Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

strandroad · 28-05-2018 07:54PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Actually, thinking about it, having a referendum is a great way of getting foreign direct investment. Without the posters it would be significantly less.

I was wondering about it. Could they be shipped from the US fundie printers? Posters must have printer name displayed, were they local?

Kumejima · 28-05-2018 07:54PM

spookwoman wrote: »

You left a good bit out of the history of the church and abortion. The church was often in favor of abortion through the centuries. I've added the link for you to read as well.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

4th Century BCE TO 1st Century CE Abortion accepted by most
Many beliefs most followed the belief of "delayed ensoulment" of Aristotle. This latter event, called "ensoulment," was believed to occur at 40 days after conception for male fetuses, and 90 days after conception for female fetuses.
Early in the 1st century CE, a well-known Jewish philosopher -- Philo of Alexandria -- (20 BCE - circa 47 CE) wrote on infanticide and abortion, 2 condemning non-Jews of other cultures and religions for the widespread, unjustified practices.

2nd Century CE TO 4th Century CE Abortion accepted by most
With the exception of Judaism, most or all of the competing religions allowed women to have abortions and allowed parents to kill new-born babies by strangulation or exposing them as methods of population control.

5th TO 16th Century CE Accepted by most
St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment." Augustine had little influence over the beliefs of Orthodox Christianity. They retained their original anti-abortion stance.

Starting in the 7th century CE not accepted by the west
a series of penitentials were written in the West. These listed an array of sins, with the penance that a person must observe as punishment for the sin. Certain "sins" which prevented conception had particularly heavy penalties

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216): Abortion accepted
He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

Pope Stephen V (served 885-891) Abortion not accepted
wrote in 887 CE: "If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old." "Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz."

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216): Abortion accepted
He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) Abortion Accepted
also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) Abortion Not accepted
issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.

Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) Abortion Accepted
revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days (about 17 weeks) into pregnancy.

17th TO 19th Century CE Abortion not accepted.

Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to "the fetus."

for anyone saying its not a foetus even the church referred to the unborn as a foetus

Just because you believe and follow the beliefs of imaginary invisible man floating in the clouds does not mean everyone has to live by those rules as well. you also have to remember this is the 21st century and not everyone is catholic or even follows a religion.

I know you are no longer of child bearing age so please explain to me how someone else having an abortion will affect you, howover the years you have helped women in crises pregnancies, have supported any of them financially, have you adopted any of their children?

Wow great historical research there.
Well maybe we should allow child sacrifice? Or people having their beating hearts cut out of their chests? There are historical precedents. Inca society was pretty into that I heard. Or was it the Mayans?

Stoning adulterous women was another thing we might bring back too. Very popular back in the day. Still has its fans in other jurisdictions. Why should I have to get on a plane if I want to participate in a good old fashioned stoning?

Somebody else having an abortion has no effect on me or my life. Neither does that poor Jastine girl getting abducted and murdered, or Ana Kriegel or that poor Louth lad. I mean my day will still be relatively fine, check my emails, eat my breakfast etc.

Guess what though, its not all about me and how smug and comfy my life is going to be if someone else aborts a child, or waits til they're 18 and murders them then.

I'd just prefer not to have that stuff get my legal stamp of approval so it can be continued on an even larger scale.

I hope thats not too fascistic of me

Fighting Tao · 28-05-2018 07:59PM

Kumejima wrote: »

Wow great historical research there.
Well maybe we should allow child sacrifice? Or people having their beating hearts cut out of their chests? There are historical precedents. Inca society was pretty into that I heard. Or was it the Mayans?

Stoning adulterous women was another thing we might bring back too. Very popular back in the day. Still has its fans in other jurisdictions. Why should I have to get on a plane if I want to participate in a good old fashioned stoning?

Somebody else having an abortion has no effect on me or my life. Neither does that poor Jastine girl getting abducted and murdered, or Ana Kriegel or that poor Louth lad. I mean my day will still be relatively fine, check my emails, eat my breakfast etc.

Guess what though, its not all about me and how smug and comfy my life is going to be if someone else aborts a child, or waits til they're 18 and murders them then.

I'd just prefer not to have that stuff get my legal stamp of approval so it can be continued on an even larger scale.

I hope thats not too fascistic of me

Difference...the three people who you unpleasantly dragged into this topic were born. I.e., they were alive and surviving outside of the womb. You know the rest but please do not drag those tragic recent murders into this topic.

If abortions were murders, then so are miscarriages...sure maybe even god is the one murdering the babies born with fatal fetal anomalies.

As for legal stamp of approval...you don't need to give it. You live in a democracy and the majority voted for repealing the 8th. Laws will be written and if you don't like them, then you can move elsewhere. Sorry but accepting laws that you may not like is part of living in a democracy.

wexie · 28-05-2018 08:03PM

Kumejima wrote: »

Or people having their beating hearts cut out of their chests? There are historical precedents. Inca society was pretty into that I heard. Or was it the Mayans?

To be honest I think there's a few people I'd add to the list for that one.

How bout you start one of these Change.org petitions and see if we can't get a referendum. You've got my vote

spookwoman · 28-05-2018 08:09PM

Kumejima wrote: »

Wow great historical research there.
Well maybe we should allow child sacrifice? Or people having their beating hearts cut out of their chests? There are historical precedents. Inca society was pretty into that I heard. Or was it the Mayans?

Stoning adulterous women was another thing we might bring back too. Very popular back in the day. Still has its fans in other jurisdictions. Why should I have to get on a plane if I want to participate in a good old fashioned stoning?

Somebody else having an abortion has no effect on me or my life. Neither does that poor Jastine girl getting abducted and murdered, or Ana Kriegel or that poor Louth lad. I mean my day will still be relatively fine, check my emails, eat my breakfast etc.

Guess what though, its not all about me and how smug and comfy my life is going to be if someone else aborts a child, or waits til they're 18 and murders them then.

I'd just prefer not to have that stuff get my legal stamp of approval so it can be continued on an even larger scale.

I hope thats not too fascistic of me

Can you get any lower or more vile by get bringing the names of those murder victims into this. They have nothing to do with this discussion.

Overheal · 28-05-2018 08:11PM

spookwoman wrote: »

Can you get any lower or more vile by get bringing the names of those murder victims into this. They have nothing to do with this discussion.

Kumejima · 28-05-2018 08:19PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Difference...the three people who you unpleasantly dragged into this topic were born. I.e., they were alive and surviving outside of the womb. You know the rest but please do not drag those tragic recent murders into this topic.

If abortions were murders, then so are miscarriages...sure maybe even god is the one murdering the babies born with fatal fetal anomalies.

As for legal stamp of approval...you don't need to give it. You live in a democracy and the majority voted for repealing the 8th. Laws will be written and if you don't like them, then you can move elsewhere.

Yeah I let my sarcasm get the better of me there.

Look, it is what it is now and we'll all have to live with the result.
I don't think there's any point in people on the NO side branding the YES side as baby muderers or the YES side painting all of us as religious mysoginistic bigots.

It basically comes down to whether you believe an unborn child is a human being or not. If you think its a clump of cells, with no human qualities or "life" then taking the YES position is entirely reasonable. There's no "baby", hence no father whose rights you have to consider, so its only what the woman wants to do as a medical option that counts.

Just to explain it from a No voters perspective. Most of us believe the unborn child is a human being. A living child. No lesser worth than a 1 year old toddler. Now, going from that supposition, that we're talking about a living child as opposed to a foetus, isn't it entirely reasonable that there are now three people in the equation. Isn't it entirely reasonable that one of those people shouldn't get to end the life of a child, especially as there is another parent involved. If it were a 1 year old child whose life was in the balance, isn't it entirely reasonable that a decent society would put the child's life at a higher priority that the womans right to choose? Why would you castigate someone for not wanting to see that child killed?

This where people are talking past each other. One side thinks the others are happy to see toddlers murdered and the other thinks we want to use a clump of cells to control women's bodies for religious or misogynistic reasons. Both sides are outraged and bitterness can spill over understandably.

We have to realise that the vast majority voted with good intentions. Maybe a few didn't but what can you do. Irish people are a caring and decent people. We might not agree with each other's stances, but lets try to see the good rather than the bad motives on the opposing side.

doomshine · 28-05-2018 08:20PM

fxotoole wrote: »

I thought their logic was that all Yes voters are going to Hell?

Therefore the babies will be waiting for all eternity because the Yes voters will be burning in Hell

There is a certain logic to this, don't all un-baptised babies go to limbo? Or did they change the rules when I wasn't looking? Are fetuses absolved of the original sin by virtue of not being born? So many questions!
So much for the famous RCC compassion, BTW!

wexie · 28-05-2018 08:22PM

doomshine wrote: »

There is a certain logic to this, don't all un-baptised babies go to limbo? Or did they change the rules when I wasn't looking?

I think they changed that a few years ago

Anastasia_ · 28-05-2018 08:24PM

swampgas wrote: »

Or maybe there just weren't any sensible reasons to oppose repealing the 8th? Maybe the people that were put forward, bad and all as they were, were the best that could be found?

There seems to be a sense that a better case could have been put for retaining the 8th. I honestly don't think there was.

There is a religious overhang here, with the strongly held notion by many that abortion is a terrible terrible thing that must only be allowed in the most restricted of circumstances. The only arguments I have heard for this POV have been straight out religious or from a pseudo-religious "life is sacred" perspective.

I think Ireland has moved to a far more secular, nuanced view of abortion, those still fighting against abortion don't seem to realise just how much the country has moved on without them.

I agree with you to a point here. I researched both sides tirelessly, and can't see any good reason to vote no.

I think they could have put forward a much more emotive case though. I know a man who's ex had an abortion and it literally ruined his life. 13 years ago and the man is still a wreck over it. I don't know how he voted, but whenever I spoke to him he made me question my vote.

I was always a hard yes, having studied the cases in const. law I couldn't have had voting no on my conscious. But I really do believe that there are a lot of soft yeses out there who could have been persuaded by stories like his.

Anyway, it makes no difference now. We voted to repeal and I still believe we did the right thing. I just think the no side could have pushed harder.

28-05-2018 08:29PM

seamus wrote: »

The proposed law would allow a termination in an emergency and to preserve the health of the mother. Savita wouldn't have had to request one, it would have been recommended to her.

Savita was the case that poured fuel on the fire. The fire had been kept burning since 1983. The lobby was strong, but not that strong. Irish people were generally unhappy with the situation, but unsure of how to deal with it.

As recently as 2001, Bertie Ahern's government thought they could convince the public to make abortion on the grounds of suicide, illegal.

Politicians continually dodged the issue because the public was non-committal and preferred to pretend it wasn't happening.

Through the late 2000s and early 2010s, the campaign managed to shed its reputation of just being a fringe group of crazy, purple-haired lesbians and became a much more "normal" campaign, with more and more women speaking out about their treatment under the eighth.

Then Savita happened. And Irish people could no longer pretend. It was right there in front of our faces. She wasn't some promiscuous teenager, or a welfare-class baby factory, or even an hysterical woman who'd changed her mind. Here was a middle-class, professional, intelligent woman with a very much wanted pregnancy that had unfortunately failed, and when she requested that it be terminated, she was denied because "this is a Catholic Country". And that denial ultimately cost her life.

Truth is, after that it looks like the "Yes" side barely had to do anything; the exit polls suggest that this referendum would have carried if you'd asked 4 years ago.

But the "No" side continuously asked for examples of maternal deaths caused by the eighth. And here was one; so it kept coming up.

From what I've read, this isn't entirely true though

standardg60 · 28-05-2018 08:33PM

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.

Really?

Can you point me in the direction of the legislation which states that it is a criminal offence to injure the child of a pregnant woman, outside of abortion legislation, as opposed to just intentionally injuring a person, pregnant or not?

If it's there then surely we've all just wasted our time.

28-05-2018 08:34PM

wexie wrote: »

I think they changed that a few years ago

2007 I believe, only since then will they allow an unbaptised baby including of course stillbirth be buried in a catholic cemetery. I think they still believe in the concept of limbo however.

QueenRizla · 28-05-2018 08:35PM

fxotoole wrote: »

I thought their logic was that all Yes voters are going to Hell?

Therefore the babies will be waiting for all eternity because the Yes voters will be burning in Hell

Maybe we go up first to get a bollocking off the Fetuses & Ronan Mullen and then get sent down.

BarleySweets · 28-05-2018 08:37PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It’s stupid really. It’s the demographic that contains the votes of the future as other generations die off. They should really be their target market.

Don’t give them tips! In fairness, that is their ploy, they make out that our granda’s generation lived some kind of admirable life surrounded by an admirable society. When if they actually spoke to a range of people from that time they’d be shocked at the **** their own granda’s had to put up with.

I mean can you imagine it being acceptable and common for an employer to tell you “**** off, I don’t hire Catholics!”. And then having to put up with it if that happened to you or one of your mates because “that’s just how things are”. And that’s just one ridiculous notion from the Ireland of the past, there’s dozens, of not hundreds more examples, as we all well know in 2018.

Nettle Soup · 28-05-2018 08:44PM

spookwoman wrote: »

don't get me started on the bible lots of killing the unborn there in the name of god

Hosea 13:16
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.

Some great posts Spookwoman!

Overheal · 28-05-2018 08:49PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

From what I've read, this isn't entirely true though

But she was told “this was a Catholic country” etc.

And whether you believed the 8th played a part, or the laws, or the medical code of ethics, or the hospital policies, it’s indisputable that had she been granted an abortion she would have lived. Voting for the repeal means that less constricting laws can be had which prevent ambiguous situations where the doctors are left citing Catholicism to deny a termination.

There’s also the people who were on those investigations who have come out and said the 8th played a role in her death. I can only assume that the reason this wasn’t in their report if because it was out of their scope to say so at the time.

Fred Swanson · 28-05-2018 08:50PM

This post has been deleted.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 28-05-2018 08:54PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I really like this tweet:

<snip>

Mod note: Zubeneschamali, don't post in this thread again.

Buford T. Justice

captbarnacles · 28-05-2018 08:56PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

2007 I believe, only since then will they allow an unbaptised baby including of course stillbirth be buried in a catholic cemetery. I think they still believe in the concept of limbo however.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549439/The-Pope-ends-state-of-limbo-after-800-years.html

It's abolished I think much like heaven might be for Irish people if we don't behave

SusieBlue · 28-05-2018 09:02PM

I’m sick to my back teeth of seeing people dismiss the 8th having a hand in Savita’s death.
It’s infuriating, and the height of disrespect to the woman’s memory.

Itssoeasy · 28-05-2018 09:04PM

I just listened back to Bishop Kevin Doran and his remarks on RTE radio this morning. I don't get why the Catholic Church Hierarchy don't get that while they are entitled to their positions of issues and to block them wouldn't be correct. My issue is that the RCC seem to believe that their moral capital is still like it was decades ago. It's due to some very serious scandals which shouldn't be forgotten in any way that their moral authority is eroded. Also the catholic church provided health care and education(not that it was perfect by any means).

But saying that voters who voted yes and are catholics should go to confession just doesn't help the image that the catholic church aren't hearing what is happening.

doomshine · 28-05-2018 09:08PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

2007 I believe, only since then will they allow an unbaptised baby including of course stillbirth be buried in a catholic cemetery. I think they still believe in the concept of limbo however.

Aww, how nice of them. How considerate, how humane to cling to this kind of silly bollocks well into the 21st century.

Pugzilla · 28-05-2018 09:09PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

My issue is that the RCC seem to believe that their moral capital is still like it was decades ago. It isn't due to some very serious scandals which shouldn't be forgotten in any way.

It never had any moral capital since the entire insitution is based on a jewish zombie fairytale written by primitive savages.

TheValeyard · 28-05-2018 09:09PM

Pugzilla wrote: »

It never had any moral capital since the entire insitution is based on a jewish zombie fairytale written by savages.

Edgy.

Itssoeasy · 28-05-2018 09:11PM

Pugzilla wrote: »

It never had any moral capital since the entire insitution is based on a jewish zombie fairytale written by primitive savages.

Well considering the power they had in this country to dictate policy and moral positions of the Irish people, I'll have to disagree.

28-05-2018 09:12PM

captbarnacles wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549439/The-Pope-ends-state-of-limbo-after-800-years.html

It's abolished I think much like heaven might be for Irish people if we don't behave

Sorry a possible theological opinion, as in Catholics are free to believe or not in limbo, I believe

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

41. Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture: the creation of the human being in Christ and his vocation to communion with God; the universal salvific will of God

Pugzilla · 28-05-2018 09:13PM

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Edgy.

Go pray some more to your imaginary friend.

wexie · 28-05-2018 09:14PM

Pugzilla wrote: »

It never had any moral capital since the entire insitution is based on a jewish zombie fairytale written by primitive savages.

hmmmyeah....but a jewish zombie fairytale written by primitive savages and believed by hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

So dismissing it as a jewish zombie fairytale written by primitive savages is highly disrespectful, incredibly narrowminded and dangerously simplistic

Fighting Tao · 28-05-2018 09:14PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I’m sick to my back teeth of seeing people dismiss the 8th having a hand in Savita’s death.
It’s infuriating, and the height of disrespect to the woman’s memory.

It's easier for some people to dismiss the truth when it conflicts with the pretty picture they have painted in their heads.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments