nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Ozymandius2011

This is for people who have already voted in the referendum. How did you vote? I voted yes.

Mod: This thread is little more than a survey about how you voted. Please don't the ins and outs of abortion.

Mod: This is not a reiteration of the previous 8th threads. If you were threadbanned from those, you are not threadbanned here.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

[Deleted User]

Michael McG on the radio saying he will not stand in the way of any legislation

Shurimgreat

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am an NUI graduate, but I never looked up how to vote for the Senate.

Until now.

I will be making sure I have a vote next time simply and solely to vote for everyone on the ballot except that bollox.

We don't all have to think alike. Its not North Korea. We are a mature democracy where a wide variety of opinions should be respected rather than resorting to immature name calling. I don't agree with much of what Mullen says just like I don't agree with much of what Ruth Coppinger would say but I respect their right to say it.

ArmaniJeanss

suicide_circus wrote: »

Oh grand I wasn't too sure from your post.

Absolutely if the chap wants to be in the child's life he should have the right to do so. If he asked for an abortion but the pregnancy goes ahead he should have the right to not be involved in any way.

It's about the right to choose.

Theres nothing in the constitution about it, so it's a legislative issue.
So lobby your TD's, start a thread maybe. See what support you have. But it's a bit mad to throw it into this thread.

Tippex

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Strange one that alright.

If someone had a good understanding of the implications of a yes vote they would know the proposed legislation is ready to go and will be enacted in the next few months including the part about unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.
So its hard to understand how close to 20% voted in favour of something they are actually against. It seems they didn't fully understand what they were voting for.

I was watching these and two of their slides did not add up.

Owryan

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Strange one that alright.

If someone had a good understanding of the implications of a yes vote they would know the proposed legislation is ready to go and will be enacted in the next few months including the part about unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.
So its hard to understand how close to 20% voted in favour of something they are actually against. It seems they didn't fully understand what they were voting for.

I would be one of those. I was fully aware of the consequences of voting yes, BUT, the need to repeal was a greater good in my mind.

I am concerned about the unlimited 12 week proposal as i dont believe in abortion except in exceptional circumstances. In the end i had to make a call and it is, in my minds, the right one.

Grayson

Taytoland wrote: »

The society is more atheistic now which means religion is out the door but also morality has less meaning as it's all irrelevant because you have no repercussions. In 100-150 years Christianity will be like a tiny minority grouping like in the days of the Roman Empire.

I'm an atheist with two degrees in Philosophy and one of my dissertations was in moral philosophy.

I'd like to know how I'm less moral than you.

Harry Palmr

Tippex wrote: »

I was watching these and two of their slides did not add up.

1 and 2%, I'd not worry about it in this case.

retro:electro

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am an NUI graduate, but I never looked up how to vote for the Senate.

Until now.

I will be making sure I have a vote next time simply and solely to vote for everyone on the ballot except that bollox.

Same. He is a fcuking national embarrasment. And has all the attitude and demeanour of the moronic character in a comical disaster movie.

Itssoeasy

DubInMeath wrote: »

Michael McG on the radio saying he will not stand in the way of any legislation

So senator Mullen is the only one I've heard saying publicly no then ?

Billy86

Grayson wrote: »

Yeah, those feckers are all uneducated and anti-woman. And for good measure, let me include the entire leadership of the love both campaigns and Iona institute.

Why go that far when we have probably as many as hundreds of posts saying as much on the referendum threads over the last several months, right here on AH?

Shurimgreat

Owryan wrote: »

I would be one of those. I was fully aware of the consequences of voting yes, BUT, the need to repeal was a greater good in my mind.

I am concerned about the unlimited 12 week proposal as i dont believe in abortion except in exceptional circumstances. In the end i had to make a call and it is, in my minds, the right one.

Ok thanks for the clarification. But you accept 12 week proposal is on the way? I do think voters such as yourself were put in an unfair position and have to accept the 12 week proposal in order to deal with hard cases.

Water John

The country is moving on and developing a new, mature morality. It's an inclusive, not an excluding one.

Grayson

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Strange one that alright.

If someone had a good understanding of the implications of a yes vote they would know the proposed legislation is ready to go and will be enacted in the next few months including the part about unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.
So its hard to understand how close to 20% voted in favour of something they are actually against. It seems they didn't fully understand what they were voting for.

But the result is what it is at this stage and there's little that can be done. I'm personally happy with how I voted. My conscience is clear.

It might be because they weren't for it but they considered it worth it if all the other cases are dealt with.

[Deleted User]

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Strange one that alright.

If someone had a good understanding of the implications of a yes vote they would know the proposed legislation is ready to go and will be enacted in the next few months including the part about unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.
So its hard to understand how close to 20% voted in favour of something they are actually against. It seems they didn't fully understand what they were voting for.

More likely they were willing to make the concession to repeal the 8th. No deal is perfect and I think people felt that there is more to benefit from repealing and moving forward with the proposed legislation despite not agreeing with it in it's entirety.

But sure you go ahead and call the electorate ignorant, misinformed or call shenanigans or whatever it is you're implying.

I'll wait for the final result, but if the exit polls are accurate then Ireland is moving on and leaving the old conservative thinking behind. If it's anything like a 70/30 split then less than a third of the electorate wants to adhere to the doctrine of old. That's huge.

Harry Palmr

The reasons for voting YES are apparently more nuanced and multi-factorial than presumed.

Tippex

Harry Palmr wrote: »

1 and 2%, I'd not worry about it in this case.

1% & 2% but its just sloppy as **** in fairness

_Dara_

I’m keeping an eye on Dublin Central...

https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/980185280664698885?s=20

namloc1980

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Ok thanks for the clarification. But you accept 12 week proposal is on the way? I do think voters such as yourself were put in an unfair position and have to accept the 12 week proposal in order to deal with hard cases.

That's subject to legislation. Once again a no voter doesn't understand what the referendum was actually about.

Billy86

Going back to the "48% don't want abortion up to 12 weeks" talk for a moment, it turns out overwhelmingly that Irish people do want to allow abortion up to 24 weeks where serious risk is involved. I guess we should be looking to allow abortion up to 24 weeks in such instances rather than 12, so.

Owryan

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Ok thanks for the clarification. But you accept 12 week proposal is on the way? I do think voters such as yourself were put in an unfair position and have to accept the 12 week proposal in order to deal with hard cases.

I accept it is what has been proposed, i am also aware that i have the right to contact my tds to voice my opinion. Two of them are /were on the pro life side so it will be interesting to see how they will vote.

But i see the 12 weeks and abortion for exceptional circumstances as separate, personally, i have no concern with no term limit for the latter in cases of ffa, for example.

[Deleted User]

Grayson wrote: »

I don't. I grew up in a time when our education on abortion was to have Youth Defence visit the school.

I too don't mind the regression in influence of the catholic church

I'd regard myself as being conservative, but not at all religious.

older by the day

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The reasons for voting YES are apparently more nuanced and multi-factorial than presumed.

The reason I voted yes as a man, now women are equal and they can't moan and complain and nag never again YA

Billy86

_Dara_ wrote: »

I’m keeping an eye on Dublin Central...

Spoiler (if it hits 75%): he won't.

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

I’m keeping an eye on Dublin Central...

https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/980185280664698885?s=20

Dublin Central - 76.5% Yes.

Billy86 wrote: »

Spoiler (if it hits 75%): he won't.

Oh, I know.

Ineedaname

_Dara_ wrote: »

I’m keeping an eye on Dublin Central...

https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/980185280664698885?s=20

Pigs will fly before he'd hand over a penny

Taytoland

Grayson wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

The society is more atheistic now which means religion is out the door but also morality has less meaning as it's all irrelevant because you have no repercussions. In 100-150 years Christianity will be like a tiny minority grouping like in the days of the Roman Empire.

I'm an atheist with two degrees in Philosophy and one of my dissertations was in moral philosophy.

I'd like to know how I'm less moral than you.

I didn't say you had no morals, just it has less bearing. I'm an Atheist too but I can freely admit any decisions I make have no repercussions ultimately. It's all irrelevant because the babies which die are just going to be worm food and similar with people who vote for or against abortion, ultimately it does not matter what happens on this, even if I am somewhat disappointed a bit. So it's easier for me to get over it as an Atheist. For a religious person who believes he is going to heaven and will have to answer to god one day, it's a different story.

I can understand why it's more emotional for them as it has deep repercussions for them in the after life as they see it. Not the case with me or you.

Billy86

Taytoland wrote: »

The society is more atheistic now which means religion is out the door but also morality has less meaning as it's all irrelevant because you have no repercussions. In 100-150 years Christianity will be like a tiny minority grouping like in the days of the Roman Empire.

Telling yourself you are moral does not equal being moral. Actions speak louder than words, and the Catholic church has failed egregiously on that front in Ireland through the decades all too often.

Outlaw Pete

Disappointed with the vote obviously but proud to have voted No and I think time will show that it was indeed the right way to vote.

A wrong does not become right simply because a majority support it. I feel the Irish people should have been given an option to vote Yes to repeal but also be able to indicate that they are doing so on the basis that they feel abortions should only be allowed in the cases of rape, incest and where it's deemed medically necessary, rather than just have a Yes vote which also makes it legal for a healthy woman, pregnant through consensual sex, to end the life of her healthy baby at 12 weeks gestation.

We are told the number of women in Ireland having abortions won't go up and that women here won't be able to abort on the basis of a prenatal DS diagnosis, giving the time frame restrictions involved. I believe both assertions to be false but I guess time, as ever, will tell.

wexie

_Dara_ wrote: »

I’m keeping an eye on Dublin Central...

https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/980185280664698885?s=20

Let's see if we can make sure that that particular tweet keeps getting lots of visibility over the next few days

Trasna1

Taytoland wrote: »

Do the No side have the political numbers to block it in the Dail? If you lose you lose. Should just accept it. A bit like the remainers in the UK over Brexit who are still whining and crying about it two years later. Or move to NI which won't be getting rid of it's abortion laws anytime soon.

Its a bit different to Brexit in fairness - and the Irish Government showed the UK how it is that you have a constitutional referendum.
- The choice should be clear
- The path afterwards should be laid out

The brexit vote was neither, and to compound the problem, the vote was close. Following referendums there is usually an attempt to get national unity, in other words, get a supermajority of the electorate on board even if some of them aren't fully happy. 48% voted against brexit and there has been no attempt at national unity in the UK, only pushing of extreme forms of brexit.
Contrast to the vote here where 7 in 10 voted for the proposal with the future clearly outlined. National unity exists as it stands and the proposed legislation will be quickly enacted and abortion as a contentious and poisonous issue in Irish politics will be finally put to bed.