ELM327 wrote: » All politicians should be named with their stance published, and shamed for those who voted no. I have been an FF voter since way back when I was able to vote. I lent it to FG in 2011 but took it back after. Never, ever voting FF again.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » Do you think shaming people for their stance is productive or conducive to any progress in the future, or is it possible that it will divide people further?
ELM327 wrote: » I don't want to vote for anyone who is against female bodily autonomy, or is against SSM, etc. Same for GP, I checked my GP was not supportive of a NO vote as this would be indicative of poor quality of healthcare. I would have moved GP if that was the case, for myself and the family.
retro:electro wrote: » With all due respect, I find it pretty rich that the ones most vocal about retaining the 8th across the myriad of threads about it have been the ones who are at least risk of dying from it; 3 men and a nun. It’s all well and good saying Savita didn’t die due to the 8th until you’re the one hauled up in a hospital bed miscarrying and riddled with sepsis, clinging to life begging for medical intervention that doctors are hesitant to give you because although you’re dying you’re not dead enough for them to intervene. It’s well and good defending the 8th until the last words you hear before you die are “you’re in a Catholic country”. Yes the staff should have and were legally entitled to intervene before she died - the whole point is the 8th was such a clusterfcuk of legal red tape and medical limbo they didn’t know when to, and if the bloody thing never existed she wouldn’t have had to die slowly over the course of a week begging for her life.
Wrongway1985 wrote: » Very understandable people would take into account values and beliefs of their constituent representatives if they don't appear to line up with theirs less chance someone would have of voting for them, no? Not in that constituency but near, suggestions were made at the time key to her being elected was that not so much was known about - she was one of the candidates who benefitted hugely from a FG revenge vote it was somewhat a surprise she did so overwhelmingly. She'll be doing well to keep the head down now Waterford voted heavily against her on this issue.
Igotadose wrote: » Personally believe it's more important for women to know which GPs voted No, as they're willing to deny women health care. Likewise, Solicitors. Have been harvesting names from articles this morning, unfortunately the information isn't organized and logged anywhere afaict.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » I suppose there could be a discussion to be had regarding knowing if your GP was against abortion. Solicitors though? How is their stance on abortion relevant to their day to day practice, and what use is a list of names of no voters?
kunst nugget wrote: » Why are you targeting her in particular? There were plenty of politicians that adopted a pro-life stance. The pro-choice side won and I'm delighted with that but deciding to name and shame politicians that didn't agree with that stance is tacky imo.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » And you're perfectly entitled to not vote for them, or to choose a different GP. That is very different to shaming politicians for their stance.
ELM327 wrote: » I shall do both. And anyone who voted no (and espoused this value publicly) and expects that nothing will change for them have got another thing coming.
kunst nugget wrote: » It was a deeply divisive campaign. Fine, if you don't want to vote for somebody based on their pro-life leanings, don't. There are a couple of politicians that will never get my vote based on this campaign. But to come here and start naming and shaming people is just keeping the division and vitriol going when there's no need for it. I'd rather not get mired in trying to bring people down because they didn't agree with me. It's very petty.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » That's a bit dramatic, and has an air of a threat. Can you expand on what you mean?
ELM327 wrote: » Are you a no voter?
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » How is my vote relevant to our discussion thus far?
retro:electro wrote: » With all due respect, I find it pretty rich that the ones most vocal about retaining the 8th across the myriad of threads about it have been the ones who are at least risk of dying from it; 3 men and a nun.
ELM327 wrote: » All politicians should be named with their stance published, and shamed for those who voted no.
ELM327 wrote: » I don't want to vote for anyone who is against female bodily autonomy, or is against SSM, etc.
Anastasia_ wrote: » Agreed - and those doctors who said they would refuse to even refer a woman on to a colleague on the Claire Byrne Show should be investigated. I'm not sure how any woman would feel comfortable going to them. As for lawyers - find a list here https://www.save8.ie/statement-by-lawyers/
ELM327 wrote: » That's a bit dramatic, and has an air of a threat. Can you expand on what you mean?
end of the road wrote: » women voted to retain the 8th. a number of them as well. so your statement doesn't stack up IMO. so, target those you don't agree with. lovely. do you believe in democracy? you mean against abortion surely? repeal of the 8th and allowing the government to legislate for abortion is what we voted on.
ELM327 wrote: » Do we forget about these people and their control over women since 1983? I shan't There are some people in my life who I will not look at in the same way again for sure.
ELM327 wrote: » I have no interest in your opinion of what I have posted. After previous interactions with you, I've reached the "end of the road" as far as any future interactions. I thought you were banned from commenting on these threads in fact. But in either case I shall put you back on ignore
ELM327 wrote: » Because it shows their unconscious anti woman bias. I would not like to deal with anyone in any capacity thats a no voter. Unfortunately that's not always possible. But where it is and there's an alternative I will endeavour to take the alternatve.
Ineedaname wrote: » Under Medical Council guidelines a doctor refusing to refer a patient for treatment is a very serious matter. They could well find themselves struck off and rightly so. At the end of the day they are entitled to their beliefs. They are not entitled to have those beliefs influence their patients care.
end of the road wrote: » women voted to retain the 8th. a number of them as well. so your statement doesn't stack up IMO.
