks like Ronán Mullen fuelling a Christian agenda based on 'beliefs' and with no sense of humanity. He's a horrible human being.

A bit dismissive of an attitude really. I know a few people who were involved in the 'No' campaign who provide a lot of supplies to struggling mothers.

There is more to the third of the electorate than Rónán Mullen, it would be good not to dismiss them in the way your post does...

SusieBlue

robman60 wrote: »

A bit dismissive of an attitude really. I know a few people who were involved in the 'No' campaign who provide a lot of supplies to struggling mothers.

There is more to the third of the electorate than Rónán Mullen, it would be good not to dismiss them in the way your post does...

Ronan Mullen was the one of the chosen representatives for the No side in almost all debates, TV discussions and media advertisements in the lead up to the referendum.

He was chosen over and over again, despite his inflammatory and downright offensive comments, to speak for his side and for their cause.
This to me would indicate he does in fact represent a third of the electorate. He and his opinions is what they voted for.

Faugheen

robman60 wrote: »

A bit dismissive of an attitude really. I know a few people who were involved in the 'No' campaign who provide a lot of supplies to struggling mothers.

There is more to the third of the electorate than Rónán Mullen, it would be good not to dismiss them in the way your post does...

Anyone who voted no voted to throw women on a plane.

You can have your head in the sand about that and spin it whatever way you want, but the second that no ballot was put into the box, that person voted for restrictive healthcare towards your mothers, sisters, aunts, friends and whatever.

And Ronán Mullen was front and centre of that. Anybody who voted no was voting the same way as him, despite the fact he showed no care or sympathy towards women. That comment he made to Saoirse Long on Pat Kenny - 'you deserve love and respect no matter what you have done' - showed exactly his true colours, and no voters didn't change their minds.

So yeah, I'll dismiss all of them considering his comments during the campaign, and the fact they all voted with him.

Calina

RobertKK wrote: »

The prolife campaign is not gone away, I would think regrouping is a better word.

In which case then I think we need exclusion zones.

Sofiztikated

RobertKK wrote: »

The prolife campaign is not gone away, I would think regrouping is a better word.

Their 90 day Visa free time period ran out.

robarmstrong

Think the problem with the pro-life movement is the majority have gone back to not bothering giving a sh*te as the issue did not affect them before/after the entire referendum movement, it affected them during it as their choice/belief was being challenged, but now that's been shattered and they were essentially (thankfully) outvoted.

All in all a good result I think, glad the 8th was repealed and legislated as it gives women like my partner access to a dignified & safe termination of a pregnancy, rather than being shunted onto a plane as somebody else's problem because Mary from the back arse of nowhere disagrees with the notion of not being able to have a say in how someone else's pregnancy plays out.

8-10

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/together-for-yes-former-codirectors-named-in-time-100-list-38024917.html

THE former co-directors of the Together For Yes campaign group have been named among the 100 most influential people in the world by TIME magazine.

Ms Smyth, Convenor of the Coalition to Repeal the Eighth Amendment, said she helps their inclusion in the list raises awareness about the work of reproductive rights campaigners.

She said: "We are honoured to receive this accolade from TIME Magazine. It is evidence of the significant international ‘ripple’ impact of the Together for Yes campaign.

"The referendum result here in Ireland was a real boost for the morale of pro-choice campaigners throughout the word; and we hope it can be a beacon of light wherever and whenever abortion rights are denied, restricted or under severe threat.

"As a small country on the edge of a rich, powerful continent, our voice is not loud. But last year’s referendum showed just how far it can reach. In repealing the Eighth Amendment, Ireland bucked a trend.

Well said

Loafing Oaf

RobertKK wrote: »

The prolife campaign is not gone away, I would think regrouping is a better word.

Yeah just like anti-divorce campaigners are still 'regrouping' a quarter of a century on from that referendum.:P

Dial Hard

8-10 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/together-for-yes-former-codirectors-named-in-time-100-list-38024917.html



Well said

I love Ailbhe Smyth. She's an amazing woman. She was heavily involved in the marriage equality campaign too.

Lollipops23

Dial Hard wrote: »

I love Ailbhe Smyth. She's an amazing woman. She was heavily involved in the marriage equality campaign too.

I met her on the Luas a few months ago and got chatting to her. A more humble and pleasant lady you could not meet- I thanked her for all that she has done for Irish people and said the country needed a lot more people like her.

Dial Hard

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I met her on the Luas a few months ago and got chatting to her. A more humble and pleasant lady you could not meet- I thanked her for all that she has done for Irish people and said the country needed a lot more people like her.

She's SO friendly. I met her at the Together For Yes result party in the Intercontinental the day after the referendum and told her I thought she was brilliant and that getting involved with the canvass was the scariest but most rewarding thing I'd ever done and she threw her arms around me and gave me a giant hug and told me *I* was amazing and I went away feeling like a million quid

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Interesting that you decided to ignore the pain expressed in the post you quoted. I've always said that the pro-life side do not care about the women involved. Thank you for helping to prove that point.

If something was expressed previously, does one have to acknowledge it every single time?
He responded to a reply to one of my replies. I was referring back to what I was posting about. Some people just look to make drama where none is needed.

amcalester

RobertKK wrote: »

If something was expressed previously, does one have to acknowledge it every single time?
He responded to a reply to one of my replies. I was referring back to what I was posting about. Some people just look to make drama where none is needed.

Wasn't the entire no campaign centred around creating drama where none was needed?

Much like the protests you seem in favour of.

batgoat

amcalester wrote: »

Wasn't the entire no campaign centred around creating drama where none was needed?

Much like the protests you seem in favour of.

I will never forget the fake nurse who described in graphic detail what he never witnessed.

RobertKK

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Yeah just like anti-divorce campaigners are still 'regrouping' a quarter of a century on from that referendum.:P

In some countries the very liberal abortion regimes are being reigned in, decades after due to the damage it has done to society.
Russia for example has tried to reign it in due to the population collapse 1.2 million abortions is causing to that country.

The EU in one of their public surveys of EU citizens had questions about what concerned people in regards to the population from hot topics like immigration to the low number of births.

It is clear a lot more needs to be done for women to support them when pregnant and when their child is born, as the children are the future and countries face massive problems in the future if the replacement rate is below a certain level.

All I see our government doing is offering abortion and contraception, but nothing worthwhile for women who do not want these options.
There is an overwhelming case for giving women far more benefits for being a mother and benefits for children, because no woman who wants her baby but feels she can't afford it should end up aborting.
This is what is so backward in all of this.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

If something was expressed previously, does one have to acknowledge it every single time?
He responded to a reply to one of my replies. I was referring back to what I was posting about. Some people just look to make drama where none is needed.

It wasn't expressed previously. that is the first time that poster has mentioned how it affected them personally. But you dont care about the personal pain your nasty views cause people and you probably never will.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

In some countries the very liberal abortion regimes are being reigned in, decades after due to the damage it has done to society.
Russia for example has tried to reign it in due to the population collapse 1.2 million abortions is causing to that country.

The EU in one of their public surveys of EU citizens had questions about what concerned people in regards to the population from hot topics like immigration to the low number of births.

It is clear a lot more needs to be done for women to support them when pregnant and when their child is born, as the children are the future and countries face massive problems in the future if the replacement rate is below a certain level.

All I see our government doing is offering abortion and contraception, but nothing worthwhile for women who do not want these options.
There is an overwhelming case for giving women far more benefits for being a mother and benefits for children, because no woman who wants her baby but feels she can't afford it should end up aborting.
This is what is so backward in all of this.

the only thing backwards are the views of you and your ilk like Ronan Mullen. About 70 years backwards.

RobertKK

amcalester wrote: »

Wasn't the entire no campaign centred around creating drama where none was needed?

Much like the protests you seem in favour of.

I don't think any of these protests achieve anything, yet you think you can think for me.

I was talking about one post in particular, you are talking about the contentious issue of abortion which starts with a minimum of 2 lives and ends with just 1 surviving. Of course there will always be drama around that issue, as it is not as black and white as some want it.
The Irish parliament voted for an unborn baby who is born alive - outside the womb so is a baby, to be given no health assistance, the law is they must die - yet I see people slapping the backs of one another on what they 'achieved'.
We were told it would be nothing extreme.

amcalester

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't think any of these protests achieve anything, yet you think you can think for me.

I was talking about one post in particular, you are talking about the contentious issue of abortion which starts with a minimum of 2 lives and ends with just 1 surviving. Of course there will always be drama around that issue, as it is not as black and white as some want it.
The Irish parliament voted for an unborn baby who is born alive - outside the womb so is a baby, to be given no health assistance, the law is they must die - yet I see people slapping the backs of one another on what they 'achieved'.
We were told it would be nothing extreme.

Abortion is contentious issue but that doesn't mean it can't be debated on facts.

The No side, and you, have repeatedly shown yourselves to be unable to do that, hence the tendency to create drama.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

I am sure it was last year during the period leading up to the referendum.

It wasn't.

RobertKK wrote: »

I care about people, you only care about people who hold your own views, that is why you get so upset, 'booohoohoo Robert is nasty, he makes me cry'.
Get a grip of yourself, being offended on behalf of other people is pathetic.

Oh i'm not upset. Just calling out your callous nature

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

RobertKK wrote: »

In some countries the very liberal abortion regimes are being reigned in, decades after due to the damage it has done to society.
Russia for example has tried to reign it in due to the population collapse 1.2 million abortions is causing to that country.

Russia has decriminalised certain forms of domestic violence and tacitly sanctioned violent persecution of gay people in recent years. It's taken a hugely regressive turn in terms of social issues, and its motivation is to further entrench the perceived cultural differences between Russian society and western democracy.

You'd have to be very very wilfully blind to not see that their policy on abortion is part of that.

Or maybe we should look to the other parts of the world which are stripping away access to abortion? Copy some southern US states which are trying to introduce the death penalty for abortion?

Abortion "regimes are being reigned in" in countries which are stripping away other human rights, they're being reigned in because there is a rise of right wing extremism.

Be better off just supporting Ronan Mullen tbh

RobertKK

amcalester wrote: »

Abortion is contentious issue but that doesn't mean it can't be debated on facts.

The No side, and you, have repeatedly shown yourselves to be unable to do that, hence the tendency to create drama.

Well all we got from the repeal side was lies, initially we were told it would be for things like rape and medical issues - this is where it started from, but not where it ended up.
We started with Simon Harris writing to pro-life groups saying if he was voted into the Dail he would vote pro-life, he ended up being the biggest advocate for abortion in government.
You might think this is not a big deal, but when one can't trust a politician because they are a serial liar and only interested in the power rather than actually standing for anything then there are serious problems and that is the main area of drama.
It may suit you today that we have politicians who use issues based on what they deem popular, and maybe people want politicians who don't really stand for anything.
The fact is in the Dail, there are two types of politicians and I would put them on both the prolife and prochoice side - those who always held these views.
Most of these politicians who went 'on a journey' are just out looking at what they deem popular and in reality stand for nothing but themselves.
I can respect all the politicians from the first group whichever side they are on, but the rest, the less said the better.

RobertKK

Elisabeth Wrong Stork wrote: »

Russia has decriminalised certain forms of domestic violence and tacitly sanctioned violent persecution of gay people in recent years. It's taken a hugely regressive turn in terms of social issues, and its motivation is to further entrench the perceived cultural differences between Russian society and western democracy.

You'd have to be very very wilfully blind to not see that their policy on abortion is part of that.

Or maybe we should look to the other parts of the world which are stripping away access to abortion? Copy some southern US states which are trying to introduce the death penalty for abortion?

Abortion "regimes are being reigned in" in countries which are stripping away other human rights, they're being reigned in because there is a rise of right wing extremism.

Be better off just supporting Ronan Mullen tbh

A country can have bad leadership and bad laws in certain areas but the right intentions in other areas.
Russia has a major problem with abortion. The second highest rate in the world after China.
Surely they need less abortion in Russia, given 1 in 2 pregnancies are aborted?

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It wasn't.




Oh i'm not upset. Just calling out your callous nature

All you can do is be offended and call people names, I would be offended if I cared about your opinion as much as you do about mine.
I might have cared if you could interact in a civilised manner but having an opposing opinion makes it 'callous' is just someone not interested in what I post.
It is just someone looking for a reaction.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

All you can do is be offended and call people names, I would be offended if I cared about your opinion as much as you do about mine.
I might have cared if you could interact in a civilised manner but having an opposing opinion makes it 'callous' is just someone not interested in what I post.
It is just someone looking for a reaction.

The whole No campaign was based on callousness towards the women involved. They claim there are two people involved but only care about one of them. Hypocrites the lot of ye.

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The whole No campaign was based on callousness towards the women involved. They claim there are two people involved but only care about one of them. Hypocrites the lot of ye.

It is certain pro-choice people who say they only care about one life.
At least pro-life say there are two lives involved, the repeal side were so scared of biology they avoided this at all cost in the referendum.

I am all for far more supports for pregnant women and their subsequent children.

All you offer is name calling.