Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

uck51js9zml2yt · 27-05-2018 02:49PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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.

How I love a moderate level headed debate

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 02:50PM

Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: »

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.

We finally agree on something! :eek:

As for the framework of the law, a protest only lasts a short time. From looking abroad people taking part in protests such as these are there daily for a long time. That is why more protection needs to be implemented in law.

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 02:54PM

One of the issues with this referendum campaign was that it generated more heat than light.

I never heard a stat around how many pregnant rape victins there were.

Having looked it up I found this from 2013.

https://www.rcni.ie/rape-pregnancy-and-abortion-in-ireland-rcni-release-new-figures-today/

The stat around FFA I have heard is 2 a week going to the UK.

The stat around an immediate threat to the life of the mother I haven't heard.

Those who invoked the danger of suicide clause seems to be small.

I appreciate that numbers may be under-reported in some cases.

Whether you agree with abortion or not I'd appreciate if someone could clarify the hard case numbers we are talking about.

I should add I am fully in favour of abortion access to hard cases before someone suggests otherwise

uck51js9zml2yt · 27-05-2018 02:55PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

We finally agree on something! :eek:

As for the framework of the law, a protest only lasts a short time. From looking abroad people taking part in protests such as these are there daily for a long time. That is why more protection needs to be implemented in law.

Surely intimidation and death threats are already covered. These seem to be key factors in many of these u.s style protests.

_Dara_ · 27-05-2018 02:56PM

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.

That’s stats for the UK. A different country. Who knows why there are more surgical abortions there. Abortion under 12 weeks can be carried out using the pills. It’s much less invasive that way. Why would anyone decide on a surgical abortion over that? Seriously like? “Nah, that’s too easy, gimme a surgical abortion!”.

retro:electro · 27-05-2018 03:00PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

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.

The two are incomparable. It is lunacy to compare the induced miscarriage of a non sentient fetus to the systemic abuse and cover up of an organisation whose morals were underpinned by catholic ethos, sanctity and family values. The church held such an inherent disgregard for the lives of actual living and breathing children that were supposed to be in their care that they threw their little bodies in a slurry tank and the ones they didn’t bury or sell they raped.

Triceratops Ballet · 27-05-2018 03:00PM

Wrongway1985 wrote:

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.

Are the full details of the exit poll anywhere I can't find them? I did the poll and it asked you to pick a religion agnostic and atheist were options so if the details of the poll are out there we can see an indication of the percentage of atheists who voted no

uck51js9zml2yt · 27-05-2018 03:03PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Are the full details of the exit poll anywhere I can't find them? I did the poll and it asked you to pick a religion agnostic and atheist were options so if the details of the poll are out there we can see an indication of the percentage of atheists who voted no

Would certainly be an interesting set of figures.
We can't discount the 730 thousand or so people who said no for whatever reason.
If you find the stats please post them

end of the road · 27-05-2018 03:07PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

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. Unless the women aren’t important to no voters.

personally, because i am against the 12 weeks unrestricted, and believe that in ireland abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances rather then unrestricted. people going to england was never going to factor in my vote because people often go to countries and do things that are illegal here but legal there so that wouldn't have been a reason for me to vote yes.

Wrongway1985 · 27-05-2018 03:08PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Are the full details of the exit poll anywhere I can't find them? I did the poll and it asked you to pick a religion agnostic and atheist were options so if the details of the poll are out there we can see an indication of the percentage of atheists who voted no

I haven't I did read 12% voted No purely for religious purposes but haven't seen anything on those added to that percentage who identify as religious.

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 03:08PM

retro:electro wrote: »

The two are incomparable. It is lunacy to compare the induced miscarriage of a non sentient fetus to the systemic abuse and cover up of an organisation whose morals were underpinned by catholic ethos, sanctity and family values. The church held such an inherent disgregard for the lives of actual living and breathing children that were supposed to be in their care that they threw their little bodies in a slurry tank and the ones they didn’t bury or sell they raped.

The ones they didn't bury or sell they raped?
Are you saying the nuns of Tuam who we are talking about raped all the children they didn't bury or sell?

Typical hyberbole from you by the way.

I've seen some exagerated claims during this referendum but yours is right up there with the worst of them.

By the way there were Protestant mother and baby homes in Ireland where conditions were equally as bad. Catholic church to blame for those too?

erica74 · 27-05-2018 03:10PM

Waterford.

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 03:10PM

end of the road wrote: »

personally, because i am against the 12 weeks unrestricted, and believe that in ireland abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances rather then unrestricted. people going to england was never going to factor in my vote because people often go to countries and do things that are illegal here but legal there so that wouldn't have been a reason for me to vote yes.

However, it was impossible to permit all other cases under the 8th. Therefore, the only way to enable all eventualities bar 12 weeks was through repealing the 8th. Then it is possible to legislate for all eventualities.

eeepaulo · 27-05-2018 03:10PM

This is the article on rte with the most info, there was a section on rte one yesterday where they read out a lot more stats.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0526/966120-eighth-amendment-referendum/

uck51js9zml2yt · 27-05-2018 03:12PM

erica74 wrote: »

Waterford.

That's as bad a Ben Bulbin.

These people should be tracked down and shown no mercy.

Hysteria over

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 03:14PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

However, it was impossible to permit all other cases under the 8th. Therefore, the only way to enable all eventualities bar 12 weeks was through repealing the 8th. Then it is possible to legislate for all eventualities.

The 8th is in the past now. The legislation is ready to go. Essentially people were voting for this legislation.

pitifulgod · 27-05-2018 03:14PM

Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: »

That's as bad a Ben Bulbin.

These people should be tracked down and shown no mercy.

Hysteria over

Benbulben is a protected site.... So it's incredibly different.

_Dara_ · 27-05-2018 03:17PM

erica74 wrote: »

Waterford.

Not keen on that. The Ben Bulben stunt was rightfully heavily criticised and that’s no better, tbh. Doesn’t matter than it’s not a protected site. It’s still an eyesore.

uck51js9zml2yt · 27-05-2018 03:20PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

Benbulben is a protected site.... So it's incredibly different.

It like the deeply exercised protestors who came into my polling station to protest at the No posters within 50m of the school.

They didn't mention the yes posters which were also within 50m of the school and equally against the law.

Wrongway1985 · 27-05-2018 03:20PM

end of the road wrote: »

people going to england was never going to factor in my vote because people often go to countries and do things that are illegal here but legal there so that wouldn't have been a reason for me to vote yes.

Why do you think people who ignored these women for years should be allowed all of a sudden come out of the woodwork to and be granted a platform to harass them? Protest me ring!

uck51js9zml2yt · 27-05-2018 03:22PM

eeepaulo wrote: »

This is the article on rte with the most info, there was a section on rte one yesterday where they read out a lot more stats.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0526/966120-eighth-amendment-referendum/

Interesting figures

"Among No voters, they were the right to life of the unborn (76%), the right to live of those with Down syndrome or other disabilities (36%), and religious views (28%)."

Looks like religious views were minimal in deciding to vote no.

end of the road · 27-05-2018 03:25PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

However, it was impossible to permit all other cases under the 8th. Therefore, the only way to enable all eventualities bar 12 weeks was through repealing the 8th. Then it is possible to legislate for all eventualities.

yet we were able to implement the poldpa. so it may have been possible to legislate for most of the hard cases via that but how much the government looked into that i don't know. it doesn't matter now anyway. best to campaign for the legislation if possible and to try and build bridges. we don't want to end up like brexit britain or trump's america.

RayCun · 27-05-2018 03:28PM

Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: »

Looks like religious views were minimal in deciding to vote no.

Or religious people didn't describe their views as religious. It's just that they agree with their priest when he says the unborn have a right to life.

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 03:29PM

end of the road wrote: »

yet we were able to implement the poldpa. so it may have been possible to legislate for most of the hard cases via that but how much the government looked into that i don't know. it doesn't matter now anyway. best to campaign for the legislation if possible and to try and build bridges. we don't want to end up like brexit britain or trump's america.

35 years and it couldn't be done. Does that not tell you anything? The 8th had to go and thankfully an overwhelming majority voted for it to be repealed. Now all cases can be legislated for.

end of the road · 27-05-2018 03:29PM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Why do you think people who ignored these women for years should be allowed all of a sudden come out of the woodwork to and be granted a platform to harass them? Protest me ring!

harassment is already a crime. i support anyone's right to protest regardless of whether i agree with them or not. in the past i would have believed in restricting the protesting by groups i disagree with but the years have thought me that such is not a good idea and can only end badly.

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 03:30PM

erica74 wrote: »

Waterford.

It looked ridiculous even before Tá appeared.

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 03:31PM

end of the road wrote: »

harassment is already a crime. i support anyone's right to protest regardless of whether i agree with them or not. in the past i would have believed in restricting the protesting by groups i disagree with but the years have thought me that such is not a good idea and can only end badly.

I support their right to protest too. However, there is evidence to show that the right to protest combined with anti-harassment / anti-intimidation laws will not stop the headaches outside the medical facilities. Specific laws are required to create an exclusion zone for the protection of staff and patients.

uck51js9zml2yt · 27-05-2018 03:33PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It looked ridiculous even before Tá appeared.

Let's not slag off Waterford. It gave us the whisperer.

Fighting Tao · 27-05-2018 03:33PM

Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: »

Let's not slag off Waterford. It gave us the whisperer.

True and I suppose it is their version of the Hollywood sign. A true landmark for any tourist to see in Waterford!

end of the road · 27-05-2018 03:37PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I support their right to protest too. However, there is evidence to show that the right to protest combined with anti-harassment / anti-intimidation laws will not stop the headaches outside the medical facilities. Specific laws are required to create an exclusion zone for the protection of staff and patients.

they really aren't required and would be a waste of time money and resources that can be used elsewhere to actual effect. as i said the people who would protest outside these facilities feel that strongly about the issue that not even prison would stop them.
anything that restricts the right to protest is in my view dangerous to democracy and has the ability to be extended beyond abortion facilities and to effect us all.
if you want the protests gone, then in my view shutting the facilities and changing to a gp and hospital lead service is the best option.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments