NO vote wins by less than 10,500 votes.

Bard

The NO vote has come out on top in the Constitutional Amendment Referendum with 612,929 votes (50.43%). 602,503 people (49.57%) voted YES.

Bloody close, wasn't it? Less than ONE PERCENT in it.

full results list here.

Panda

Personally i think it would have been a larger no vote if the polling took place on the week-end.

They havn't taken into account the large amount of people that are away from home at college.
Or is that just me?

Boston

personaly i think it would have been a larger yes vote if the polling had taken place at the weekend

Aspro

So the status quo remains the same. A victory in the sense that this reactionary and backward piece of legislation will not go into the constitution.
Also I believe this was the last time the pro-life/youth defence elements will be able to dictate the issue to the rest of the country. It was their last stand and may they quickly wither into obscurity.

So now what? Will the next government (my prediction - Fianna Fail/Labour) have the balls to legislate for the X-case judgment as they should have done ten years ago?

Or do they bury their heads in the sand once more and throw us another referendum in 2012?

koneko

Time for a proper referendum.

Personally I think if the voting had been at the weekend, more young people could have voted, and from what I can tell more young people I've spoken to would (thankfully) have voted no.

Victor

Aspro, target the policies, not the people. Stop politicising a moral matter.

---

Table of results.

http://www.ireland.com/focus/abortion/news/results.htm

Note the urban / rural divide.

bonkey

Originally posted by Aspro
It was their last stand and may they quickly wither into obscurity.

So now what? Will the next government (my prediction - Fianna Fail/Labour) have the balls to legislate for the X-case judgment as they should have done ten years ago?

Well, gee, given that some pro-life were being encouraged to vote NO, and others Yes, and given that the end result was as close to a perfect 50-50 split as weve seen since Subya got into office.....I hardly think it was anyone's last stand.

If you look past the blinkers of your own beliefs, you may discover that this is a clear indication that the country, at best, is still harshly divided on the issue, and simply casting glib cvomments about "last stands" isnt actually going to change that.

jc

The Gopher

And we look like right tits accross the UK now because the result was carried live on Sky News.Im sure some Brits noticed that when the officer called out the result in Irish there was no cheering but as soon as the English result was called the No people started celebrating.In conclusion proving that we cant speak are native language.Why the gov still uses this ancient little understood banter passes me.
Anyway who cares?Things stay the way tney already were.I mean there must havce been about 2 abortions in the last decade.Huge waste of paper if ytou ask me.

Meh

Originally posted by The Gopher
Anyway who cares?Things stay the way tney already were.I mean there must havce been about 2 abortions in the last decade.Huge waste of paper if ytou ask me.

Amen. What a ****ing waste of time that referendum was. Thank you, Mildred Fox!

Boston

if someone, say from the eu, said you couldnt teach irish in schools, alot more people would learn the language

amp

Gophers right. What I learned from the coverage of the referendum is the bemusement by the rest of the world at the fact that we're still going on about this.

Aspro

Originally posted by Victor
Aspro, target the policies, not the people. Stop politicising a moral matter.

It wasn't me that politicised this issue and I don't believe it's a moral matter but rather a women's health issue. It was politicised by the anti-choice people since 1983 and whatever about 1992 there should never have been another referendum this year but they dictated and the government caved in.

Originally posted by Bonkey
Well, gee, given that some pro-life were being encouraged to vote NO, and others Yes, and given that the end result was as close to a perfect 50-50 split as weve seen since Subya got into office.....I hardly think it was anyone's last stand. If you look past the blinkers of your own beliefs, you may discover that this is a clear indication that the country, at best, is still harshly divided on the issue, and simply casting glib cvomments about "last stands" isnt actually going to change that.

When I mentioned the "last stand" I was referring to the pro-life movement as an organisation. They are a single issue campaign, they had one last attempt at denying women abortions in Ireland, they split over the issue and I believe they will now decline into obscurity. Btw I'm not belittling anyone's "pro-life" beliefs but rather this minority organisation who are a relic from 1950's Ireland. I think confusion was deliberately fuelled by the government in the hope that the more conservative elements would outnumber the liberals. Thankfully we have had a sea-change in attitudes, especially among young people over the last decade who realise there is no black and white to individual crisis pregnancy situations. Unfortunately many students were disenfranchised by the mid-week vote (again deliberately, I believe - young people are generally more liberal and this issue predominantly affects them).

I think despite confusion etc. the "Yes" vote was a conservative pro-government, pro-fianna fail vote and the "No" vote was a liberal, pro-choice vote. I don't buy this argument that youth defence or dana had anything to do with the defeat of the referendum. They are a minority within a minority.
And I don't believe the country is still harshly divided on this.

We had a very similar (in fact almost identical) result in 1995 in the divorce referendum. Ireland had accepted reality - marriages don't always work - and we passed the law. What happened? Did families fall apart? Was it the case of "Hello divorce, goodbye daddy"? Of course it wasn't. We acknowledged reality and now to the majority of people divorce is acceptable in Ireland in the circumstances in which it is unavoidable.

And the same will go for abortion, eventually. Society will move forward and maybe governments can start tackling the causes behind crisis pregnancies (proper education, proper health and social services, free or at least cheap contraception).
As they say, prevention is better than cure.

Irish_Ranger_IR

I am confused..

I taught I was clear before I voted, I voted No, I know this is real silly, but I am not sure now with YES to this and NO to that, and YES means NO and No Means YES...my mates are saying that I voted against what the goverment wanted, I just don't know.....

Help me.....

Who did I vote for?

Dr. Loon

Originally posted by Panda
Personally i think it would have been a larger no vote if the polling took place on the week-end.

They havn't taken into account the large amount of people that are away from home at college.
Or is that just me?

I reckon that was well taken into account... purposely.
If it had of been at the weekend it would have been a walkover for the NO vote.

koneko

Originally posted by amp
Gophers right. What I learned from the coverage of the referendum is the bemusement by the rest of the world at the fact that we're still going on about this.

Did you see the coverage on TV3 (I think it was)? They had reports from all over Europe there. The Danish (female) reported went on to describe how strange this whole situation is. In the last few years (she said) Ireland rose up as a celtic tiger, saying it was all modern, and with the times, and how this whole referendum makes the country seem so much more backwards. For the rest of Europe this is a closed issue, and everyone knows where they stand. And that Ireland has the strictest abortion laws of all countries in the EU.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Aspro
It wasn't me that politicised this issue and I don't believe it's a moral matter but rather a women's health issue. It was politicised by the anti-choice people since 1983 and whatever about 1992 there should never have been another referendum this year but they dictated and the government caved in.

Anti-choice...

You do not have the choice to kill people!

Yeah, I can see how evil these anti-choice people are. I WANT that choice. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Aspro
When I mentioned the "last stand" I was referring to the pro-life movement as an organisation. They are a single issue campaign, they had one last attempt at denying women abortions in Ireland, they split over the issue and I believe they will now decline into obscurity.

They split, but not out of losing sight of what they wanted. I'd like to know how you can see the future.

Originally posted by Aspro
Btw I'm not belittling anyone's "pro-life" beliefs but rather this minority organisation who are a relic from 1950's Ireland.

I think the election results show they are not a minority; considering that no pro-choicer in their right mind would vote yes (or so I'm told) and that I'm pro-life and no.

Originally posted by Aspro
I think confusion was deliberately fuelled by the government in the hope that the more conservative elements would outnumber the liberals.

Want to explain this?

Originally posted by Aspro
Thankfully we have had a sea-change in attitudes, especially among young people over the last decade who realise there is no black and white to individual crisis pregnancy situations.

There is. It's either killing a baby or it isn't. It's fairly black and white. It's only got shades of grey when you claim it's NOT killing a baby.

Originally posted by Aspro
I think despite confusion etc. the "Yes" vote was a conservative pro-government, pro-fianna fail vote and the "No" vote was a liberal, pro-choice vote. I don't buy this argument that youth defence or dana had anything to do with the defeat of the referendum. They are a minority within a minority.

Considering how close it was, the pro-life NO campaign was instrumental in defeating this referendum.

It's likely that if there was perfectly pro-life then it would of passed, but it wasn't, and it didn't.

Originally posted by Aspro
And I don't believe the country is still harshly divided on this.

Obviously a near 50/50 split isn't good enough of a divide for you

Originally posted by Aspro
We had a very similar (in fact almost identical) result in 1995 in the divorce referendum. Ireland had accepted reality - marriages don't always work - and we passed the law. What happened? Did families fall apart? Was it the case of "Hello divorce, goodbye daddy"? Of course it wasn't. We acknowledged reality and now to the majority of people divorce is acceptable in Ireland in the circumstances in which it is unavoidable.

Abortions do not equal divorce. There are not a massive amount of women going over to England to get a divorce.

Originally posted by Aspro
And the same will go for abortion, eventually. Society will move forward and maybe governments can start tackling the causes behind crisis pregnancies (proper education, proper health and social services, free or at least cheap contraception).
As they say, prevention is better than cure.

Abortion, the cure to pregnancy???

Aspro

Obviously a near 50/50 split isn't good enough of a divide for you

50% of 42% turnout. I think, as Dr. Loon pointed out, if students away from home hadn't been disenfranchised, and everyone got:

1. The information about the referendum with a little more than 2 or 3 days to look at it

2. Their voting cards,

it would have been a much higher rejection. In straw polls carried out in both UCD and by ireland.com it was rejected 70:30

You do not have the choice to kill people!

Now you're just being melodramatic. Justin Barrett isn't your real name, is it? As Deirdre de Barra pointed out, it's interesting how pro-life organisations only ever seem to be interested in pre-natal life. They come from the same right-wing religious origins that swept industrial school child abuse under the carpet for decades for fear of damaging the church. What about those lives?

They split, but not out of losing sight of what they wanted. I'd like to know how you can see the future.

Ireland has moved on. We're no longer dictated to by the church and politicians. Both of these institutions have been discredited. People can now think for themselves.

Abortions do not equal divorce.

You're missing the point. The result of that referendum was that divorce was narrowly passed by a low turnout. People now accept that divorce is a reality.

There are not a massive amount of women going over to England to get a divorce.

So you acknowledge we export the problem - we bury our heads in the sand and say "yeah, it exists, but not in my backyard". That's hypocrisy.

Abortion, the cure to pregnancy???

If you can't argue without resorting to semantics and melodrama, don't bother.

seamus

Originally posted by JustHalf
There is. It's either killing a baby or it isn't. It's fairly black and white. It's only got shades of grey when you claim it's NOT killing a baby.

Well, some people look at it in the opposite way. It's a black-and-white issue until it's claimed that abortion IS killing a baby. As I can see it, both sides use the exact same arguments, just with their negatives reversed.

And yes, prevention is far better. I voted no, but it'll be quite a while before I ever vote yes to abortion. Abortion rarely solves anything. Education, discussion and openness is needed to prevent the need for abortion in the first place. Then we can bring it in. Obviously opennmindedness is something a lot of people in this country are still lacking.

"Bishop bollockhead told me to vote yes, so I'm voting yes." "Would it not be better to read the info and make a decision for yourself, instead of effectively giving your vote to the church?" "No, the church is always right. It's my faith and I'll support it!". I heard this at least 3 times yesterday. :rolleyes:

Aspro

I think Fintan O'Toole is a fluffy liberal but he has some good points to back me up today:)

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2002/0308/4060944343OP08FINTAN.html

suppafly

Polling should been at the weekend so that all of the students and people that work far from home could vote. i think thats why they had it on the wensday so that we couldn't vote. the dirty b***d's

JustHalf

Originally posted by Aspro
it would have been a much higher rejection. In straw polls carried out in both UCD and by ireland.com it was rejected 70:30

"Sample spaces" is something you should read about.

Originally posted by Aspro
Now you're just being melodramatic. Justin Barrett isn't your real name, is it? As Deirdre de Barra pointed out, it's interesting how pro-life organisations only ever seem to be interested in pre-natal life.

I'm pro-life. All life. The comments you mention would be another one of those misdirection tactics pro-abortion-"rights" people use to get their message across.

I haven't seen a single argument for abortion (where the mother's life is not threatened) which isn't based on lies, misdirection or misrepresentation.

My name isn't Justin, by the way. Last name's Barrett though, David Barrett. Who is this Justin person, anyway?

Originally posted by Aspro
They come from the same right-wing religious origins that swept industrial school child abuse under the carpet for decades for fear of damaging the church. What about those lives?

Are you implying that all pro-life hide child abuse?

MISDIRECTION

Originally posted by Aspro
Ireland has moved on. We're no longer dictated to by the church and politicians.

Yes, you are. You are being dictated to by politicians every day -- you just don't realise it.

Politicians aren't some special breed of person, you know. Or do you mean only elected politicians?

Originally posted by Aspro
Both of these institutions have been discredited.

I fail to see how either have been.

Show me a single pro-life campaign poster bearing the words "Catholic Church".

And the government? They asked people to vote.

Originally posted by Aspro
People can now think for themselves.

"Thinking" seems to stop when people reach a point which fits into their current opinion; as opposed to the actual conclusion.

Originally posted by Aspro
So you acknowledge we export the problem - we bury our heads in the sand and say "yeah, it exists, but not in my backyard". That's hypocrisy.

You do know we cannot dictate the laws in other countries?

And if the problem is abortions (which is the only way what you said makes any sense), what solution do you suggest?

Because if you suggest abortion as the solution to abortions, I don't know what to say.

Originally posted by Aspro
If you can't argue without resorting to semantics and melodrama, don't bother.

If you want to argue, please do it with reason as opposed to branding all pro-life people as right-wing extremists who hide cases of child abuse, who only care for life when it's pre-natal life, and who are anti-choice.

Some choices you shouldn't get to make. Like whether or not you should kill people with insufficient justification.

Word to the wise... I'm a liberal!!!

bonkey

Originally posted by seamus
Well, some people look at it in the opposite way. It's a black-and-white issue until it's claimed that abortion IS killing a baby. As I can see it, both sides use the exact same arguments, just with their negatives reversed.

Actually, I think both of those sides are incorrect in their stances.

The most honest (and correct) stance is that we have no firm definitions to say whether or not we are dealing with a "human being" or not. Anyone who claims otherwise is basing their decisions on something other than fact (such as religion).

In the absence of fact, we cannot be sure whether or not it is murder.

So, I ask a simple question. If you're not sure that an action is morally wrong or right, should you disregard the moral question and make the decision on some other basis, or should you say that the best option is to play safe and assume it is immoral.

For me, the pro-choice argument is, at best, amoral, as it either chooses to make a decision which cannot be irrefutably defended , or it simply ignores the issue.

If someone proposed that we change our entire legal system to work off a basis of "guilty till proven innocent", then I'm sure that there would be an outcry. In law, in the presence of reasonable doubt, we assume innocence to avoid the possibility of making tragic and irrevocable mistakes.

Similarly, in a moral dilemma, we should take steps to ensure that we do not choose the wrong decision, by looking at the possibilities. If the unborn is a human being, then morally we are obliged to entitle it to life. If it is not a human being, then there is no such obligation.

Ergo, in the absence of definitive proof one way or the other, it is incumbent on us to assume that it is human to avoid the possiblity of such immoral acts as what would be clsasified as premeditated murder.

Of course, it is all too esy to twist this logic and say "I'm pro-choice. Why? Because if you ask me if an 'aborter' is guilty of murder, I say that there is reasonable doubt, and therefore they are innocent, and therefore the act itself cannot be illegal".

Which, interestingly, is the only strong argument I can see in favour of abortion, and one which I cannot recall seeing in any one of the threads raised on the subject.

Damn but logic is a double-edged sword

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Aspro
I think Fintan O'Toole is a fluffy liberal but he has some good points to back me up today:)

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2002/0308/4060944343OP08FINTAN.html

I HATE Fintan O'Toole with a passion usually reserved for paedophiles and concentration camp commandants. He is a smug, self-righteous, intellectually dishonest prat.

koneko

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

I HATE Fintan O'Toole with a passion usually reserved for paedophiles and concentration camp commandants. He is a smug, self-righteous, intellectually dishonest prat.

Why.. exactly? Because he doesn't share your opinion that everything should be banned? Sure I even remember you a few weeks back saying censorship was a good thing...

Aspro

I HATE Fintan O'Toole with a passion usually reserved for paedophiles and concentration camp commandants. He is a smug, self-righteous, intellectually dishonest prat.

I'm sure he loves you too.:p

Biffa Bacon

In the absence of fact, we cannot be sure whether or not it is murder.

Nonsense. It only matters how you define human life. I can define a banana to be human and thus eating one makes me a murderer. But that's obviously a nonsensical definition. We have to ask if our definitions are reasonable. For example, is it reasonable to say that the foetus only becomes human at a point in time where there is a highly probability that it would be able to survive independently outside the womb? Not to me it's not.

DeVore

50% of 42% turnout. I think, as Dr. Loon pointed out, if students away from home hadn't been disenfranchised, and everyone got:

1. The information about the referendum with a little more than 2 or 3 days to look at it

2. Their voting cards,

and

3. They didnt get high.

DeV.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Nonsense. It only matters how you define human life.

I can define a banana to be human and thus eating one makes me a murderer. But that's obviously a nonsensical definition.

We have to ask if our definitions are reasonable.

For example, is it reasonable to say that the foetus only becomes human at a point in time where there is a highly probability that it would be able to survive independently outside the womb? Not to me it's not.

I've highlighted two sentences of your post (three if you count "nonsense" as a sentence).

On one hand you argue that it only matters on how we make our definitions, and then you say that we must ask if our definitions are reasonable.

The problem, which you have completely ignored is that there is no consensus on a single reasonable definition for what constitutes human life. There are myriads, and several popular but unreasonable definitions to boot - by this I mean definitions which are not based on reason, but on other arguments (such as religion).

Now, these various definitions overlap to a large extent, resulting in a situation where we have a somehwat clear definition in that there are certianly things which must be classified as human, and there are things which cannot be classified as human, but there is also a grey area - a border which we cannot agree on. In short - we have a "fuzzy definition".

In fuzzy logic, we have a trinary state - yes, no, and maybe. Often we have varying degrees of maybe. The classification of what constitutes human life must honestly be based on such a trinary classification, given that there is an area where a consensus cannot be reached scientifically or by any other logical means.

Therefore, we remain with an area where, quite simply, we cannot be sure. All we can say is "maybe".

This brings me back to my simple question - in the absence of surity, do we make the morally safe choice, or ignore the moral issue?

jc

b20uvkft6m5xwg

Originally posted by DeVore
and

3. They didnt get high.
DeV.

tut, tut

But I did nearly miss making it before 9pm 'cos i fell asleep when I got home from college.

It wasn't caued by drugs.....Honestly:cool:

Aspro

Originally posted by DeVore
and 3. They didnt get high

smart arse

Lemming

Originally posted by DeVore


and

3. They didnt get high.

DeV.

Now now ... students are law abidding citizens who wouldn't dabble in anything remotely anti-social or unacceptable!

Just thinking back to my college days when ... ioh wait .. I can't remember them .. erm .. NO COMMENT

/disappears quickly