Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Beechwoodspark · 27-05-2018 09:33PM

swampgas wrote: »

I'm sure they think they are good people. Personally I can't get past people who will throw the born, pregnant woman under a bus out of some misguided compassion for the unborn. No problem risking her life at all.

Sorry, it's not compassion, it's religious fundamentalism.

Is it because a foetus is "innocent" and holy and godly, while a pregnant woman has sinned by getting pregnant, and is therefore impure, and disposable? Whatever the reason, it's mind-bogglingly cruel to women.

/rant

I was a yes voter But from talking to some no voters they are totally against abortion of healthy babies.

I think that some no voters would’ve voted yes if the proposal was limited but it included the 12 week provision which was unacceptable to them.

Regarding the unborn foetus, on a very basic level they see that as having rights and this referendum was about either stripping those rights or vindicating them. Some of them have religious reasons for this, others see it as a human rights issue.

SusieBlue · 27-05-2018 09:35PM

Just saw a delightful tweet made by Leo Sherlock before he shut down his twitter account, in which he told Arlette Lyons (the woman on PrimeTime who was representing TFMR) that he’s ‘embarrassed for her children, for having a horrific mother who would advocate the murder of her own child’.
Arlette was the lady whose daughter had trisomy 13/patau syndrome, which is incompatible with life.

I’m actually speechless. That family represent all that is wrong with the world.
Zero compassion, empathy, respect or understanding, yet he has the gall to back a campaign claiming to ‘LoveBoth’.

I’m sickened. I just blocked the Liberal on FB, I don’t even want to see their stories on my newsfeed. Absolute scum.

end of the road · 27-05-2018 09:37PM

swampgas wrote: »

I'm sure they think they are good people. Personally I can't get past people who will throw the born, pregnant woman under a bus out of some misguided compassion for the unborn. No problem risking her life at all.

the majority of no voters know that we are good people and we threw nobody under the bus. we voted for compassion for both mothers and their unborn.

swampgas wrote: »

Sorry, it's not compassion, it's religious fundamentalism.

many of us who voted no aren't religious. so yes on our part it very much is compassion that we voted for.

swampgas wrote: »

Is it because a foetus is "innocent" and holy and godly, while a pregnant woman has sinned by getting pregnant, and is therefore impure, and disposable? Whatever the reason, it's mind-bogglingly cruel to women.

it's because we believe a fetus is a human being with a right to life as well as the woman.

Water John · 27-05-2018 09:38PM

I thought, from memory, you were a No supporter, Beechwood. Must have got that wrong.

swampgas · 27-05-2018 09:38PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I was a yes voter But from talking to some no voters they are totally against abortion of healthy babies.

I think that some no voters would’ve voted yes if the proposal was limited but it included the 12 week provision which was unacceptable to them.

I get that. But IMO, refusing to accept some level of abortion on request is cruel and intolerant. Just because the pregnancy is healthy doesn't mean the woman is ready to be a mother.

I'm reasonably confident that these good, compassionate people had few problems with the right to travel abroad for an abortion either.

Sorry, I'm ranting again - and the referendum is done, has worked out better than I hoped possible, so maybe it's time for me to chill out

SusieBlue · 27-05-2018 09:39PM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Personally the people I know who voted No are not the compassionate type. They were self centred people who posed wonderful questions such as how would you like it if you were aborted?

One I spoke to acknowledged the illegality of abortion where the mothers life isn’t under threat, but was still voting No, because if the doctor thought the situation was dire enough, the prison sentence would be worth it, and they would perform the abortion anyway.
He conceded many times he knew it was illegal, but emphasised the fact that he thinks the doctors should just perform abortions anyway, if they thought it necessary.
The mind boggles.

Beechwoodspark · 27-05-2018 09:40PM

Water John wrote: »

I thought, from memory, you were a No supporter, Beechwood. Must have got that wrong.

No, I said at least once before on this thread that I was a yes voter. Can find the past messages if you wish.

27-05-2018 09:42PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Just saw a delightful tweet made by Leo Sherlock before he shut down his twitter account, in which he told Arlette Lyons (the woman on PrimeTime who was representing TFMR) that he’s ‘embarrassed for her children, for having a horrific mother who would advocate the murder of her own child’.
Arlette was the lady whose daughter had trisomy 13/patau syndrome, which is incompatible with life.

I’m actually speechless. That family represent all that is wrong with the world.
Zero compassion, empathy, respect or understanding, yet he has the gall to back a campaign claiming to ‘LoveBoth’.

I’m sickened. I just blocked the Liberal on FB, I don’t even want to see their stories on my newsfeed. Absolute scum.

Apart from their opinion pieces which consists of Islam and immigrants are scum the rest of their site content is copied from actual news sites your not really missing anything. But yeah the site and the family pretty much sun up what the no campaign were for a lot of people.

Water John · 27-05-2018 09:43PM

That's fair Beechwood. I never do a search on Posters. I take what I read and remember at face value. My apologies.

Guy:Incognito · 27-05-2018 09:45PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Patient always comes first with her and she's no time for vegan extremists or any extremists. Apparently she shouldn't have married me in their opinion.

She probably secretly shares their opinion

:):)

Beechwoodspark · 27-05-2018 09:47PM

Water John wrote: »

That's fair Beechwood. I never do a search on Posters. I take what I read and remember at face value. My apologies.

No problem. What swung it for me was looking at the YouTube channel for together for yes and some of the videos on that with peoples experiences over the years.

Water John · 27-05-2018 09:50PM

I have a number of family, mainly female, in the medical area and being a male, I took their guidance and understood the nuances of the issue.

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 09:52PM

end of the road wrote: »

the majority of no voters know that we are good people and we threw nobody under the bus. we voted for compassion for both mothers and their unborn.

many of us who voted no aren't religious. so yes on our part it very much is compassion that we voted for.

it's because we believe a fetus is a human being with a right to life as well as the woman.

Yeh the religious strawman argument has been bandied about a lot about No voters. Ie that practically all if not all No voters are religious.
Its been proven to be a lie.

end of the road · 27-05-2018 09:55PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Yeh the religious strawman argument has been bandied about a lot about No voters. Ie that practically all if not all No voters are religious.
Its been proven to be a lie.

exactly. opposition to abortion whether it be unrestricted or full stop is not a religious specific belief.

Water John · 27-05-2018 09:56PM

Problem was, the religious zealots drove the No campaign.

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 09:57PM

swampgas wrote: »

I get that. But IMO, refusing to accept some level of abortion on request is cruel and intolerant. Just because the pregnancy is healthy doesn't mean the woman is ready to be a mother.

I'm reasonably confident that these good, compassionate people had few problems with the right to travel abroad for an abortion either.

Sorry, I'm ranting again - and the referendum is done, has worked out better than I hoped possible, so maybe it's time for me to chill out

And some people believe that ending the life of a healthy viable non hard case foetus is also cruel. You need to learn to respect this opinion too. I know you don't however.
So your point about tolerance is massively ironic. I hope you get that.

27-05-2018 09:59PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

She probably secretly shares their opinion :):)

I'd say she does at times

Shurimgreat · 27-05-2018 10:02PM

Water John wrote: »

Problem was, the religious zealots drove the No campaign.

There were a couple of moderate liberals and at least one prominent trade unionist on the No side and agreed they could have featured more prominately.
RTE and TV3 seemed keen on inviting Iona reps though.

But again its utterly wrong to characterise No voters as all being driven by religion.

Call me Al · 27-05-2018 10:03PM

end of the road wrote: »

the majority of no voters know that we are good people and we threw nobody under the bus. we voted for compassion for both mothers and their unborn.

many of us who voted no aren't religious. so yes on our part it very much is compassion that we voted for.

it's because we believe a fetus is a human being with a right to life as well as the woman.

No you believe it has an equal right to life as the living breathing woman carrying it.
That is one of the main things many of us find incomprehensible. No matter what way you try to do rationalise things in your head a foetus is not, and until such time as it is born never will be, equal in terms of rights as the woman carrying it.

27-05-2018 10:04PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

How would voting no have permitted legalisation that would suit your wishes?

It would have allowed different legislation to be proposed, and another referendum.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Sorry to highlight it, but the Yes voters were dealing in facts. It is not a baby. I say that as a new father myself.

That statement is deeply offensive. You believe that statement to be true.
Yet I doubt very much if you referred to your unborn child as either an embryo or a foetus before it was born.

Personally, I take the view that my dayghter lost her baby. My Grandchild.
If an embryo or foetus were not alive - there would be no need for abortion.
Dress that up with whatever makes you feel comfortable with your choice of vote. The fact remains - if human life did not exist, there would be no need for abortion.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

In 35 years, not one person has been able to word that for the constitution. So there is a reason. It can not be done.

Who said they could word it for the Constitution. It would take quite a few referenda - or, one more referendum, with provision being made in legislation for the hard cases.

What we're getting is abortiion on demand.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Who is forcing anyone to have an abortion?

If by crisis you mean unplanned, there is huge support in Ireland already for crisis pregnancies.

HAve you ever stopped to consider that abusive partners, or families have been known to force women to have abortions?
That's before we consider that certain cultures have a very high rate of abortion for female babies?

Where is the proposed counseeling service that ensures this will not happen?
Where is the additional emergency support for a woman who will find hereself homeless, or battered, if she refuses to have an abortion?

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It does help them. I know that if my wife gets pregnant again and something goes wrong, then her life will be put before a potential life. That goes for every woman including your daughter. Would you rather your daughter die in the chance that a baby is born?

I would rather that she and her partner get to make a choice, without the unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. That was the real decider for me, although I'd have been interested to hear exactly what constitutes an "emergency" that allows abortion up to birth. That would be a particular concern, since two of my children were premature.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You don't care for the women. However, it appears that you have convinced yourself that you do care. The status quo kills women. If you did care for them then you'd have voted Yes and lobbied for effective legislation.

Ah! That old turnip. Do you really think you're so superior that you know how I feel? That's more than a little presumptuous, tbh.

I voted "No" precisely because I didn't believe any amount of lobbying would change the proposed legislation, and, lo and behold, in todays papers there are comments from politicians about how the people knew what they were voting for. Are you still trying to say that lobbying would have changed that attitude?

Legislation needed to be introduced to cater for the hard cases. Instead, the hard cases were used to introduce abortion on demand.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What makes you a better judge of what's better for a woman you don't know(or one you do) than the woman herself?

What makes you the judge of who has a right to live, and who should die?

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear about your daughter, losing a pregnancy to miscarriage is tough, whether a planned pregnancy, or an unplanned (but wanted) one.

But retaining the 8th wouldn't do anything to help in her case, but repealing will be able to help other women in different, but also tragic circumstances.

Making it illegal doesn't stop it from happening.

Thank you for the sympathy.

As I said, legislation was needed to cater for the hard cases. I don't think anyone could reasonably deny that.

Certainly, I would never say that a woman must choose to die, so that her baby can live. In those particular tragic circumstances, it has to be the choice of the parents, no one else.

Retaining the 8th wouldn't have helped my daughter - but seeing bl**dy great "Vote Yes" posters on her way to a scan to find out whether her baby was still alive wasn't pleasant.

It's amazing how Yes campaigners can understand that posters on the "No" side can hurt or offend people, yet never consider that their own placards can also hurt.

It's an emotive subject.

It is not one where triumphalism is acceptable - from either side.
Neither is it one where either side should call one another names, or make judgements of character, based on how people voted.

I've skipped about a hundred pages, so if there is anyone I've failed to respond to, apologies.

I'm not sure whether I'll get back to this thread. TBH, I'm heartily sick of the negative comments about "No" voters, and how "uncaring" we are.

Did any of you ever stop to think that maybe we care enough not to just accept whatever legislation we're offered, in favour of trying to get legislation that is as close to "right" as we can get it?

swampgas · 27-05-2018 10:04PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

And some people believe that ending the life of a healthy viable non hard case foestus is also cruel. You need to learn to respect this opinion too. I know you don't however.
So your point about tolerance is massively ironic. I hope you get that.

I guess I feel that ignoring the rights and health and life of a pregnant woman out of some kind of misguided concern for a foetus is ironic in itself.

But I guess there's no point in retreading old ground at this stage.

Ultimately we're all striving to make Ireland a better place, even if we disagree fundamentally at times on the best way to do that.

AllForIt · 27-05-2018 10:14PM

Water John wrote: »

Problem was, the religious zealots drove the No campaign.

I noticed that Breda o'Brien and David Quinn, the most recognizable faces of the IONA institute took a back seat in the debate, I personally did not see either of them once over the last few weeks. I think this was a deliberate tactical move because they were basically seen as the mouthpiece for the Catholic church. I think they considered that a Yes vote in the marriage ref was partly due to a backlash against the catholic church and they didn't want that to happen again, although they couldn't keep out of it completely with Steen being their representative this time round.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-05-2018 10:16PM

Only kinda sorta pulling myself back together tonight after a haze of a 48 hours, not helped by getting mightily sun burnt while out enjoying life, the universe, and everything. I have to admit I have teared up a few times over the weekend every time I think that the last 2 referendums have given us an Ireland I will be more proud to teach my pre-teen children about, and maybe even see them return home to some day. I have done my bit, however small, to create a future for Ireland I can be proud to hand back to them.

So from this bright and sore sun kissed red tomato head, thanks to everyone for voting, and breaking my many year streak of calling elections correctly. I could not have called this one more wrong if I tried, nor could I be happier to be shown to be THAT wrong. I predicted a no vote due to mainly issues with voter turn out, and I was proven very wrong on BOTH counts. Turnout was awesome, and the land slide victory more so.

Most of all thank you to everyone who worked with us on and off line, in the real and cyber worlds. I got to know a lot of the people on the "front lines" and you were all wonderful.

And thanks again (you know who you are) to the guy who at the last minute got out his mini bus and helped me, for a tiny fee to cover fuel, round up a significant load of older OAP Yes voters around the Howth/Clontarf area who could not otherwise get to the booths under their own steam. I could not vote legally myself, but there is at least 25 yes votes in the boxes that would not be there were it not for you coming to my call.

I look forward to meeting you all again while we campaign to ensure the politicians get the upcoming legislation right. And I look forward to meeting people in BOTH camps, yes and no voter, as we campaign for, and support, every social, political and scientific initiative to help ensure as few women as possible ever find themselves with a crisis pregnancy......... and to ensure that those women that DO have the most support, and widest range of options, made available to them so that those that DO seek a termination do so because it is the right thing for THEM to do, and not because they feel compelled to do so by their social or economic status.

WE ALL want as little, ideally no, abortions happening as possible.... and Ireland has spoken that the path to attaining that ideal is not through archaic laws banning the practice......... so let us never forget that common ground and let us work together to make our world a more welcoming, supportive, and conducive one to all who find themselves in crisis and turmoil.

27-05-2018 10:19PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There were a couple of moderate liberals and at least one prominent trade unionist on the No side and agreed they could have featured more prominately.
RTE and TV3 seemed keen on inviting Iona reps though.

But again its utterly wrong to characterise No voters as all being driven by religion.

True religion didn't drive all no voters, some were just driven by a hatred for women as can be seen by some of the posters on the threads before the refurendum, others because it does sit with their conservative world view, again as shown by some of the posters on the threads, and others because they just didn't want it in Ireland but were fine exporting it.

May well be some no posters who would have voted yes for just the hard cases if presented, but hey the company you keep as they say, and the fact that those running the campaign were never going to support abortion for the hard cases, as per their press release that included that rape victims should be forced to carry to term.

Ignoring the fact the Iona institute fairly much demand to be included in all debates where possible, look at their outrage at steen not being added to the RTE debate Cora Sherlock pulled out of, who are the liberals and the trade unionist you mentioned?

AllForIt · 27-05-2018 10:29PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

True religion didn't drive all no voters, some were just driven by a hatred for women as can be seen by some of the posters on the threads before the refurendum, others because it does sit with their conservative world view, again as shown by some of the posters on the threads, and others because they just didn't want it in Ireland but were fine exporting it.

Hatred for women? What utter nonsense.

swampgas · 27-05-2018 10:31PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

True religion didn't drive all no voters, some were just driven by a hatred for women as can be seen by some of the posters on the threads before the refurendum, others because it does sit with their conservative world view, again as shown by some of the posters on the threads, and others because they just didn't want it in Ireland but were fine exporting it.

Among other things, the debate here over the last few years has exposed some horrific attitudes towards women, and provided an insight into some very deeply ingrained misogyny. I have to admit being quite shocked at times at the malice, distrust and anger that was expressed by some posters, and the landslide result is a consolation of sorts, as it does mean that the knuckledraggers and woman-haters are significantly outnumbered.

27-05-2018 10:31PM

AllForIt wrote: »

I noticed that Breda o'Brien and David Quinn, the most recognizable faces of the IONA institute took a back seat in the debate, I personally did not see either of them once over the last few weeks. I think this was a deliberate tactical move because they were basically seen as the mouthpiece for the Catholic church. I think they considered that a Yes vote in the marriage ref was partly due to a backlash against the catholic church and they didn't want that to happen again, although they couldn't keep out of it completely with Steen being their representative this time round.

They seemed happy enough to go with writing their opinion pieces and use twitter and put Steen front and centre.

Backfired on them however as she did not come across as likeable in the Claire Byrne debate due to the way she interrupted the opposition.

27-05-2018 10:35PM

AllForIt wrote: »

Hatred for women? What utter nonsense.

Really, have read many of the posts then I take it.

Have a look at Vlaid Kelly's post history as an example it's one of the shorter ones.

tigger123 · 27-05-2018 10:36PM

You'd love to think that the Iona Institute are getting the message at this stage, but I doubt they are.

Wrongway1985 · 27-05-2018 10:39PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

The mind boggles.

It sure does, disheartened me some people's inability to process the real life stories dismiss them in favour of conspiracy theories etc. Although during the marriage referendum I consulted with a lesbian friend I had at the time she filled me with all sorts of reasons to oppose it I guess she was my real life story only very late on did I consider others who so deeply wanted something I feel guilty about that had I saw the scenes after after the result having voted No though I would've defo felt shameful, she is very religious I haven't spoken to her in person in an age but on Facebook she was sharing all sorts of nonsense to vote No this time too. I'll give them a bye and hopefully they can reflect on their decision but I can't say for certain I'd do similar if things swung the other way.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments