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

Shurimgreat

Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: »

I'm always amazed at the people who decry what happened but conveniently ignore the fact that many of these women were handed over to these institutions by their families.
It doesn't minimise what happened to them but where is the culpability of the families in all this?

Absolutely. The inability of the state and their families to take responsibility for these women and children was truely shocking.
Blame the nuns for everthing was the answer.
Not sure aborting healthy unwanted babies is much better.
At least most of the Tuam babies survived to adulthood and were allowed an existance.

Guy:Incognito

Shurimgreat wrote: »

They died of illness.
Different to deliberately ending their existance through induced miscarriage, flushing them down the toilet and then calling it "dignified".

Strange that in a place set up to care for them, they died in such high numbers.

And what of the ones that were sold,? I suppose the church were doing God's work?

PurvesGrundy

DubInMeath wrote: »

Don't like the fact you lost sure you can start protesting outside hospitals or GP surgeries if you feel that strongly about it.

Stop making this out to be a competition. It makes you seem even more disingenuous.

Guy:Incognito

Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: »

I'm sure the yes side will be out campaigning for them as well.

Sure we're all the uncaring baby killers. We don't have to worry about the hypocrisy of not bothering to help actual living people.

Shurimgreat

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Strange that in a place set up to care for them, they dies in such high numbers.

And what of the ones that were sold,? I suppose the church were doing God's work?

Diseases were rampant. But why were they all thrown into these places by their families? Why couldn't they be cared for at home?

However my original point is I despise the hypocrisy of people who cite the undignified burial of Tuam babies but say nothing about the same fate for aborted foetuses. Their ending is equally undignified.

uck51js9zml2yt

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Strange that in a place set up to care for them, they died in such high numbers.

And what of the ones that were sold,? I suppose the church were doing God's work?

There is no excuse for what happened.
But let's make sure we punish everyone and not just the scapegoats.
Let's start lining up the families who handed over their daughters and sisters to these institutions.

Wrongway1985

Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: »

Lots of atheists voted against it too.
Have you a point to make or is it just a opportunity for more Catholic bashing (btw..I'm not RC)

Lots is an overstatement some yeah, thread of Aetheist voting no on here depicts rare breed and quite clearly only just over 30% of people voted No overall to suggest lots were Aethiests is absolute nonsense.

[Deleted User]

PurvesGrundy wrote: »

Stop making this out to be a competition. It makes you seem even more disingenuous.

Just stating what has already happened and will perhaps increase now as the no side can't accept the fact of the referendum result and leave well enough alone.

Call me Al

Shurimgreat wrote: »

They died of illness.
Different to deliberately ending their existance through induced miscarriage, flushing them down the toilet and then calling it "dignified".

Illness eh? Malnutrition isn't an illness... I wonder did many of those charged with caring for these babies and children suffer the same fate during those years.....

Movementarian

Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: »

As I said, let's just wait and see the effects on society. We may not see that for 20 years.
We've devalued human life with the sweep of a pen. I don't see that as being a good thing.
We cry out about injuring a pregnant woman and it's a criminal offence to injure the child she's carrying. Yet it's now ok to kill the child she's carrying.

For the 100th time, our society already had abortion. We just chose to ignore it. There is nothing new at the core of Irish society today than there was 2 days ago. I know this is an inconvenient fact for you but do try and keep some perspective in your hysteria.

Shurimgreat

Call me Al wrote: »

Illness eh? Malnutrition isn't an illness... I wonder did many of those charged with caring for these babies and children suffer the same fate during those years.....

Again who put them there. These were abandoned babies. Abandonded by who?
The state and families of the mothers who bear a huge responsibilty also.

Many died. Many perhaps the majority made it to adulthood, lived long lives and today have children and grandchildren. Would they have been allowed to be born in a post 8th society? Difficult to know.

My point is abortion is not dignified. Use any word, but dignified is not one for reasons described.

B0jangles

The catholic church moulded Irish society for centuries - people didn't just 'decide' to ostracise women and girls who became pregnant outside marriage, they were taught by the catholic church that this was a deeply sinful and shameful thing.

Saying that it wasn't all the church's fault because Irish people sometimes chose to send their daughters to such places is ignoring the fact that the church is and was entirely responsible for teaching those same people that doing so was the right and moral thing to do.

[Deleted User]

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Again who put them there. These were abandoned babies. Abandonded by who?
The state and families of the mothers who bear a huge responsibilty also.

Many died. Many perhaps the majority made it to adulthood, had long lives and today have children and grandchildren. Would they have been allowed to be born in a post 8th society? Difficult to know.

My point is abortion is not dignified. Use any word but dignified is not one for reasons described.

The catholic church bears the main responsibility for creating the toxic environment which resulted in them being dumped their so they wouldn't be talked about by their neighbours. They are also responsible for their deaths and the abuse others suffered.
The same church a lot of the no side take their lead from in relation to vote just passed, yet only those who voted yes are guilty of group think in your opinion.

PressRun

Interesting to see the breakdown of how people voted and why, and also interestong to see that many people had made up their minds on this issue a long time ago. Makes it seem strange now that Leo Varadkar and Simon Harris are front and centre of a lot of the media coverage on this. They dragged their heels on this referendum for quite a long time, particularly Varadkar. Harris also courted pro-life groups when trying to get elected. I know people change, especially when they are in full possession of the facts, but I find it bizarre that two men who for a long time didn't even want this referendum to happen are now being patted on the back for it. Surely more credit should be given to the people on the ground.

Outlaw Pete

Achasanai wrote: »

Any shrewd observer - particularly on the Yes side - would know that the reality is two pills and a heavy period as the proposed legislation is 12 weeks.

Seen a lot of posts like the above, both before and after the vote, and it's just simply untrue.

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

I explained to him that abortions up to twelve weeks arent done through surgical procedure, the abortion pill is used instead.

Today me and him went to the polling station together and both of us voted Yes! Proud day

Well then you got him to vote Yes by giving him false information.

Abortions at 12 weeks and under in this country will NOT all be pill based. That is not the way it has been in the UK, France or Holland and there is zero reason to think that the abortions methods used here will be any different to elsewhere.

In 2016 (in the UK) 28% of abortions between 3 - 9 weeks were surgical and 84% of them between weeks 10 - 12:

Not that I feel it matters a whole lot how a baby in the womb reaches their demise (the end result is the same after all). However, the reason I feel it very much matters that it was incorrectly stated over and over again throughout the campaign is because voters (as evidenced by the user quoted) based their decision on it.

Telling people that 'Ah sure, it's just two pills and a heavy period' as many prochoice campaigners did, including Clare Daly, helped support the false narrative that a developing baby at between 10 - 12 weeks is just a 'clump of cells'. Bit harder to convince someone of that nonsense when you give them the truth and not just the truth with regards to likely abortive methods which will be used here but the full truth on what a late first trimester abortion can often entail.

Fighting Tao

PressRun wrote: »

Interesting to see the breakdown of how peoplr voyed and why, and also interestong to see that many peopld had made up their minds on this issue a long time ago. Makes it seem strange now that Leo Varadkar and Simon Harris are front and centre of a lot of the media coverage on this. They dragged their heels on this referendum for quite a long time, particularly Varadkar. Harris also courted pro-life groups when trying to get elected. I know people change, especially when they are in full possession of the facts, but I find it bizarre that two men who for a long time didn't even want this referendum to happen are now being patted on the back for it. Surely more credit should be given to the people on the ground.

I think until recently, TDs saw the topic of abortion as career suicide. SSM and the citizens assembly gave them the courage to tackle it.

Shurimgreat

There are people in this country who spend 6 days of the week giving out about the Catholic Church.
On Sunday they go into mass, bless themselves, shake hands and backslap the priest. They'll be clapping and cheering the pope when he arrives too.
I f**king hate these hypocrits.

Fighting Tao

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Seen a lot of posts like the above, both before and after the vote, and it's just simply untrue.

Well then you got him to vote Yes by giving him false information.

Abortions at 12 weeks and under in this country will NOT all be pill based. That is not the way it has been in the UK, France or Holland and there is zero reason to think that the abortions methods used here will be any different to elsewhere.

In 2016 (in the UK) 28% of abortions between 3 - 9 weeks were surgical and 84% of them between weeks 10 - 12:

Not that I feel it matters a whole lot how a baby in the womb reaches their demise (the end result is the same after all). However, the reason I feel it very much matters that it was incorrectly stated over and over again throughout the campaign is because voters (as evidenced by the user quoted) based their decision on it.

Telling people that 'Ah sure, it's just two pills and a heavy period' as many prochoice campaigners did, including Clare Daly, helped support the false narrative that a developing baby at between 10 - 12 weeks is just a 'clump of cells'. Bit harder to convince someone of that nonsense when you give them the truth and not just the truth with regards to likely abortive methods which will be used here but the full truth on what a late first trimester abortion can often entail.

Shipping them of to the Uk for medical attention is ok though. Once it’s not on our shores.

end of the road

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The one additional thing I think the government needs to include in the legislation is the banning of anti-abortion protests within a kilometre of any facility that provide abortions. It is difficult enough for any woman to go through without having to face a baying mob.

no point, it would be a massive waste of money time and resources which would achieve nothing in return for the investment IMO. the type of people who would protest near such facilities will not be stopped by anything or anyone.

Fighting Tao

end of the road wrote: »

no point, it would be a massive waste of money time and resources which would achieve nothing in return for the investment. the type of people who would protest near such facilities will not be stopped by anything or anyone.

They would be stopped if they are in the Joy. Why leave it a legal option for them?

PhoenixParker

end of the road wrote: »

no point, it would be a massive waste of money time and resources which would achieve nothing in return for the investment. the type of people who would protest near such facilities will not be stopped by anything or anyone.

It would give the Guards clear authority to immediately remove them. There is absolutely a point.

Shurimgreat

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Shipping them of to the Uk for medical attention is ok though. Once it’s not on our shores.

No its not ok.
Abortion whether it happens here or elsewhere is undignified and traumatic.
Abortion is coming here we know that.
But its a sad and traumatic experience for any mother who goes through it and certainly not something to be celebrated.
To see clowns on the news and elsewhere wildly celebrating and cheering is pretty pathetic. They acted like they'd won the lottery.

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

no point, it would be a massive waste of money time and resources which would achieve nothing in return for the investment IMO. the type of people who would protest near such facilities will not be stopped by anything or anyone.

Pepper spray to the face and a baton to the legs would stop them.

Mountainsandh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

false information.

Abortions at 12 weeks and under in this country will NOT all be pill based.

In 2016 (in the UK) 28% of abortions between 3 - 9 weeks were surgical and 84% of them between weeks 10 - 12:
.

It's not really false information when in fact, 72% up to 9 weeks are indeed chemical. Possibly more nuanced than how it was told, but pretty much true up to 9 weeks.

Fighting Tao

Shurimgreat wrote: »

No its not ok.
Abortion whether it happens here or elsewhere is undignified and traumatic.
Abortion is coming here we know that.
But its a sad and traumatic experience for any mother who goes through it and certainly not something to be celebrated.
To see clowns on the news and elsewhere wildly celebrating and cheering is pretty pathetic. They acted like they'd won the lottery.

Why would anyone vote no when it was alreadyaccessible to all with a cheap flight/ferry to the UK?

The only difference that repealing the 8th makes is that the women can be cared for at home and their lives can be saved. Unless the women aren’t important to no voters.

end of the road

Fighting Tao wrote: »

They would be stopped if they are in the Joy. Why leave it a legal option for them?

because it's a democracy and people have a right to protest whether one agrees with them or not. that's a right i agree with regardless and will always defend.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

It would give the Guards clear authority to immediately remove them. There is absolutely a point.

the gards have more important things to do. tackling the violent gangs, tackling the anti-social behaviour and the burglery problem for a start.

Fighting Tao

end of the road wrote: »

because it's a democracy and people have a right to protest whether one agrees with them or not. that's a right i agree with regardless and will always defend.

the gards have more important things to do. tackling the violent gangs, tackling the anti-social behaviour and the burglery problem for a start.

There is a difference between protest and intimidation. Look around the world and it’s not protest that happens outside these medical facilities, it is intimidation.

Wrongway1985

end of the road wrote: »

no point, it would be a massive waste of money time and resources which would achieve nothing in return for the investment. the type of people who would protest near such facilities will not be stopped by anything or anyone.

What would do the aims of these protests achieve? Headbangers filled with hate are most certainly what those people are they absolutely need to be dealt with.

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

because it's a democracy and people have a right to protest whether one agrees with them or not. that's a right i agree with regardless and will always defend.

the gards have more important things to do. tackling the violent gangs, tackling the anti-social behaviour and the burglery problem for a start.

Re: the bolded above.

A few years ago the Garth Brookes concerts were I jeopardy of being cancelled (I'm sure we all remember that) and at one point the residents around Croke park said they will protestaginst the concerts and even go as far to block the roads to stop the trucks getting in with the stage.

The above poster EOTR stated that if they did this then the guards should baton charge and arrest men women and children to ensure the concerts could go ahead.

Hypocrisy of the lowest order as usual from him/her.

uck51js9zml2yt

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

What would do the aims of these protests achieve? Headbangers filled with hate are most certainly what those people are they absolutely need to be dealt with.

No right minded person would condone these so called protests no matter where they came from and should be addressed within the framework of the law.