Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Loafing Oaf

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

So anyone who changes their mind on any issue is automatically a liar. Useful to know. I agree that the FF and FG TDs who moved to a pro-choice position in the run-up to the referendum are largely opportunists sniffing the way the wind is blowing, but I don't necessarily believe that's an unhealthy thing in a democracy...

RobertKK

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So anyone who changes their mind on any issue is automatically a liar. Useful to know. I agree that the FF and FG TDs who moved to a pro-choice position in the run-up to the referendum are largely opportunists sniffing the way the wind is blowing, but I don't necessarily believe that's an unhealthy thing in a democracy...

I did not say that, I did not say they all are. I said most are.

amcalester

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

It's a contentious issue surely people can change their mind? Or would you prefer we had a government like up North, equally split down 2 opposing views with the result that nothing gets done.

Those who are entrenched on either side of the debate deserve scorn, those who are willing to learn and can change their opinion deserve respect.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

It is certain pro-choice people who say they only care about one life.

those certain people are the ones that the No campaign put forward as spokespeople so it is fair to characterise them as being representative of the No campaign.

RobertKK wrote: »

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 cannot remember any time during the campaign that any No campaign supporters were ever able to actually substantiate that claim. Not once. You flopped and floundered trying to justify it.

RobertKK wrote: »

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

But those women who didn't want to have a child can go and get stuffed.

RobertKK wrote: »

All you offer is name calling.

all you offered was the plane or boat to england.

Calina

RobertKK wrote: »

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?

Russia has a major problem with how it treats women. Perhaps if it didn't treat women as disposable rubbish to be beaten, for example, its abortion rate might be a lot lower.

But you never focus on the link between women being treated badly, demonised for getting pregnant a demonised for arranging not to be pregnant.

The Catholic Church is responsible for the social mores in Ireland that demonise and shame single mothers. It had the lion's share of control over moral standards. Women who transgressed were not treated kindly, even when they were victims themselves of rape for example.

Russia's change in approach is with a view to controlling women. Not cos they have fluffy thoughts about the second life.

What they need in Russia is to treat women better. When they do you will see abortion rates come down.

ohnonotgmail

Calina wrote: »

Russia has a major problem with how it treats women. Perhaps if it didn't treat women as disposable rubbish to be beaten, for example, its abortion rate might be a lot lower.

But you never focus on the link between women being treated badly, demonised for getting pregnant a demonised for arranging not to be pregnant.

The Catholic Church is responsible for the social mores in Ireland that demonise and shame single mothers. It had the lion's share of control over moral standards. Women who transgressed were not treated kindly, even when they were victims themselves of rape for example.

Russia's change in approach is with a view to controlling women. Not cos they have fluffy thoughts about the second life.

What they need in Russia is to treat women better. When they do you will see abortion rates come down.

Russia has a serious problem with how it treats women. The reason Russia has such an issue with abortion is because of a lack of alternatives. Contraception was practically non-existentent during the soviet era so abortion became the de facto method of birth control. Even now the russian government is doing its best to limit access to proper birth control for women. It is almost like they are too stupid to see the connection between a lack of brith control and unwanted pregnancy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/02/opinion/birth-control-in-russia.html

Igotadose

RobertKK wrote: »

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

Then do something about that, and keep your nose otherwise out of their uteri.

B0jangles

The birthrate is probably low in Russia because many russian women are looking at their society and economy and thinking that it would be crazy to have a child in such circumstances. The Russian government just wants to boost the birthrate but not actually do anything to incentivise having children by maybe making life for Russians in general (and Russian women in particular) easier and more stable.

Instead they boost their credientials with the far right and with the Russian orthodox church by simply making abortion illegal, making contraception hard to get.

All that happens when you do that is force women to buy black market contraception and back alley abortions.

RobertKK

amcalester wrote: »

It's a contentious issue surely people can change their mind? Or would you prefer we had a government like up North, equally split down 2 opposing views with the result that nothing gets done.

Those who are entrenched on either side of the debate deserve scorn, those who are willing to learn and can change their opinion deserve respect.

People are entitled to hold entrenched views, we see it in this thread from both sides.
But I know what you are saying, people should be open to opposing opinion, I am all for that, yet there was a repeal shield which does what you and I both disagree with going by what you posted, it is for an echo chamber and views so hard lined entrenched they could not bear to read a dissenting voice.
I don't believe there was a version of it for people who oppose abortion.

I agree with your overall point.

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

People are entitled to hold entrenched views, we see it in this thread from both sides.
But I know what you are saying, people should be open to opposing opinion, I am all for that, yet there was a repeal shield which does what you and I both disagree with going by what you posted, it is for an echo chamber and views so hard lined entrenched they could not bear to read a dissenting voice.
I don't believe there was a version of it for people who oppose abortion.

I agree with your overall point.

Are you seriously still angry about some people on twitter not wanting to read your tweets?


Such oppression!

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

People are entitled to hold entrenched views, we see it in this thread from both sides.
But I know what you are saying, people should be open to opposing opinion, I am all for that, yet there was a repeal shield which does what you and I both disagree with going by what you posted, it is for an echo chamber and views so hard lined entrenched they could not bear to read a dissenting voice.
I don't believe there was a version of it for people who oppose abortion.

I agree with your overall point.

Or maybe they just could'nt be bothered reading the same No campaign nonsense for the 1000th time.

RobertKK

[PHP][/PHP]

RobertKK wrote: »

People are entitled to hold entrenched views, we see it in this thread from both sides.
But I know what you are saying, people should be open to opposing opinion, I am all for that, yet there was a repeal shield which does what you and I both disagree with going by what you posted, it is for an echo chamber and views so hard lined entrenched they could not bearing to read a dissenting voice.
I don't believe there was a version of it for people who oppose abortion.

I agree with your overall point.

You blocked people on here because they destroyed your arguments and you felt they were bullying you for doing so and your back complaining about repeal shield again, classic.

SusieBlue

RobertKK wrote: »

People are entitled to hold entrenched views, we see it in this thread from both sides.
But I know what you are saying, people should be open to opposing opinion, I am all for that, yet there was a repeal shield which does what you and I both disagree with going by what you posted, it is for an echo chamber and views so hard lined entrenched they could not bear to read a dissenting voice.
I don't believe there was a version of it for people who oppose abortion.

I agree with your overall point.

I can't say I blame them, I can't stomach witnessing self important soapboxers exercising their free speech by trying to restrict the healthcare & control the uteri of half the population either.

I don't see why anyone should have to tolerate those who wish to interfere in private medical matters. It shouldn't be encouraged or advocated.
Its abhorrent.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Yes, I’m so scared of biology, I did a degree in the subject! :eek:

As for Russia, if every other foetus is aborted, that points to a country with serious problems.

amcalester

RobertKK wrote: »

People are entitled to hold entrenched views, we see it in this thread from both sides.
But I know what you are saying, people should be open to opposing opinion, I am all for that, yet there was a repeal shield which does what you and I both disagree with going by what you posted, it is for an echo chamber and views so hard lined entrenched they could not bear to read a dissenting voice.
I don't believe there was a version of it for people who oppose abortion.

I agree with your overall point.

While they may be entitled, they should not be celebrated for it.

Was the repeal shield a twitter thing? Don't use twitter so can't really comment, but there were some on the No side who were not interested in changing opinions, they were merely out to cause shock and outrage. I'm thinking of those targeting schools with images, so if they were doing the same on Twitter I'm not surprised they were blocked.

Reasonable discourse is to be welcomed, zealotry not so much.

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

The birthrate is probably low in Russia because many russian women are looking at their society and economy and thinking that it would be crazy to have a child in such circumstances. The Russian government just wants to boost the birthrate but not actually do anything to incentivise having children by maybe making life for Russians in general (and Russian women in particular) easier and more stable.

Instead they boost their credientials with the far right and with the Russian orthodox church by simply making abortion illegal, making contraception hard to get.

All that happens when you do that is force women to buy black market contraception and back alley abortions.

It has been high since it was first introduced.
One can't blame religion for example for China having the highest abortion rate in the world.

btw I am not a fan of Viktor Orban, but I do think his incentives for women are good, subsidised people carriers, no income tax payable for life if a woman has 4 children or more and other measures to increase the birth rate.
Discounted loans up to €32k or so for married under 40s which will be 'forgiven' when they have children.
Supports for grandparents who look after their grandchildren.
I would say that is a start, one can question the measures if they are enough but its better than nothing.

I do think we need this trade off, abortion is not going away so don't view what I am about to post as being 'we need to get rid of it', current policies towards birth are not supportive enough of women. This is being real about where we are now.
There is no point nations across Europe for example simply talking about their birth rates being too low and doing nothing extra to support women and children. Just to maintain populations at current levels in Europe we need a higher birth rate.
Is it morally right to rely on stripping poorer nations of their best talents simply to maintain the lifestyles we are use to in Europe?
People living longer and less workers to support the elderly is where we are currently increasingly heading towards.
So if we want to keep abortion as it is now in Europe for example, which lowers birth rates, we need counter measures to really support women and their children in a meaningful way.
Before anyone gets upset, remember I have not said restrict anything, instead far more should be done for pregnant women and their subsequent children.

Annasopra

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

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

We shall see how they have regrouped in the next month

RobertKK

amcalester wrote: »

While they may be entitled, they should not be celebrated for it.

Was the repeal shield a twitter thing? Don't use twitter so can't really comment, but there were some on the No side who were not interested in changing opinions, they were merely out to cause shock and outrage. I'm thinking of those targeting schools with images, so if they were doing the same on Twitter I'm not surprised they were blocked.

Reasonable discourse is to be welcomed, zealotry not so much.

Repeal shield is still in use on twitter.
Repeal shield was used on anyone who held very very mild opinions to extreme opinions, I could understand if it was based on the extreme with images and vile language, but Repeal Shield was used to stifle interaction from anyone who was deemed to hold the 'wrong opinion'.
In a democracy I think we all need to be exposed to opinions we disagree with, it makes people wiser, it can change opinion or at least soften a hard line opinion.
I think it is bad if people want to only hear people who share the same opinion, it only leads to less tolerance in my opinion, and we all need to live on this planet together so we need to be open to accepting people's right to disagree and keep it civil.
The way I view it is this way, if I am entitled to give my opinion, it is my right, but if someone gives an opposing opinion it is their right and to defend my right to my own opinion I need to 100% respect the other's person's right and be civil with them, as that is how I want to be treated.
We all need opposing opinions in our lives and then agree or disagree and then move on in a civil manner.

Which I will now do, need to enjoy this weather

The Golden Miller

amcalester wrote: »

While they may be entitled, they should not be celebrated for it.

Was the repeal shield a twitter thing? Don't use twitter so can't really comment, but there were some on the No side who were not interested in changing opinions, they were merely out to cause shock and outrage. I'm thinking of those targeting schools with images, so if they were doing the same on Twitter I'm not surprised they were blocked.

Reasonable discourse is to be welcomed, zealotry not so much.

Shock and outrage? How so?

Faugheen

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

That’s because the only way rape victims would be able to get a termination was to have it unrestricted.

You talk about repeal telling lies when Ronán Mullen et al peddled the bullsit that you could account for rape in the 8th Amendment, when it’s absolute bollocks.

Read the legislation. There’s is no mention of the word ‘rape’ or any other carnation of it. If a woman was to be able to Constitutionally have an abortion in the case of rape (like Mr Mullen proposed) she would need definitive proof through the judicial system. It’s both impossible and highly insensitive.

That’s why the laws are the way they are, so rape victims can be accounted for without having to relive their experiences through a judicial system that’s completely backlogged. A woman would have given birth by the time her case comes up.

Have some common sense!

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

That’s because he’s the Minister for Health and when it came to this issue, he had to deal in facts.

Simon Harris spoke like someone who did his homework on the issue. I was pro-life until about 4 years ago, because I actually did some reading and didn’t look at it in a black and white scenario of babies being killed mercilessly because people were being irresponsible.

amcalester

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Shock and outrage? How so?

Its in the post you quoted.

Fr_Dougal

RobertKK wrote: »

Repeal shield is still in use on twitter.
Repeal shield was used on anyone who held very very mild opinions to extreme opinions, I could understand if it was based on the extreme with images and vile language, but Repeal Shield was used to stifle interaction from anyone who was deemed to hold the 'wrong opinion'.
In a democracy I think we all need to be exposed to opinions we disagree with, it makes people wiser, it can change opinion or at least soften a hard line opinion.
I think it is bad if people want to only hear people who share the same opinion, it only leads to less tolerance in my opinion, and we all need to live on this planet together so we need to be open to accepting people's right to disagree and keep it civil.
The way I view it is this way, if I am entitled to give my opinion, it is my right, but if someone gives an opposing opinion it is their right and to defend my right to my own opinion I need to 100% respect the other's person's right and be civil with them, as that is how I want to be treated.
We all need opposing opinions in our lives and then agree or disagree and then move on in a civil manner.

Which I will now do, need to enjoy this weather

You do realise that terminations were not made mandatory, Robert?

If you ever become pregnant yourself, you have a choice to go full term and nobody will bat an eyelid...well apart from seeing a pregnant male. Boards even has a Pregnancy Forum to help you through your morning sickness, should you experience any.

Enjoy the sun!

chalkitdown1

'Ol Robert sure is triggered today!

Imagine how he'll be in a month's time when the 1 year anniversary comes around and it's all over the news cycle again!

Might get another 20 pages of intelligent debate out of the lad. I can't wait.

robarmstrong

Haha that’s gas complains about the repeal shield when he puts posters who absolutely decimated his arguments on ignore.

Can’t say diddly about the repeal side tactics considering the pro-life campaign lied left right and centre about pretty much everything significant throughout the entirety of the Repeal the 8th Movement. What about that nurse who saw all those horrible things but ended up not being a nurse at all? What about all the factually incorrect images of fetuses? What about the “murder up until birth” lines?

Considering this particular pro-lifer said the Miss P case was a publicity stunt that goes to show you the mindset, ignorance & overall complete lack of informed arguments (I don’t know how many pro-lifers were completely ignorant of the fact that no practical method of contraception other than abstinence was 100% effective yet it was paraded about consistently) from the pro-life side.

They lost resoundingly, both in debates and in the polls! Not a single one of them realized that for the hard cases to be legislated, the 8th needed to be repealed anyways! It was the complete lack of understanding that it wasn’t the repeal/save that mattered, but the LEGISLATION and the ability to lobby for what they wanted to be LEGISLATED!

But sure look, we’ll get them back in here, the usual suspects who have necks like jockeys boll*cks toddling on in here despite having every single aspect and point of their “argument” torn to shreds.

RobertKK

Who have I on ignore?

robarmstrong wrote: »

Haha that’s gas complains about the repeal shield when he puts posters who absolutely decimated his arguments on ignore.

Can’t say diddly about the repeal side tactics considering the pro-life campaign lied left right and centre about pretty much everything significant throughout the entirety of the Repeal the 8th Movement. What about that nurse who saw all those horrible things but ended up not being a nurse at all? What about all the factually incorrect images of fetuses? What about the “murder up until birth” lines?

Considering this particular pro-lifer said the Miss P case was a publicity stunt that goes to show you the mindset, ignorance & overall complete lack of informed arguments (I don’t know how many pro-lifers were completely ignorant of the fact that no practical method of contraception other than abstinence was 100% effective yet it was paraded about consistently) from the pro-life side.

They lost resoundingly, both in debates and in the polls! Not a single one of them realized that for the hard cases to be legislated, the 8th needed to be repealed anyways! It was the complete lack of understanding that it wasn’t the repeal/save that mattered, but the LEGISLATION and the ability to lobby for what they wanted to be LEGISLATED!

But sure look, we’ll get them back in here, the usual suspects who have necks like jockeys boll*cks toddling on in here despite having every single aspect and point of their “argument” torn to shreds.

eviltwin

Not everyone who held strong views about the referendum wanted to get into debates about it Robert. That's where Repeal shield came in handy.

RobertKK

eviltwin wrote: »

Not everyone who held strong views about the referendum wanted to get into debates about it Robert. That's where Repeal shield came in handy.

That is ok, I know some have removed themselves from it, but others have not.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Who have I on ignore?

I don't know who you have on your ignore, current or past.

Convenient you gloss over the rest of the post particularly the parts which reference things you've said yourself.

Why?

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

I don't know who you have on your ignore, current or past.

Convenient you gloss over the rest of the post particularly the parts which reference things you've said yourself.

Why?

Why?
Maybe you forgot what you just posted, let me quote:
“Haha that’s gas complains about the repeal shield when he puts posters who absolutely decimated his arguments on ignore.”

I didn’t gloss over it, I don’t have to reply to stuff I don’t agree with if I feel the person is looking for a reaction.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Why?
Maybe you forgot what you just posted, let me quote:
“Haha that’s gas complains about the repeal shield when he puts posters who absolutely decimated his arguments on ignore.”

I didn’t gloss over it, I don’t have to reply to stuff I don’t agree with if I feel the person is looking for a reaction.

You appear to have difficulty reading, that's okay.

"I don't know who you have on your ignore, current or past."

Happy to keep at this for as long as possible Robert. Honesty isn't exactly something you're known for here.