Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Hotblack Desiato · 30-05-2018 11:09AM

Reesy wrote: »

How many single 'yes' voters want to get married in a church / have future future kids be baptised & have first communions? Isn't this the height of hypocrisy?

A lot of people only do these things because of family pressure or fear of not getting a school place.

Ending school admission policies which contravene both human rights principles and our own constitution will sort out the latter. The former is already sorting itself out and any move by the RCC towards a smaller but more doctrinally observant church will only greatly accelerate it.

In 20 years time there will be no priests anyway...

seamus wrote: »

Look at the royal wedding; how many little girls watched that and now have the seed embedding in their minds about how that's the ideal celebration.

If they sat in front of the TV for what seemed (I am told) like hours of blah blah blah in the church, wouldn't it put them off?

But that doesn't necessarily require a religious wedding, and I wonder in years to come will we start seeing the practice of churches being bought and maintained explicitly as wedding venues rather than as places of worship.

There's nowhere in Dublin but there's Triskel in Cork - a deconsecrated church which is used for weddings. Never been there but it looks nice.
A friend of mine got married in a civil ceremony in a deconsecrated private chapel in a castle.
I got married in Grand Canal St. registry office - as a venue it was fine
Friend of my wife's got married in a room off a hotel dining room in Edinburgh - as long as there's seats for everyone and everyone can see and hear the ceremony, who really cares about the venue? The party is the thing the guests are all looking forward to....

retro:electro wrote: »

I would call myself an atheist but I’m not comfortable with absolutes. But I have no faith.

Atheism is not the claim to have knowledge that no gods exist. Just lack of belief that they do.

Fighting Tao · 30-05-2018 11:09AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would also see it as the straw that broke the camels back. Before it people were aware but they didn't understand the issues that the 8th caused. Savita's death woke the nation up. It got men on side that couldn't see how it would affect them. I am one of those.

iguana · 30-05-2018 11:10AM

Reesy wrote: »

How many single 'yes' voters want to get married in a church / have future future kids be baptised & have first communions? Isn't this the height of hypocrisy?

How many Yes voters do you even think are single. Most of my friends are, like me, married parents in or near our 40s. Almost none of us married in churches (and those who did only did so following family pressure and carry a little regret at doing so) and we certainly didn't baptise our children. My own parents, also Yes voters like most of their peers, married in a church and baptised me and my brothers but it's a definite source of regret for them. They say that the idea that there was another way never even occurred to them but if they knew then what they do now, it's not a choice they'd make again.

ArmaniJeanss · 30-05-2018 11:14AM

iguana wrote: »

It didn't take her death to galvanise action.

Huge tipping point though.
I'd gone from fairly hardcore pro-life in the 80s/90s to seeing both sides of the issue by the turn of the century, to being pro-choice but not too bothered by around 2005, to being pro-choice and hoping someone else would do something about it by around 2010. But the day the story of Savitas death broke and I went down to the demo in Kildare St was the day I promised to to 'be active' about the issue in whatever small way I could.

wexie · 30-05-2018 11:15AM

Reesy wrote: »

How many single 'yes' voters want to get married in a church / have future future kids be baptised & have first communions? Isn't this the height of hypocrisy?

It's certainly somewhat hypocritical but very understandable what with the baptism barrier and all that jazz.

As for the height of hypocrisy....personally I think that would be the RCC chastising anybody on hypocrisy....

_Dara_ · 30-05-2018 11:16AM

iguana wrote: »

It didn't take her death to galvanise action. People have been fighting the 8th amendment since before it was added to the constitution and only stopped on Friday night. As for a mass movement, the various pro-choice groups had started to join together in June/July 2012, several months before her death. Youth Defence and the Life Institute had co ran a series of disturbing adverts, filled with statistical lies and stolen images in June 2012. They clearly spent an absolute fortune on the "abortion tears her life apart" campaign but achieved nothing other than galvanising their opposition who at the time had almost no political support. The thread on it in The Ladies Lounge even includes a message one poster got from Simon Harris where he pontificates against even legislating for X because it goes against his conscience.

When the news broke of Savita's death there was already an organised movement against the 8th. Admittedly at the time a lot of the focus was on legislating for X because at that point successive governments had failed in their duty for 20 years, ignoring the outcome of the two referendums they lost in '92 and '02 that they had run in order an attempt to avoid doing so. But removal of the 8th amendment was always a goal being worked towards even though it felt like a pipedream to even get a referendum on it's removal. I think we used to see the 8th as something that was likely to be removed slowly and in tiny increments. That any referendum we would get would be a slight loosening of it's power. And if we won that we'd have to fight on for the next small step against it. Savita's death increased the sense of urgency and made people realise that a slow step-by-step move to choice just wasn't good enough because of how thoroughly the 8th diminished the rights and safety of a pregnant woman.

That’s what I meant by galvanise.

When people use that term, they don’t necessarily mean that there was nothing before, more that something happens that crystallises the important of all the activism that came before.

meeeeh · 30-05-2018 11:28AM

I have absolutely no problem being hypocritical about catholic church. I don't believe in god so I very much doubt the lightning will strike me because I did something that involves catholic ritual despite not being a believer.. Anyway I can't vote but there are plenty catholic countries which offer abortion and did also when they were more catholic. Contraception is against church teachings, so is premartial sex, ignoring church teachings is hardly new thing and happily practised by those accusing others of hypocrisy. And since Irish trainee priests are being kicked out of Rome because of having sex the hypocritical voting is the least of Church's problems.

Igotadose · 30-05-2018 11:31AM

So, what next? Anyone got a good summary or link to such listing things in the Constitution that are there to benefit the Church and need to go? Blasphemy/Women's place in the home/... But, the 'operational things' like Baptibysmal certs needed for school admission or placement aren't in the Constitution, are they? Likewise the hospitals being run by the RCC? Operational, or Constitutional? Operational things can be dealt with by pressuring the TD's. Constitutional need referenda.

Really need separation of Church and State in the Constitution like they have in the US. There if you want to send your kid to religious school, go right away, you get to pay for it. Not me. (Of course, the relgious are always angling to get their noses into the taxpayer trough on this one.)

7aubzxk43m2sni · 30-05-2018 11:39AM

meeeeh wrote: »

I have absolutely no problem being hypocritical about catholic church.

Shouldn't hypocrisy be avoided when possible?

Fighting Tao · 30-05-2018 11:50AM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Shouldn't hypocrisy be avoided when possible?

In relation to a hypocritical organisation...I don't see why.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 30-05-2018 11:52AM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

In relation to a hypocritical organisation...I don't see why.

If you agree hypocrisy = bad, then just because others are hypocritical does not mean you should act hypocritical too?

gormdubhgorm · 30-05-2018 11:56AM

B0jangles wrote: »

You know nothing whatsoever about how a pregnancy affects the person who is carrying it.

Nothing whatsoever.

I don't either by the way, which is why I'd never be arrogant enough to assume that my opinion on whether or not they should remain pregnant is more valid than theirs.

Obviously it varies from person to person.

But it seems to be the yes side who seem to have the arrogance.

The thoughts of the yes side from reading the papers seem to be:

1) Those who voted no are tied to the catholic church -

I am not I have already said that the overly religious reasons for voting no annoy me.

There are other more practical reasons for me.

2) It is dressed up as "progress" "a future Ireland"

- my view on this it is a backward step - a move towards an individualist society

- a very selfish one

I thought about it more and the social media generation narcissistic tendencies are probably a large reason for the yes vote.
The "look at me" generation the me, me, me, it's about ME generation.
MY body, MY choice...

I have a fair idea now that in 30 years time there will be debates about designer abortions, and dna modification etc.

'I WANTED a girl so I terminated the boy' will be at the far extreme end of it.

That is the road that we are headed towards in another three/four generations and this is the start of the slippery slope.
Downs syndrome in Ireland will be wiped out by about 96% for example if other figures are used as example.

I am sure there will be other conditions that will be able to be detected.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I suppose it depends on your ethical view?
Is it unfair to bring babies like that into the world?
Or is it unfair not to give them that chance?

Those are the type of thoughts that seem completely lost behind the pictures of Savita and slogans such as the "the woman's place is in the revolution"

From my point of view in every revolution there is collateral damage in the cross fire.

I am sure there are many who voted in this referendum like me who thought about it and said - Yes - (but) No - (but)

I finished up on the no side (very nearly abstained from voting)

I just hope the legislators work out something solid without any future loopholes. (I hope that extremists will be moderated by the middle ground)
I don't envy thier task the possibility of making an unforeseen mistake is high.
As there will now be court cases in the future where precedents are set and interpretation of the legislation is challenged that is for sure.

That was the protection that article 40.3.3 provided it was more secure.
Now future legislation changed much more easily.
The protection is now gone.

Maybe it will all end well like the amending of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution which lead to peace process in Ireland?

To be honest I am not so sure.

I think this move was for the worst and not the better when there were far more practical alternatives available.

Ironically I think the removal of article 40.3.3 has created a new baby in a way.

But what will this baby grow into in adulthood?

Fighting Tao · 30-05-2018 11:57AM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

If you agree hypocrisy = bad, then just because others are hypocritical does not mean you should act hypocritical too?

The way the education is tipped against non-catholics in this country means that many have to be hypocritical in order to get their children into schools. Do you think that 10,000's of children should be kept out of school because there is no other option that RCC schools in order to stop additional hypocrisy?

Overheal · 30-05-2018 12:02PM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Is that the metric that is used?

Indeed the maternal death rate was thrown around a lot in here and presumably elsewhere too. “On of the safest places in Europe to have a baby” people would keep arguing, usually as a last ditch dismissal to Savita’s death, caused by doctors being confused by the 8th as to when they were allowed to intervene in an imminent miscarriage.

Overheal · 30-05-2018 12:03PM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

If you agree hypocrisy = bad, then just because others are hypocritical does not mean you should act hypocritical too?

Who’s being hypocritical about what? I feel like you’re begging the question

meeeeh · 30-05-2018 12:03PM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Shouldn't hypocrisy be avoided when possible?

Or what...

SusieBlue · 30-05-2018 12:04PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Obviously it varies from person to person.

But it seems to be the yes side who seem to have the arrogance.

The thoughts of the yes side from reading the papers seem to be:
1) Those who voted no are tied to the catholic church -

I am not I have already said that the overly religious reasons for voting no annoy me.

There are other more practical reasons for me.

2) It is dressed up as "progress" "a future Ireland"

- my view on this it is a backward step - a move towards an individualist society

- a very selfish one

I thought about it more and the social media generation narcissistic tendencies are probably a large reason for the yes vote.
The "look at me" generation the me, me, me, it's about ME generation.
MY body, MY choice...

I have a fair idea now that in 30 years time there will be debates about designer abortions, and dna modification etc.

'I WANTED a girl so I terminated the boy' will be at the far extreme end of it.

That is the road that we are headed towards in another three/four generations and this is the start of the slippery slope.
Downs syndrome in Ireland will be wiped out by about 96% for example if other figures are used as example.

I am sure there will be other conditions that will be able to be detected.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I suppose it depends on your ethical view?
Is it unfair to bring babies like that into the world?
Or is it unfair not to give them that chance?

Those are the type of thoughts that seem completely lost behind the pictures of Savita and slogans such as the "the woman's place is in the revolution"

From my point of view in every revolution there is collateral damage in the cross fire.

I am sure there are many who voted in this referendum like me who thought about it and said - Yes - (but) No - (but)

I finished up on the no side (very nearly abstained from voting)

I just hope the legislaters work out somehitng solid without any future loopholes. (I hope that extremists will be moderated by the middle ground)
I don't envy thier task the possibility of making an unforeseen mistake is high.
As there will now be court cases in the future where precedents are set and interpretation of the legislation is challenged that is for sure.

That was the protection that article 40.3.3 provided it was more secure.
Now future legislation changed much more easily.
The protection is now gone.

Maybe it will all end well like the amending of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution which lead to peace process in Ireland?

To be honest I am not so sure.

I think this move was for the worst and not the better when there were far more piratical alternatives available.

Ironically I think the removal of article 40.3.3 has created a new baby in a way.

But what will this baby grow into in adulthood?

I have a solution for you. Don't have an abortion. Problem solved.
You can now live your life in peace with no nasty abortions on the horizon, and everyone else is free to decide for themselves on the matter.

Fighting Tao · 30-05-2018 12:07PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I have a solution for you. Don't have an abortion. Problem solved.
You can now live your life in peace with no nasty abortions on the horizon, and everyone else is free to decide for themselves on the matter.

But I thought there were going to be forced abortions. Equality and all that means that men have to have them too.

Overheal · 30-05-2018 12:07PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I have a solution for you. Don't have an abortion. Problem solved.
You can now live your life in peace with no nasty abortions on the horizon, and everyone else is free to decide for themselves on the matter.

But that’s the start of the individualist society according to the post. I presume the alternative is the nanny state where everyone is up everyone else’s business holes about every fn thing?

7aubzxk43m2sni · 30-05-2018 12:10PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The way the education is tipped against non-catholics in this country means that many have to be hypocritical in order to get their children into schools. Do you think that 10,000's of children should be kept out of school because there is no other option that RCC schools in order to stop additional hypocrisy?

Its completely understandable that people get their children baptised to keep them in schools although they might not be very religious.

Overheal wrote: »

Who’s being hypocritical about what? I feel like you’re begging the question

I was responding to a flippant/hysterical post along the lines of "I have absolutely no problem being hypocritical when it comes to the church because x,y,z"

meeeeh wrote: »

Or what...

?

meeeeh · 30-05-2018 12:14PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

'I WANTED a girl so I terminated the boy' will be at the far extreme end of it.

That is the road that we are headed towards in another three/four generations and this is the start of the slippery slope.
Downs syndrome in Ireland will be wiped out by about 96% for example if other figures are used as example.

Gender abortions happen in societies with large inequalities and poverty. It's very easy pontificating from relatively comfortable position but often wrong gender of child means poverty for the family.

In the same way it's very easy to be judgemental about abortions in case of disabilities but I suspect situation is different when you have to decide how a child with profound disabilities will affect your lief and it's not just about lifestyle, it can be about poverty, physical hardship and so on...

Anyway I know of very few countries which rolled back on abortion after decades (excluding debates about viability), there are some calls but it seems in majority of countries people don't feel abortion had negative effect to he society.

gormdubhgorm · 30-05-2018 12:14PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I have a solution for you. Don't have an abortion. Problem solved.
You can now live your life in peace with no nasty abortions on the horizon, and everyone else is free to decide for themselves on the matter.

That's a strange comment in particular as I reasoned out my thoughts as cogently as I could.

The trend on this thread seems to be.

No voter comments

Yes voter gives hypothetical situation why don't you?

No voter comments

Yes voter have you answered my question?

No voter answers question weighs up reasons and thier thoughts on the issue.

Yes voter flippant comment... to get laughs from the majority as they could not think of a proper reply.... hahaha etc

(welcome to "internet debate")

kunst nugget · 30-05-2018 12:15PM

iguana wrote: »

How many Yes voters do you even think are single. Most of my friends are, like me, married parents in or near our 40s. Almost none of us married in churches (and those who did only did so following family pressure and carry a little regret at doing so) and we certainly didn't baptise our children. My own parents, also Yes voters like most of their peers, married in a church and baptised me and my brothers but it's a definite source of regret for them. They say that the idea that there was another way never even occurred to them but if they knew then what they do now, it's not a choice they'd make again.

I'd imagine there are lots of single Yes voters, it would seem silly to suggest otherwise.

I'm raised Catholic, now an atheist. I got married in a church because the missus wanted to - we'd have different beliefs but it doesn't bother us on a day-to-day basis. If the missus wanted to get married in a nightclub I would have gone along with it as the venue meant bugger all to me tbh. I don't regret it and don't get bogged down on feeling hypocritical about it.

I was raised in a very orthodox Catholic household that veered towards the fire and brimstone side of things. I was done with the religion by the time I was a teenager. It's left no real trace on me and I've no regrets about how I was raised or bear any ill will for them having views that are completely contrary to my own. They think they're right and I think I'm right and I could spend the rest of my days being obstinate and giving them shít for their views but the fact is outside of politics and religion we get on great and I'm not going to change their view of the world at this stage in their life. Let's be honest, their clocks are ticking down as well and they could be dead in the morning. I rather they shuffled off this mortal coil without any animosity in our relationship.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 30-05-2018 12:16PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Gender abortions happen in societies with large inequalities and poverty. It's very easy pontificating from relatively comfortable position but often wrong gender of child means poverty for the family.

Would you agree with gender abortions in Ireland?

meeeeh · 30-05-2018 12:17PM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Its completely understandable that people get their children baptised to keep them in schools although they might not be very religious.

I was responding to a flippant/hysterical post along the lines of "I have absolutely no problem being hypocritical when it comes to the church because x,y,z"

Hysterical is it? I think you care about hypocrisy a lot more than I do. I actually believe we are all hypocritical to certain extent and I just don't care enough about it to feel bad.

meeeeh · 30-05-2018 12:18PM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Would you agree with gender abortions in Ireland?

I agree with abortion without the need to give a reason so yes.

Fighting Tao · 30-05-2018 12:18PM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Would you agree with gender abortions in Ireland?

Wouldn't they be happening already, albeit in the UK on Irelands behalf? What is going to change? Everyone will suddenly rush to get an abortion?

gormdubhgorm · 30-05-2018 12:19PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Gender abortions happen in societies with large inequalities and poverty. It's very easy pontificating from relatively comfortable position but often wrong gender of child means poverty for the family.

In the same way it's very easy to be judgemental about abortions in case of disabilities but I suspect situation is different when you have to decide how a child with profound disabilities will affect your lief and it's not just about lifestyle, it can be about poverty, physical hardship and so on...

Anyway I know of very few countries which rolled back on abortion after decades (excluding debates about viability), there are some calls but it seems in majority of countries people don't feel abortion had negative effect to he society.

First sensible comment for reasons to have abortions I have read since I joined this thread.
Plus it gave me a bit of info
(and no... I am not going to ask for a source or mention men of straw)

kunst nugget · 30-05-2018 12:19PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Hysterical is it? I think you care about hypocrisy a lot more than I do. I actually believe we are all hypocritical to certain extent and I just don't care enough about it to feel bad.

Yeah, people can quite justifiably call me a hypocritical prick but I ain't got time to worry about that. I'm too busy being super awesome.

ELM327 · 30-05-2018 12:19PM

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

Would you agree with gender abortions in Ireland?

I (and 66% of the people of Ireland) agree with a women's right to make a decision based on whatever criteria she sees fit.

If she decides to have a termination based on gender, then that is her right.
It is her right to do that in Ireland since the 8th was repealed.
Before that, it was her right to travel to get it done.

Both of those rights were conferred by a majority vote in a public referendum.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments