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

7aubzxk43m2sni

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I'm just waiting for you to day that you are playing devils advocate.

So you can't tell me what agenda I'm apparently propagating?

nozzferrahhtoo

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

I don't know how its relevant to "the courage of their own convictions".

What I mean is that if someone thinks abortion is ok, they can not then suddenly turn around and say "Except if you want it for this reason I personally do not like".

It seems we in Ireland are about to implement open choice based abortion up until 12 weeks. And the majority seems to be ok with that. As such moaning that do not like someones reason for seeking such an abortion is pretty much none of their business.

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

However, for me at least, the idea of abortion for the simple reason alone that the baby is not the gender wanted is a bit grim to say the least.

I too could disagree with many peoples reasons for seeking an abortion. Gender and race could be examples of that, but to be honest I am not sure they are. I think I am actually ok with that. And I am somewhat suspicious about the reasons some people are not ok with it. I THINK I know why they are not ok with it, but I am not sure.

But I realize that would be MY problem not theirs. I realize there is no arguments being offered to indict the morality of terminating any 10 week old fetus. So I have the courage of my convictions to recognize that this means if I am bothered by someone's reasons for seeking one....... then that is my problem not theirs. And it is certainly not my business.

I think I am very suspicion when people claim to be ok with X, but then stop being ok with X if they personally do not like the motivations people have for doing X. That tells me they are projecting their own value judgements on others, but reshaping it to look otherwise.

Taytoland

Maybe abortion legislation can now open doors to getting rid of down syndrome in the future and all future down syndrome babies can be aborted. A more purified people can rise out of this, stronger, white etc.

robarmstrong

Taytoland wrote: »

Maybe abortion legislation can now open doors to getting rid of down syndrome in the future and all future down syndrome babies can be aborted. A more purified people can rise out of this, stronger, white etc.

F*ck off with your racism, it's not welcome here.

Billy86

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Suicidal disabled children???

I am surprised you did not say "Suicidal, disabled, black, gay, children from the travelling community" to cover every minority and vulnerable group.

Not only that you uses suicidal twice as if being a suicidal disabled child was not enough the suicial tendances had to be added for good measure!

Jayus..

At that rate if there was a test in future for "suicidal tenancies" why just limit it to disabled children?

Or correct me if I am wrong do disabled children only get "suicidal tenancies"?

I am baffled at the logic...

As for the drug addicted houseshold.. would neutering the drug addicts be most cost effective for you?

All of this has been covered and put to you just yesterday, but you've been too busy simultaneously claiming those that disagree with you are arrogant and "look for laughs" while at the same time showing ungodly levels of arrogance yourself.

And now here you are fobbing off and outright mocking what I have told you that I get to see in my job every day as a result of unwanted pregnancies. Just like you want to fob off pregnancy as "just a few months of a bit of pain" yesterday.

Yet it's the other people that are arrogant, not you at all... classy. Really classy.

Overheal

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

See below...

So we should have constitutional amendments for when bars should close on a Saturday night, etc? Maybe have a whole article written for when it’s necessary to cut someone off? It’s a social issue, you think social issues should be constitutionalized.. what about excessively loud music?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Taytoland

robarmstrong wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Maybe abortion legislation can now open doors to getting rid of down syndrome in the future and all future down syndrome babies can be aborted. A more purified people can rise out of this, stronger, white etc.

F*ck off with your racism, it's not welcome here.

Said for people of colour too. Babies in the future with disabilities won't exist. So it will be a more purified society.

ohnonotgmail

Taytoland wrote: »

Said for people of colour too. Babies in the future with disabilities won't exist. So it will be a more purified society.

except you didnt. You specifically said white.

A more purified people can rise out of this, stronger, white etc.

gormdubhgorm

Overheal wrote: »

So we should have constitutional amendments for when bars should close on a Saturday night, etc? Maybe have a whole article written for when it’s necessary to cut someone off? It’s a social issue, you think social issues should be constitutionalized.. what about excessively loud music?

Now you are being facetious.

I mean the big social issues.

No harm in that.

Fighting Tao

Taytoland wrote: »

Said for people of colour too. Babies in the future with disabilities won't exist. So it will be a more purified society.

None existing is a bit extreme and white only is extreme to the highest level!

Some people who could have disabilities will not have disabilities due to gene therapy. Others will exist with disabilities as the parents may not want or afford gene therapy. Also, some disabilities are not evident in birth and children are running around and then bang, something happens...a seizure or something and they are left disables as a result. Disabled people will always be around.

robarmstrong

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If it helps the discussion my offer of kicking him in the bollocks for 9 solid months still stands due to him throwing it out there that the 9 months of pregnancy is a walk in the park.

Overheal

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Now you are being facetious.

I mean the big social issues.

No harm in that.

Alcoholism seems like a big social issue.

“Based on the figures in the Health Research Board’s National Alcohol Diary Survey, more than 150,000 Irish people are dependent drinkers, more than a 1.35 million are harmful drinkers, and 30% of people interviewed say that they experienced some form of harm as a result of their own drinking. The report also reveals that 75% of alcohol consumed in Ireland is done so as part of binge drinking and we underestimate what we drink by about 60%.

Alcohol is responsible for 88 deaths every month in Ireland. That’s over 1,000 deaths per year.
One in four deaths of young men aged 15-39 in Ireland is due to alcohol.

Alcohol is a factor in half of all suicides in Ireland. Alcohol is also involved in over a third of cases of deliberate self-harm, peaking around weekends and public holidays.

Liver disease rates are increasing rapidly in Ireland and the greatest level of increase is among 15-to-34-year-olds, who historically had the lowest rates of liver disease.

900 people in Ireland are diagnosed with alcohol-related cancers and around 500 people die from these diseases every year.

Drink-driving is a factor in two fifths of all deaths on Irish roads.“

http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

How come this doesn’t merit constitutional interference but abortions do?

iguana

Taytoland wrote: »

Babies in the future with disabilities won't exist.

Less and less will. Medical treatments are improving rapidly. Curing common genetic illness in utero is on the horizon. And anyone who thinks that's not wonderful needs to give their head a shake.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Nozz, I have argued the 'how and why' many many times, as you well know. Suggesting I haven't is bizarre.

Your own posts are actually the ones littered with irrelevancies, like studies about moving tongues.

Oh, it's study on 'moving tongues' now is it. That's funny, cause a couple of months back (on a thread which you knew I no longer had posting privileges in) you decided to falsely claim (again) that I cited that particular study in the 'irrational' belief that the researchers had shown that a fetus in the womb "WAS trying to speak":

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...we have a user about here who read a line in a study about playing music to the fetus. In an attempt to describe what the oral movements of the fetus LOOKED LIKE the researcher said it looks like "trying to speak". The emotional and unwarranted response of the boards user to this was to react to that as if the fetus actually WAS trying to speak. But most rational actors can tell the difference between "Looks like X" and "IS X". But not everyone.

The above is completely made up by you but I'll tell you what, nozz, no point in me just saying you're lying and so I'll show that you are instead and also make you an ultimatum (in an attempt to try and prevent a drawn out back and forth on this).

But before that, a brief recap of what was actually said at the time:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The researchers stated that 16-week-old fetuses included in the study moved their mouths and tongues in response to music as if they were trying to speak. That is much different than a "blob of biological matter" moving it's muscles and/or nerves after they have been stimulated.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Is that from them? Could you quote it for me........

Or did you invent this bit yourself perhaps in order to make what was observed more emotive than it actually is?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Asking someone did they "invent" something they have said is tantamount to asking them if they have lied. A simple request for the source would have sufficed:

Lead researcher of the study Dr Marisa Lopez Teijon revealed that music broadcast vaginally encouraged unborn babies to move their mouth and tongue “as if they were trying to speak”.

So as can be seen here, nozz's immediate response to my precisely quoting one of the researchers of the study was met with the immediate suggestion I had made it up, and then when I gave him the source for the quote, instead of apologizing for the suggestion, he just went on to claim I had said something which I never did and has continued to do so ever since, to great fanfare I might add.

So here's the ultimatum, nozz: You find just ONE post on Boards where I have cited that study and then went on to claim that it shows a fetus "WAS trying to talk" and I'll give €100 to the SSF within the week (or a charity of your choice if you prefer). Should be easy for you, seeing as you're so adamant I said it that you have shoehorned into thread after thread.

If you can't though, then I want an apology posted on this thread (a sincere one if at all possible).

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nozz, I have argued the 'how and why' many many times, as you well know. Suggesting I haven't is bizarre.

Oh, it's study on 'moving tongues' now is it. That's funny, cause a couple of months back (on a thread which you knew I no longer had posting privileges in) you decided to falsely claim (again) that I cited that particular study in the 'irrational' belief that the researchers had shown that a fetus in the womb "WAS trying to speak":

The above is completely made up by you but I'll tell you what, nozz, no point in me just saying you're lying and so I'll show that you are instead and also make you an ultimatum (in an attempt to try and prevent a drawn out back and forth on this).

But before that, a brief recap of what was actually said at the time:

So as can be seen here, nozz's immediate response to my precisely quoting one of the researchers of the study was met with the immediate suggestion I had made it up, and then when I gave him the source for the quote, instead of apologizing for the suggestion, he just went on to claim I had said something which I never did and has continued to do so ever since, to great fanfare I might add.

So here's the ultimatum, nozz: You find just ONE post on Boards where I have cited that study and then went on to claim that it shows a fetus "WAS trying to talk" and I'll give €100 to the SSF within the week (or a charity of your choice if you prefer). Should be easy for you, seeing as you're so adamant I said it that you have shoehorned into thread after thread.

If you can't though, then I want an apology posted on this thread (a sincere one if at all possible).

Just speaking for myself here it’s clear you want an audience for this spat but can it go to PM? Genuinely disinterested.

gormdubhgorm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I never once moaned about being shouted down I moaned about the attitude.

I am not scaremongering I am looking at what a future Ireland will be like based on the twists and turns other countries have taken.

Ireland always follows other countries eventually.

My views may be nonsense to you fair enough but those are my reasons.

I get when women have traumatic pregnancies so they will want to avoid but there is cohort who will now have abortions as a lifestyle choice

Gender based and so on there can be myriad of reasons...

Do people not want to think ahead or what?

The yes side are going to split between the far yes and moderates who will win?

After the future legislation will be amended there will be many more 'as amended' in future based on court cases interpretation by the judiciary etc

But no.... its "progress"

:eek:

gormdubhgorm

Billy86 wrote: »

All of this has been covered and put to you just yesterday, but you've been too busy simultaneously claiming those that disagree with you are arrogant and "look for laughs" while at the same time showing ungodly levels of arrogance yourself.

And now here you are fobbing off and outright mocking what I have told you that I get to see in my job every day as a result of unwanted pregnancies. Just like you want to fob off pregnancy as "just a few months of a bit of pain" yesterday.

Yet it's the other people that are arrogant, not you at all... classy. Really classy.

That post you linked was a good post in fairness (did not see it till now good arguments at least).

You have to admit that your previous post about "disabled suicidal children" made very little sense except maybe in your head?
It came across that only disabled children and drug addict children have suicidal tenancies.

As for that previous comment it might have come across as factious....
but there are bound to be some women who just have a low pain tolerance and make a drama out of it in contrast to those who did have difficult births.

SusieBlue

All those here bemoaning the eradication of DS and other chromosomal syndromes, who in their right mind while pregnant hopes for their child to have a condition that will affect their health, cause them pain and limit their opportunities?
I'll help. No one.

Yes, most people who get the diagnosis for their baby embrace it and it doesn't bother them and it makes no difference to their love for their child.
And that's wonderful.
But nobody wishes it for their child. And if any parent could choose, they would choose to have a healthy baby.

I truly hope we one day live in a world where none of those syndromes exist. And not through abortion, with some sort of race supremist agenda, or because I wish people with DS were dead, or whatever other hyperbole the naysayers are going to come up with.
I just hope that medical sciences advances to the point where conditions like that are curable in utero.

I presume all these people on their high horses will be first in the queue to adopt a child with a disability or special needs.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nozz, I have argued the 'how and why' many many times, as you well know. Suggesting I haven't is bizarre.

Except you really have not. You might want to call things I say irrelevant because you can not rebut them but that does not make them irrelevant. Suggesting it does is bizarre.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh, it's study on 'moving tongues' now is it. That's funny, cause a couple of months back (on a thread which you knew I no longer had posting privileges in) you decided to falsely claim (again) that I cited that particular study in the 'irrational' belief that the researchers had shown that a fetus in the womb "WAS trying to speak": The above is completely made up by you but I'll tell you what, nozz, no point in me just saying you're lying and so I'll show that you are instead and also make you an ultimatum (in an attempt to try and prevent a drawn out back and forth on this). But before that, a brief recap of what was actually said at the time:

By all means recap what was said and maybe read the quotes closer before you distort it so badly. I will bold the part you have left out to help you along. "The emotional and unwarranted response of the boards user to this was to react to that as if the fetus actually WAS trying to speak.".

At no point did I claim, as you have falsely suggested here, that you claimed the study has shown the fetus was trying to speak. I claim you reacted to it emotionally in that sense. The words "as if" are mightily important but you simple parse them out for your own agenda. So you can pocket your little ultimatum. I do not have to prove a point I never once actually made.

Though in the thread in question you were entirely reticent in clarifying why you had cited the study at all, what relevance you thought it has to the discussion in question, or what point you thought citing it actually made. You have continued to be reticent in this regard since. Maybe you will finally chose today to clarify that point? So here is the simple question: In relation to the subject of abortion what relevance to you thing tongue movement in response to audio actually has?

The simple fact is that while falsely, and without substantiation, accusing others of irrelevancies the only source of irrelevancy has been you. As you continue to rely in post after post after post on referring to what the fetus looks like, what parts of it move, and similar in some empty attempt to appeal to the emotions of people you have no reasoned arguments to target with.

And, as the result of the referendum shows, that tactic simply fell flat. And it continues to. Showing us little fingers and moving tongues simply has not had the effect on anyone but yourself that you seemingly want it to have. So indeed you are right when you say "no point in me just saying you're lying" because the simple fact is, I have not done so. At all.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So as can be seen here, nozz's immediate response to me precisely quoting one of the researchers of the study was met with the immediate suggestion I had made it up, and then when I gave him the source for the quote, instead of apologizing for the suggestion, he just went on to claim I had said something which I never did and has continued to do so ever since, to great fanfare I might add.

Nope, it is once again you lying here not me. Read AGAIN what you yourself just quoted. I asked whether it was from them OR had you just made it up. You have decided to focus on the latter, ignoring the former, so that you can spin that into something it simply was not and demanding an "apology" for something that simply never happened and claim moral high ground you simply do not have.

Whether you personally like it or not "Is that X or is that Y" is a perfectly valid and defensible sentence structure. The dishonesty solely lies in you focusing on half of it to make it into something it is not.

Overheal

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

As for that previous comment it might have come across as factious....
but there are bound to be some women who just have a low pain tolerance and make a drama out of it in contrast to those who did have difficult births.

Yeah I never heard you mention it and I would like it mentioned, as many of the women contributing here have been quite personal and candid with their own experiences:

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

As I have said in my original post in this thread I have suffered my far share of physical pain and I got over it.

Do you mind sharing your story of physical pain? Perhaps it will inspire pregnant women to get over the cramps and contractions and the watermelon shooting out of their cervix.

gormdubhgorm

SusieBlue wrote: »

All those here bemoaning the eradication of DS and other chromosomal syndromes, who in their right mind while pregnant hopes for their child to have a condition that will affect their health, cause them pain and limit their opportunities?
I'll help. No one.

Yes, most people who get the diagnosis for their baby embrace it and it doesn't bother them and it makes no difference to their love for their child.
And that's wonderful.
But nobody wishes it for their child. And if any parent could choose, they would choose to have a healthy baby.

I truly hope we one day live in a world where none of those syndromes exist. And not through abortion, with some sort of race supremist agenda, or because I wish people with DS were dead, or whatever other hyperbole the naysayers are going to come up with.
I just hope that medical sciences advances to the point where conditions like that are curable in utero.

I presume all these people on their high horses will be first in the queue to adopt a child with a disability or special needs.

Unfortunately the more severely disabled children (if they reach adulthood) are normally put in homes when thier parents die.

On the other end of the coin there are many disabled people who live happy fulfilling and successful lives.

ELM327

Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: »

66% voted to repeal the 8th.

I think if you asked the question: "Do you agree with the idea of abortion based on the gender of the baby?", you'd get a seriously different answer.

Yes you may.

But if asked the all encompassing question of "do you agree with abortion on demand - without any reason" a majority still said yes.

I would - for what its worth - answer your question stating NO. "Do you agree with the idea of abortion based on the gender of the baby" as I do not agree with the idea. But I support a woman's right to choose. And I would still vote for abortion on demand (with no term limits or any restrictions) as it's a woman's choice and not that of the general populace. This illustrates the importance of choosing neutral sentences that do not lead the public to answer negatively, as yours certainly would. You'd get the answer you want, but it wouldn't empirically prove your point and would be as such moot.

Frankly I think it's disgusting that we still attempt to enforce incubation on women after the 12 weeks but that's another story. Coming from the pre-repeal situation, a liberal abortion on demand scheme up to 12 weeks is a vast exponential improvement.

gormdubhgorm

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah I never heard you mention it and I would like it mentioned, as many of the women contributing here have been quite personal and candid with their own experiences:

Do you mind sharing your story of physical pain? Perhaps it will inspire pregnant women to get over the cramps and contractions and the watermelon shooting out of their cervix.

No I won't because it is NOT ABOUT ME or MY body.

It would veer way off topic... and I would have to give a whole "this is your life" back story.

Outlaw Pete

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.

Sigh. Yet again, nozz, you obfuscate on a very simply point.

The user spoke of a handful of AH posters and said they found it a bit rich for them to be against repeal given that they were at the least risk of dying because of the eight and so I posted examples of many women that were all against repealing the eight, pointing out that they can't be so easily dismissed with a disparaging remark such as '3 men and a nun' given that they were all women of a child bearing age.

It's that simple. That they were outvoted or that need to go back to the drawing board, etc etc, doesn't in any way negate my point, which again was: that they can't be so easily dismissed with a disparaging remark such as '3 men and a nun'. Their views can be dismissed alright, but not with that particular trite remark.

ohnonotgmail

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No I won't because it is not about ME or MY body.

It would veer way off topic... and I would have to give a whole "this is your life" back story.

you're right it isn't about you or your body. It is about somebody elses body that you think you should have control over.

nozzferrahhtoo

SusieBlue wrote: »

All those here bemoaning the eradication of DS and other chromosomal syndromes, who in their right mind while pregnant hopes for their child to have a condition that will affect their health, cause them pain and limit their opportunities?
I'll help. No one.

I agree. I think the focus from the "no" camp on things like DS had a different agenda. I very much doubt that they actually have any issue with a future where no one actually has DS.

No, I suspect their agenda with DS was what the posters showed us. To misconstrue it as an attack on EXISTING people with DS. With these "dont abort me" and "I am a child not a choice" type narratives.

All they wanted was to show EXISTING people with DS, and distort abortion into a desire not to terminate a fetus, but to kill those existing people.

As tactics go it was not the lowest we saw employed by them over the campaign, but it was not far off.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sigh. Yet again, nozz, you obfuscate on a very simply point. The user spoke of a handful of AH posters

What do I care what "the user" spoke of?

I was replying to you, not them. I was replying specifically to the question of "what about the people who voted no" and I am giving exactly my opinion on those people.

If you want to reply to "the user" then do, no one is stopping you. But they have nothing to do with me or my point to you.

Overheal

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No I won't because it is not about ME or MY body.

It would verve way off topic and I will have to give a whole back story.

So in other words, you don't feel that sharing the story will reinforce your position in any way. Grand.

As someone earlier in the thread said, I don't even think a swift daily kick to the nutsack would really quite make up for the 24/7/274 involuntary cramps, swells, sprains, regurgitations, and other countless things involved in a pregnancy. I imagine, then, your experience must fall somewhere beneath that, ergo it's very silly of you to try to suggest to women they should just 'get over it.'

As for whether or not pregnancy is for everyone, my own soonish to be fiance' (shh) will most likely never go through a pregnancy because of severe Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), which that alone puts her at risk of complication and death during delivery, nevermind the likelihood of being on 7+ months of bed rest which only complicates medical matters even farther. Under the 8th, though, that still wouldn't be cause in and of itself to terminate. The Irish law would have seen her go through months of a futile pregnancy and risk her own life and health just to demonstrate the futility of the exercise. It's not simply a matter of "get over it" like it's a broken leg or a cyst on your testicle.

Back on to other topics, I'd still like to know what personal logic you use that works in both cases: that abortion should be enshrined in the constitution but not matters related to alcohol, when alcohol demonstrably kills at least a thousand a year by several gruesome means, including the death of other living persons by way of vehicular manslaughter along with domestic violence etc. ?

gormdubhgorm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you're right it isn't about you or your body. It is about somebody elses body that you think you should have control over.

I do not wish to control them they have the control after they deliever the baby.

Ideally for me it would be:

They can adopt it to any family they choose if unwanted.

They also have the control to be more careful to avoid unplanned unwanted pregnancies in future.

I am not stopping that.

I am not controlling nature when a fetus is forming and decide to dump it.

I don't believe in controlling that unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary

Simple as that.

But those days are gone now.

So now it is the hands of the legislators now which worries me...as there will be competing agendas.

At the back of my mind the irony never escapes me, that some of those who voted yes may have been unplanned and / or unwanted pregnancies themselves!

Amuses me a bit.