Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

fritzelly

pone2012 wrote: »

I don't actually care what side wins., I'm just glad Im not playing a part in that unnecessary harm

By not voting you are playing a part - your vote may be the deciding factor so you are giving your vote to whichever side wins

mg1982

Voted yes had a little moment of catholic guilt beforehand before i came to my senses.

Avatar MIA

pone2012 wrote: »

I don't actually care what side wins.,

So, you're either exactly 50% for and against each proposal or too lazy to vote.

I know which my money is on.

Windorah

YES!

listermint

Cakes and Ale wrote: »

I would hope there are no celebrations whichever way the vote goes. It's not as if there are winners in this debate.

Sorry but I believe there is winners

Women who need modern healthcare will be the beneficiaries here .

That's the long and short of it. It's a long time we stopped burying our heads in the sand and hoped prayer would save women in need of healthcare decisions they can get in other modern nations.

jigglypuffstuff

micks_address wrote: »

By not voting you effectively voted no.

No, I didn't vote at all

Sorry if you're unable to understand that.

Please try to pull someone else's strings... because your argument is paper thin and unfounded

JeffKenna

micks_address wrote: »

By not voting you effectively voted no.

By not voting they've not voted.

Avatar MIA

Windorah wrote: »

YES!

Your favourite scene from 'When Harry met Sally' thread is over there

---

> :P

SafeSurfer

If it’s less than 60% in favour if repeal, after all the resources of the state having been employed to ensure a yes vote and over 90% of elected representatives campaigning for repeal it will be a huge embarrassment.

There has been a blatant media bias in favour of repeal. Especially by the Irish Times. They had a headline last week saying “Farmers call for Yes vote”. Was it the IFA or ICMSA or other gamers organization? No it was literally individuals who happened to be farmers. About as accurate as saying “Journalists call for a no vote” because of Eamonn Dunphy and John Waters. Then they prominently headlined the Orange Order calling for a no vote while carrying no reference to “Satanists For Yes”.

jigglypuffstuff

Avatar MIA wrote: »

So, you're either exactly 50% for and against each proposal or too lazy to vote.

I know which my money is on.

I've voted in almost every referendum since I reached voting age... including the most important one which was about children's rights...the one a large amount of people ignored

But do continue to make assumptions

SafeSurfer

micks_address wrote: »

By not voting you effectively voted no.

Their choice

fergus1001

SafeSurfer wrote:

If it’s less than 60% in favour if repeal, after all the resources of the state having been employed to ensure a yes vote and over 90% of elected representatives campaigning for repeal it will be a huge embarrassment.

SafeSurfer wrote:

There has been a blatant media bias in favour of repeal. Especially by the Irish Times. They had a headline last week saying “Farmers call for Yes voteâ€. Was it the IFA or ICMSA or other gamers organization? No it was literally individuals who happened to be farmers. About as accurate as saying “Journalists call for a no vote†because of Eamonn Dunphy and John Waters. Then they prominently headlined the Orange Order calling for a no vote while carrying no reference to “Satanists For Yesâ€.

are you admitting defeat then

fergus1001

are you admitting defeat then ? nice concession speech

Trasna1

Deedsie wrote: »

I'm no fan of abortions. Horrendous.

Imagine an Irish woman pregnant with a very much wanted baby, at 12 weeks the consultant confirms an FFA with a strong heartbeat. Mothers choices,

Wait to be induced at 32 weeks for the child to die almost immediately,
wait for the babies heart to stop or
travel to Britain and organise an abortion in a foreign country and then bring the baby back to be buried in Ireland.

No voters today voted to keep that as the status quo for Irish women in tragic circumstances. ****en despicable carry on.

Any lads here who voted no, I really hope you don't ever have to hold your distraught wife in the above circumstances and tell her everything is going to be ok.

It's not, not for a long time.

Oh please, in the unlikely event it's a no vote we will be voting again on an amendment for the hard cases. It won't be 37 years.

jigglypuffstuff

fritzelly wrote: »

By not voting you are playing a part - your vote may be the deciding factor so you are giving your vote to whichever side wins

No this is nonsense.....let me explain

If 1000 people vote...then 1000 people vote

If I join in and vote...that is 1001

I didn't vote... therefore 1000 people voted

That is mathematics... which is effectively free from subjective opinion.

So Incase I wasn't clear... I didn't vote... nobody used my vote....my vote is not a thing.. because I didn't use it

Does that clear it up?

milhous

Patww79 wrote: »

That's disgraceful carry on really. I don't even know what way my wife voted and wouldn't ask, and she never once tried to tell me I should vote.

You don't know how your wife feels about abortion? I find that bizzare.

Also I think it's healthy to be able to talk about/debate and express feelings on such a top of and social issues in general.. Also sharing ones views does not equate to telling someone how to vote imo

RayCun

All this talk about a middle ground that was missed... It's bollocks.

The citizens assembly were not full of people looking for the widest possible abortion law. They were people looking for a sensible compromise, and when they listened to the stories of women who had abortions, and to doctors, and to lawyers, they gradually realized that you can't legislate for a bunch of narrowly defined edge cases, because that only creates new edge cases you haven't thought of. You need flexibility, trust, and respect.

And the same when the debate moved to the Dail. Do you think Varadkar and Martin and Coveney expected to be proposing this legislation? But they listened, and they came to the same realization.

Because in the end, there isn't a middle ground. Either you trust women to make their own decisions, and take them as seriously as you would, whether they come to the same conclusion or not. Or you think they have to be prevented from making decisions, in case they decide to do something you don't approve of.

dav3

pone2012 wrote: »

No, I didn't vote at all

Sorry if you're unable to understand that.

Please try to pull someone else's strings... because your argument is paper thin and unfounded

If you haven't voted, your opinion is worthless.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

WoolyJumper

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If it’s less than 60% in favour if repeal, after all the resources of the state having been employed to ensure a yes vote and over 90% of elected representatives campaigning for repeal it will be a huge embarrassment.

There has been a blatant media bias in favour of repeal. Especially by the Irish Times. They had a headline last week saying “Farmers call for Yes vote”. Was it the IFA or ICMSA or other gamers organization? No it was literally individuals who happened to be farmers. About as accurate as saying “Journalists call for a no vote” because of Eamonn Dunphy and John Waters. Then they prominently headlined the Orange Order calling for a no vote while carrying no reference to “Satanists For Yes”.

All national debates ever handled very fairly. Everyone was given equal time and representation. Both sides got to put their posters up and plenty of politicians come out asking for a no vote.

Yes there were variables, like the media (that wasn't the national media) and politicians skewed more towards a yes. There was plenty from the no side in the media too. My facebook was full of pro life ads, a lot of them misleading and scare mongering. You can also be sure the no side was much better funded. All in all I can't say the no side were at any kind of dissadvantage when it came to getting their message out there

The Wordress

I voted NO.

I had an unplanned pregnancy when I was younger and I was devastated. I was nearly on the boat to England but I couldn't go through with it, I was too scared.

I actually feel guilty for admitting that because my boy is the most sunny, joyful, delightful little child and he brings nothing but happiness to us.

I cannot believe that he might once have been a statistic stored away in a filing cabinet.

It would make me sick if I had to drive past an abortion clinic and there are so many unanswered questions like who is going to fund the clinics etc.

I do believe in abortion in incredibly exceptional circumstances but speaking to my sister who works in the medical profession, that already happens here.

Also, when someone said that Donegal will have an abortion clinic before it has proper cancer servies, my mind was made up!

micks_address

Deedsie wrote: »

Oh please what? Are you suggesting anything in my post is not 100% accurate for Irish women for the last 35 years? 35 years we have been told nothing can be changed until the 8th is removed. The Taoiseach said it won't be repeated, what political party wpuld want another abortion referendum in the next 5 to 10 years.


Oh Please, yourself.

The only part I think is omitted from your post is that some parents might want to have the child. That's a perfectly good choice if that's what they want. It's the fact it's the only choice that's the reason we need change.

BarryD2

SafeSurfer wrote: »

There has been a blatant media bias in favour of repeal.

That is most certainly not my impression as regards RTE anyway. I heard way more coverage of the No side on RTE radio during the day. It's almost as if the state broadcaster was determined to lean over and give the No argument more time, so that they couldn't be accused of bias.

Shurimgreat

Deedsie wrote: »

The current situation is an absolute disgrace where horses are treated better than Irish women. Nothing can change until the 8th is repealed.

Post after post from you and yet you never mention the other entity in all of this, the unborn. Talk about denying them a voice. Its as if you'd rather they didn't exist. I believe they should have a say too, and I and others are happy to represent them. You clearly are not.

There is a balance of rights here. I feel most Yes voters don't understand that. Mothers/parents have rights. Unborn also currently have rights by virtue of the 8th. You want to remove those rights from them and make it all one sided.

Trasna1

Deedsie wrote: »

Oh please what? Are you suggesting anything in my post is not 100% accurate for Irish women for the last 35 years? 35 years we have been told nothing can be changed until the 8th is removed. The Taoiseach said it won't be repeated, what political party wpuld want another abortion referendum in the next 5 to 10 years.


Oh Please, yourself.

I'm suggesting that no voters perhaps don't want to keep the status quo but were presented with an option that went too far for them.

In the event of a no vote there will certainly be another referendum in the next Dail. We are very good at re running referendums that don't return the right answer.

lawred2

pone2012 wrote: »

+1

Vote yes = unborn babies can be unnecessarily killed
Vote no = genuine cases denied care and can possibly die

Unnecessary harm no matter what way you vote...

Neither sits right in my moral compass and there's a middle ground left unexplored because of a ridiculous government, that probably would have satisfied the majority of the electorate.

I don't actually care what side wins., I'm just glad Im not playing a part in that unnecessary harm

Did you explore this 'middle ground' at all?

SafeSurfer

fergus1001 wrote: »

are you admitting defeat then ? nice concession speech

If one isn’t in the battle one can neither admit defeat or claim victory.

Do you think there was any media bias during the referendum campaign?

Cakes and Ale

listermint wrote: »

Sorry but I believe there is winners

Women who need modern healthcare will be the beneficiaries here .

That's the long and short of it. It's a long time we stopped burying our heads in the sand and hoped prayer would save women in need of healthcare decisions they can get in other modern nations.

I meant it in the sense that even for those benefiting from this in terms of medical treatments not currently available there would still be tragedy and trauma attached to this.

Pac1Man

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If one isn’t in the battle one can neither admit defeat or claim victory.

Do you think there was any media bias during the referendum campaign?

At least Boards remained impartial.

pleas advice

over 70% turnout 10 mins ago with a few still coming in my area (rural)