Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

1…138139141143144…246

Comments

  • #4202
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    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.

    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?


  • #4203
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    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?
    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.


  • #4204
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    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.

    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.


  • #4205
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    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.

    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.


  • #4206
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    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.

    If I could thank this twice I would. Its sickening to see the 8th repeatedly denied as the catalyst in her death.
    I have yet to see even one No voter acknowledge what happened to her. Not one. Its very telling.
    Deny at all costs seems to be their attitude towards everything. It isn't washing, and thank goodness people aren't buying it.


  • Advertisement
  • #4207
    Wrongway1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,486 ✭✭✭Wrongway1985


    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.


  • #4208
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    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?

    I would personally have no interest in being treated by a GP who assumed the contents of my womb to be of equal worth to me.
    My GP was in favour of Repeal but if she wasn't, I'd most certainly be moving doctor.


  • #4209
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    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.

    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.


  • #4210
    Anastasia_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 149 ✭✭Anastasia_


    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.

    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/


  • #4211
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    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.

    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #4212
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    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?
    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.


  • #4213
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    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.

    She was one of the more vocal TD's seeking a NO, she went into numerous debates and interviews. also, perhaps the poster is in Waterfiord in which case she's very relevant to them.

    For me I call out Bobby Alyward and John McGuinness, both of which wanted a no vote. Bobby is rather two faced though as back in 2015 he claimed he was for yes and even posed with yes signs for a photoshoot....but then claimed he was voting no and thats what he told the locals.


  • #4214
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    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.
    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.


  • #4215
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    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.

    That's a bit dramatic, and has an air of a threat. Can you expand on what you mean?


  • #4216
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    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.


    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.


  • #4217
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »
    That's a bit dramatic, and has an air of a threat. Can you expand on what you mean?
    Are you a no voter?


  • #4218
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Are you a no voter?

    How is my vote relevant to our discussion thus far?


  • #4219
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »
    How is my vote relevant to our discussion thus far?
    That's a bit dramatic, and has an air of a threat. Can you expand on what you mean?


  • #4220
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    So, is this thread just going to be used to be vindictive against No voters? I've waited all my adult life to repeal the 8th and I'm delighted with the result but using that victory to target people that don't agree with my viewpoint and settle scores would taint it for me.


  • #4221
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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.

    women voted to retain the 8th. a number of them as well.
    ELM327 wrote: »
    All politicians should be named with their stance published, and shamed for those who voted no.

    so, target those you don't agree with. lovely. do you believe in democracy?
    ELM327 wrote: »
    I don't want to vote for anyone who is against female bodily autonomy, or is against SSM, etc.

    you mean against abortion surely? repeal of the 8th and allowing the government to legislate for abortion is what we voted on.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #4222
    Ineedaname
    Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭Ineedaname


    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/

    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.


  • #4223
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    ELM327 wrote: »
    That's a bit dramatic, and has an air of a threat. Can you expand on what you mean?

    I'm not sure whether you mean to quote my previous post and imply that I feel threatened, or you're being smart in some way that I can't quite understand.

    I am not a public figure, and have not discussed my views on repeal publicly so thankfully I do not fear a public witch-hunt (perhaps a provocative term but can't come up with a better description right now).

    I merely asked for clarification on how "things are going to change" for those who voted no


  • #4224
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    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.


    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


  • #4225
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    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.

    I look at the vote as a time for Ireland to continue its growth into the country I always wanted it to be and to keep moving forward. To want to punish people who wanted to keep the status quo and disagreed with me ain't really my scene.


  • #4226
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    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

    You're illustrating the larger issue at hand quite clearly.

    Ignore / Discredit / Smear anyone of an opposing opinion.

    Why can't we have a level headed discussion?


  • #4227
    deeks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 621 ✭✭✭deeks


    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.

    As a Yes voter I find this view to be quite distasteful. Whilst I'm sure many no voters had, as you put it, an "anti woman bias" I'm also quite sure that many of them were merely voting in their belief that the unborn child is still a person and therefore of equal importance to me or you. This is not a position I agree with but at the same time I don't think anyone that voted no on this basis deserves to be shunned on the basis of some perceived anti woman bias.

    A large number of women voted no - are they all anti women as well?


  • #4228
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    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.

    Just watched the Simon Harris interview with Claire Byrne. He said the Medical council needs to do something about this, that is, they need to clarify their guidelines regarding referring women to doctors who will perform an abortion if the doctor being asked will not. To me, this means the guidelines aren't in place yet. Probably they will be, I imagine the medical council knows they have something to do here. I expect nothing changes until the legislation's proposed at least, if not passed.

    On another note, I've found 3 links showing lawyers, psychiatrists and doctors that have come out against repeal: (these are from anti-repeal sites)

    https://www.save8.ie/statement-by-lawyers/
    https://www.save8.ie/statement-from-psychiatrists/
    https://www.dublindeclaration.com/signatories/

    (note that the dublindeclaration's a bit more subtle than the other links)


  • #4229
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Everyone has a right to their opinion.
    My issue is when their opinion involves controlling others.


  • #4230
    7aubzxk43m2sni
    Closed Accounts Posts: 636 ✭✭✭7aubzxk43m2sni


    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.

    Reducing all anti-abortion advocates to people with an "anti-woman bias" is simplistic and reductive.

    Many women voted against abortion - are they anti-women too?

    Have you considered that perhaps some no voters are concerned for what they consider the life of the unborn, rather than hating women in general and voting no for the sake of oppressing them further?


  • Advertisement
  • #4231
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    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.

    You literally just took 1 line out of her whole post completely out of context. And then you wonder why people get frustrated with you.


Advertisement