nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Ozymandius2011

This is for people who have already voted in the referendum. How did you vote? I voted yes.

Mod: This thread is little more than a survey about how you voted. Please don't the ins and outs of abortion.

Mod: This is not a reiteration of the previous 8th threads. If you were threadbanned from those, you are not threadbanned here.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

spookwoman

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I just linked to a ****in column and straight away the mob attacked. Forget it.

Ah diddums have a booboo.

Fighting Tao

Billy86 wrote: »

I do get you, but the issue is more that about Ireland being a Catholic country (and so some laws being impacted as such), while these are doctors in a Catholic country... not necessarily Catholics themselves. So by that basis, they're fine to break Catholic laws, just not Irish laws influenced by Catholicism.

I get what you are saying. Anyway, if they are catholic, they just need to go to confession and all is forgiven.

LorelaiG

Icbr back outside maternity hospital this evening what exactly are they hoping to achieve.

Overheal

spookwoman wrote: »

Ah diddums have a booboo.

It wasn’t even an interesting looking article, and he never said what he found interesting. All I read in it was me me me I’m great so humble me me waffle waffle waffle words words words wordcount wordcount word count pay me pay me pay me waffle waffle waffle sophomoric word salad aaaand flourish

PopePalpatine

LorelaiG wrote: »

Icbr back outside maternity hospital this evening what exactly are they hoping to achieve.

Trying to get over their blue balls after getting blacklisted by the van rental industry.

B0jangles

LorelaiG wrote: »

Icbr back outside maternity hospital this evening what exactly are they hoping to achieve.

Attention.

nozzferrahhtoo

Overheal wrote: »

It wasn’t even an interesting looking article, and he never said what he found interesting. All I read in it was me me me I’m great so humble me me waffle waffle waffle words words words wordcount wordcount word count pay me pay me pay me waffle waffle waffle sophomoric word salad aaaand flourish

The most interesting part of the article for me was that he describes the younger version of himself as being actively pro abortion, in the sense he was not all that interested in choice.... so much as he wanted as many abortions to be happening as possible. He basically described a hatred of children.

No pro choice person I have ever worked with, met, or talked with on or off line held that position. And it sounds like the lesser Hitchens is basing his anti abortion stance on nothing more than a reactionary hatred of his own earlier self.

spookwoman

Overheal wrote: »

It wasn’t even an interesting looking article, and he never said what he found interesting. All I read in it was me me me I’m great so humble me me waffle waffle waffle words words words wordcount wordcount word count pay me pay me pay me waffle waffle waffle sophomoric word salad aaaand flourish

I got to the "But the operation of that law, and the hecatombs of unborn babies destroyed since" and my eyes glazed over.

Loafing Oaf

DickSwiveller wrote: »

No I'm not.

Other than posts links on an Internet forum to dyspeptic screeds by like-minded foreign commentators...

Fighting Tao

LorelaiG wrote: »

Icbr back outside maternity hospital this evening what exactly are they hoping to achieve.

So they are protesting against pregnant women who are in having babies because they want them to have babies? I'm confused.

Cupcake_Crisis

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So they are protesting against pregnant women who are in having babies because they want them to have babies? I'm confused.

So are the ICBR tbf. Radical Queers Resist are already there covering up their banners.

Movementarian

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So they are protesting against pregnant women who are in having babies because they want them to have babies? I'm confused.

Those babies they are having will grow up to have abortions and no babies will be born from those babies so the women shouldnt have babies and thats why they are protesting.

Its pretty straightforward!!

Taytoland

Water John wrote: »

Martin took a big, political risk. If No won, he was gone, as leader of FF.
Don't be reconstructing what he did, through the prism, of hindsight.

Yeah big gamble, I mean what a huge risk supporting a liberal position in a country flowing with liberals with no conservative parties representing any conservatives. He is a genius.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What of them? They were outvoted. Massively.

That they were outvoted in no way negates why I cited them. It's an irrelevancy.

But then, irrelevances are the hallmark of your posts.

Hotblack Desiato

LorelaiG wrote: »

Icbr back outside maternity hospital this evening what exactly are they hoping to achieve.

They were outside the Dail at lunchtime.

I think GNIB should be having a very close look at their immigration status.

[Deleted User]

Taytoland wrote: »

Yeah big gamble, I mean what a huge risk supporting a liberal position in a country flowing with liberals with no conservative parties representing any conservatives. He is a genius.

There ara good few conservative and right wing parties Renua, The National Party etc. The fact that they have failed to actually attract any real support says more about their policies and the intelligence of the country as a whole.

Hotblack Desiato

Overheal wrote: »

It wasn’t even an interesting looking article, and he never said what he found interesting.

It's Peter Hitchens ffs. Think a more coherent but no more sensible John Waters.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That they were outvoted in no way negates why I cited them. It's an irrelevancy.

But then, irrelevances are the hallmark of your posts.

Nope the irrelevancy was yours because I was not trying to "negate" anything so you are replying to my post, but answering one that only exists in your head.

You specifically asked "What about these people" and I answered that. What about them. They are there, they exist, they were outvoted because they, like yourself, could not construct any moral or ethical arguments to sway the majority.

So what about them indeed. They should back to the drawing board forthwith and come up with the arguments that they lacked this time around.... and have another go at the process. That is what a free speech democracy means.

Taytoland

DubInMeath wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Yeah big gamble, I mean what a huge risk supporting a liberal position in a country flowing with liberals with no conservative parties representing any conservatives. He is a genius.

There ara good few conservative and right wing parties Renua, The National Party etc. The fact that they have failed to actually attract any real support says more about their policies and the intelligence of the country as a whole.

Mainstream parties. None at all from what I can see.

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope the irrelevancy was yours because I was not trying to "negate" anything so you are replying to my post, but answering one that only exists in your head.

You specifically asked "What about these people" and I answered that. What about them. They are there, they exist, they were outvoted because they, like yourself, could not construct any moral or ethical arguments to sway the majority.

So what about them indeed. They should back to the drawing board forthwith and come up with the arguments that they lacked this time around.... and have another go at the process. That is what a free speech democracy means.

Well the no campaign started with no abortion for anyone including victims of rape, incest and FFA.
Then in the week of the vote and seeing that such a stance was backfiring on them they started saying once the referendum went their way they would purpose amendments for rape and FFA.
People seen this for the bull that it was and since then their bitterness at the result has shown that it was just bull and a last minute attempt to try and win over any undecided voters that they were never going to fulfill.

[Deleted User]

Taytoland wrote: »

Mainstream parties. None at all from what I can see.

Well again that's the fault of the parties and the intelligence of the population.

Again in terms of liberalism we're not exactly France, Holland or the Nordic countries either.

Plenty of financial conservatism in the mainstream parties and some social conservative members.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That they were outvoted in no way negates why I cited them. It's an irrelevancy.

But then, irrelevances are the hallmark of your posts.

And lies are a hallmark of yours. Not sure you want to play the attack the poster game.

The Legend Of Kira

LorelaiG wrote: »

Icbr back outside maternity hospital this evening what exactly are they hoping to achieve.

The way the Icbr went about their campaigning pre referendum day turning up outside maternity hospitals done the no side a disservice & didn,t win over many people to their side of the argument.

While I support people,s right to peaceful protest & campaign etc, I really hoped they would of learned from the high per % in the yes side how counter productive their past actions were & go about any future campaigning in a different way.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

And lies are a hallmark of yours. Not sure you want to play the attack the poster game.

Saying that someone's posts are littered with irrelevances is attack on the content of their posts, not them as a person (and it was in reference to posts on this topic by the way).

Interested to know what 'lies' it is you feel I have posted though.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Saying that someone's posts are littered with irrelevances is attack on the content of their posts, not them as a person.

But calling things irrelevancies without actually arguing as to how and why they are irrelevancies is neither an attack on the person OR the post. It is just flinging words like spaghetti at a wall and hoping some of them stick.

Your own posts are actually the ones littered with irrelevancies, like studies about moving tongues. The difference however is that I did not at ANY point merely scream "irrelevancies" at those posts. I stopped and took the time to explain exactly why they are irrelevancies. You just ignored those posts.

This is no small difference, would that you would try it sometime.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Saying that someone's posts are littered with irrelevances is attack on the content of their posts, not them as a person (and it was in reference to posts on this topic by the way).

Interested to know what 'lies' it is you feel I have posted though.

I addressed that in my previous reply to you, you may have ignored it: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107132168&postcount=4525

Outlaw Pete

spookwoman wrote: »

...because there was a heart beat they did not perform an abortion as requested.

There was certainly an emphasis on not intervening when there was a heartbeat detected but that was when the consultant was unaware of the sepsis diagnosis. When that diagnosis was made and the results relayed to her, a termination was ordered. Indeed, many other consultants have said that while the 8th impacted on their judgement (it was designed to after all) they felt it never hindered them and they were always able to terminate pregnancies if they felt they needed to. Many that were due to severe sepsis in fact.

Saying that the 8th caused Savita's death is overlooking just how poorly she was treated and how inept her care was:

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There was certainly an emphasis on not intervening when there was a heartbeat detected but that was when the consultant was unaware of the sepsis diagnosis. When that diagnosis was made and the results relayed to her, a termination was ordered. Indeed, many other consultants have said that while the 8th impacted on their judgement (it was designed to after all) they felt it never hindered them and they were always able to terminate pregnancies if they felt they needed to. Many that were due to severe sepsis in fact.

Saying that the 8th caused Savita's death is overlooking just how poorly she was treated and how inept her care was:

So again, early that morning, sepsis was already suspected and Chorioamnionitis already diagnosed:

Chorioamnionitis is a bacterial infection of the fetal membranes, which can be life-threatening to both mother and fetus. Women with PROM at any age are at high risk of infection because the membranes are open and allow bacteria to enter. Women are checked often (usually every 4 hours) for signs of infection: fever ( > 38 °C/100.5 °F), uterine pain, fast maternal heart rate (>100 beats per minute), fast fetal heart rate (>160 beats per minute), or foul-smelling amniotic fluid.[6] Elevated white blood cells are not a good way to predict infection because they are normally high in labor.[4] If infection is suspected, artificial induction of labor is started at any gestational age and broad antibiotics are given. Caesarean section should not be automatically done in cases of infection, and should only be reserved for the usual fetal emergencies.[4]

In any other setting, with the water broke at 17 weeks, bacterial infection and the clear suspicion of sepsis, she should have received a termination almost 8 hours sooner. I'm not even sure what the staff was thinking with her water broke at 17 weeks - except to say that 'it is illegal to abort in this country while there is a fetal heartbeat.'

I'm not sure what else has to be said about this!

nullzero

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There was certainly an emphasis on not intervening when there was a heartbeat detected but that was when the consultant was unaware of the sepsis diagnosis. When that diagnosis was made and the results relayed to her, a termination was ordered. Indeed, many other consultants have said that while the 8th impacted on their judgement (it was designed to after all) they felt it never hindered them and they were always able to terminate pregnancies if they felt they needed to. Many that were due to severe sepsis in fact.

Saying that the 8th caused Savita's death is overlooking just how poorly she was treated and how inept her care was:

Don't go waving your facts around here as if logic somehow permeates the thick gooey membrane of group think that surrounds this echo chamber. I've found that when you really stick it to them they move onto another topic and ignore you...

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Don't go waving your facts around here as if logic somehow permeates the thick gooey membrane of group think that surrounds this echo chamber. I've found that when you really stick it to them they move onto another topic and ignore you...

What topic are you talking about? Please, get us back to it!

Y'all want to keep talking about Savita when it's all right there in print, these dumb ****s at the hospital were programmed into believing the 8th prevented them from helping the woman. You can cry about their poor judgement all day, but without that amendment in the Constitution, those dumb saps wouldn't have thought that, and they would have given Savita due care. I don't think that is in refute.

Now, please, get us back to whatever topic you feel the echo chamber has aborted!