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; } } }

Child Item

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

Quick Links

Comments

RasTa

33990131_10157477090767166_5195258927335342080_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=042392ecaa21449a56bd34b796cf5aa9&oe=5B825315

Crea

sabat wrote: »

I would like to see a ban on determining gender in the womb-there are over 100 million females missing from the population of the world due to selective abortion.

Not an issue here. Genitals cannot be differentiated at 12 weeks.

Fighting Tao

Who's their artist? I could do with portrait of myself.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ArmaniJeanss

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Who's their artist? I could do with portrait of myself.

At the same scale your portrait would be as tall as the Stay Puft Monster in Ghostbusters.

Fighting Tao

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

At the same scale your portrait would be as tall as the Stay Puft Monster in Ghostbusters.

Hmm...might be a bit big. I'll might just have to go for the head only. It might fit on the side of liberty hall then.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Fighting Tao

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Get rid of all the **** by banning ****! :pac:

Walter Bishop

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

New? That's been their 'tactic' in perpetuity.

Captain Obvious

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Same crap different day on these threads. Can someone not provide a valid point from the No side that might make a few of us go "oh, we never thought about that"? You've had tonnes of times to think of just one thing!

But you fundamentally disagree on the main issue. You don't believe a human life exists and the No side does. And you don't sound like that's a position you would change so what debate are you looking for?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What exactly have the pro-life side to fight for?

The legislation for one. Make it as narrow as possible.

Neyite wrote: »

No, it wasn't a joke. I was explaining to someone who will never experience a pregnancy as a result of rape what it might be like finding out you are carrying your rapists baby.

A pregnancy is parasitic. A parasite is an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. That's what happens during pregnancy like it or not. The baby will get the nutrients first and the mother gets whatever is left over the extent of which is too long to list here but to give you three easy ones, the pregnancy is capable of softening ligaments, dental decay, and eyesight deterioration.

Not all parasites are gross. Mistletoe is lovely for example.

But you didn't compare it to mistletoe, you compared it to a hostile alien parasite, a comparison which is as scientifically inaccurate as it is unnecessarily inflammatory.

Wrongway1985

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

This thread has been styled as a post referendum discussion forum.
But in reality it seems like a "Yes Voters love in lets slap each other on the back forum."

The second poster got 93 likes for saying "I voted yes it was the easiest vote ever."

1779 Yes/410 No...in the poll at the top it's been pointed out there is more Yes than No here on more than one occasion...In Reality that was the case too as evidenced by the result over 66% of the country.

People will like posts as they support where it's coming from oh some poster got 93 likes boo hoo everyone else must have been wrong! I'm sorry your fellow No voters didn't come back to like your posts I really am :pac:

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Ok I will sumarise what I learned from this thread:

[
The use of terminology is odd much like "collateral damage" (which I used deliberately in another post for this reason) It is used military campaigns to distance themselves what is actually happening a de-humanisation. If people are dehumanized cleansing of a "problem" is far easier.
For example the phrase "right to choose" is wonderfully vague sounding and harmless. It creates a distance between the act itself and the planning of it.
A neat mental compartmentalisation

It wasn't vague and it's not as simple as the MY body MY Choice ME ME ME You keep banging on about. As a fella it can't be my body would I like afford choice to a woman falling pregnant in difficult circumstances? Absolutely.
====

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Many yes voters can seem to conveniently ignore that there is human life form inside them. (heartbeat, fingers toes irrelevant - I want it out of my body)

It's not convieniently ignored, how could it be? been rammed home here often enough it's the ending of life. I'm aware of that.

====

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It has nothing to do with human life it does not exist (like the yes posters prove)

The posters had an affect on only 20% of the public. Why would potential life be part of the Yes campaign? The onus was to be with those who can generate it.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If you do not share this viewpoint you are controlling women, apparently -
Even though the woman has control already in various other aspects and other alternatives.

There is no mention of any say a male partner may have in the issue, he has no right whether to decide to have a child or not. 100% of the say rests with the woman and the woman only. joint decisions of loving couples do not seem to exist in the narrative.

There's no apparently about it ideally if I'm not mistaken you want to force pregnancy no ifs or buts! I don't get the various other aspects point you are trying to make us this to suggest the rights should be incapacitated once pregnant? What alternatives?

Loving couples would consult and confide in each other but ultimately yes the woman would be the prime decision maker. You aware aware men can't get pregnant,yes?
====

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If you are a man who voted no in this referendum you are anti-woman. -That is seen as a logical conclusion by many.

In response to some of the stuff posted of course that conclusion was reached not an assessment of all - but when some say ok an abortion can be granted but womb must be removed as a deterrent and rape victims must come before commiittes to assess if there is truth! These opinions do not strike me as female friendly.

====

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If you are a woman who voted no in this referendum you are only slightly better then the man who voted no (this was said by a moderator). - This is a very telling comment to the mindset of some yes voters.

People can vote whatever way they saw fit down to their beliefs or inability to walk in the shoes of others also will add you don't actually have to be male to be misogynistic you know :pac:

====

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Some yes voters vehemently claim there is no regret after abortions - so I suppose there is no need for conselling then in that case? - sure it will be grand

Ya a claim backed up by statistics. If one is to regret they are responsible for their decision. Free counselling was available here to those who got abortions elsewhere prior to last Friday's decision.
====

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Some women do not like abortions and see it as a last resort, having gone through traumatic pregnancies in the past.

Who the f likes abortions??
====

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Others see it a lifestyle choice in furtherance of the women's liberation movement - the me generation - the kind who view no voters as "slut shaming" to use thier terminology. (It is for those I referred to them as treating pregnancy like a pimple on the @rse - there is no talking to that cohort of yes voters)

Nope shaming was used as the law of the land ignored and we allowed them do as they liked as long as they did so in the dark humiliated with no support.

====

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If a person voted no they are backward / out of touch

====
If a person voted yes they are modern and forward thinking

Oh here I can agree, a lot of discussion hinged on the big bad UK don't be like them but just coz it was the nearest destinations it was made out a lot that abortion was nearly exclusive to there when it wasn't, it was throughout Europe and beyond. Only country in Europe left now is Malta who only legalized divorce in 2011...backward? I'd say so.

====

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Any thoughts about where this will lead in 10 / 20 /30 years time is scaremongering - downs sydrome, designer abortions etc

====

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

About 30% of the country voted incorrectly - they should be quiet and let the yes side continue with the back slapping.

No let's work together to keep the rates down. At least we didn't sweep it under the rug by retaining the eighth.

====

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Changing adoption laws and fostering is not seen as an alternative - women do not see it as good thing to go full term - then hand a child to someone who wants it. - The reply is always a cliched vessel comment.

Adoption a great topic of discussion this week.

====

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Any no voter who posts on this referendum thread is a sore loser. - As if it was a game to be won and lost.

It wasn't a game no but it was to be won with effort of course it was.

Fighting Tao

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But you fundamentally disagree on the main issue. You don't believe a human life exists and the No side does. And you don't sound like that's a position you would change so what debate are you looking for?

I am looking for one little (truthful) fact that would make me say...Hmm..they might be onto something here.

mcmoustache

tretorn wrote: »

The incidence of babies born with disabilities will go down but the upside is less money needed for special education and medical care needs.
Any disability that can be diagnosed in the womb will be dealt with, hence the almost eradication of DS in the UK and other European countries, its a matter of personal choice so why shouldnt I abort whoever I like. If you try and stop me I will say I am suicidal and then get my abortion anyway, you can all look the other way if that makes you feel bad, its my body, my choice.

Of all the concerns provided by the No side, the Down Syndrome on is one that I can sort of understand. Some people are more badly affected by it than others. Some sufferers can lead fairly normal and often successful lives while others need full time care. Sex selection is also a legitimate concern but neither of these is a strong enough reason to hang onto the 8th.

nozzferrahhtoo

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But you fundamentally disagree on the main issue. You don't believe a human life exists and the No side does. And you don't sound like that's a position you would change so what debate are you looking for?

That is a line we hear often in debate, where the person who can not make a good point instead launched assumptions and assertions that the other side are not likely to change their position.

Rather than make such assumptions however, I prefer to try and ask them what they require to change their position. How is their position falsifiable. Do they even know themselves?

You will rarely, I hope never, find me merely declaring to them that I know them better than they know themselves, and I know they are not open to having their position change. Not even by washing it down with diluting qualifiers like "dont sound".

I for one know EXACTLY what it would require to change my position on abortion. It is simply a two step process:

1) Come up with a new or existing term, like "Human Life" and offer a definition of the chosen term that offers a coherent and defensible basis for affording anything that fits that definition.... rights.

2) Show that a fetus at, say, 10 weeks (by which the vast majority of abortions occur) fits the definition offered in 1).

Simples. That is all that it would require to change my position and I am MORE than open to changing my position. The simple fact however is that no one is doing 1, and certainly absolutely no one is doing 2.

mcmoustache

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I am looking for one little (truthful) fact that would make me say...Hmm..they might be onto something here.

The problem there is that they were coming at this from a religious angle and then had to come up with non-religious reasons in an attempt to sway people while hiding their true reasons. This meant that a lot of what they said was often misinformed and false.

I believe that there are some genuine concerns, though. It's just that they're not being communicated very well and it will be hard to communicate these concerns going forward given the dishonesty that we saw earlier in the campaign.

Cupcake_Crisis

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Get rid of all the **** by banning ****! :pac:

You will do no such thing :mad:

Fighting Tao

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

1779 Yes/410 No...in the poll at the top it's been pointed out there is more Yes than No here on more than one occasion...In Reality that was the case too as evidenced by the result over 66% of the country.

People will like posts as they support where it's coming from oh some poster got 93 likes boo hoo everyone else must have been wrong! I'm sorry your fellow No voters didn't come back to like your posts I really am :pac:

Total turnout: 64.13%.
Yes vote: 66.4%
No vote: 33.6%

21.49% of the total electorate voted No.
Therefore it is safe to assume that approximately* 78.51% of the electorate was in favour of repealing the 8th. Otherwise, the 35.87% that didn't vote would have voted.

These figures don't include the number of people who were eligible to be on the electoral register but didn't bother to register. They could be considered Yes voters too because if they weren't then they would have registered and voted No :P

*use of the word approximately to allow for those who were unable to vote due to being sick, on holiday, etc.

sabat

fxotoole wrote: »

If only we had a link to this report so we could understand the context of this 200 million figure

https://www.unfpa.org/gender-biased-sex-selection

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-lost-girls-it-seems-that-the-global-war-on-girls-has-arrived-in-britain-9059610.html

I can't see how anyone who argued for abortion as a woman's right could have a problem with taking preventative legislative measures to prevent this happening here.

OldNotWIse

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Total turnout: 64.13%.
Yes vote: 66.4%
No vote: 33.6%

21.49% of the total electorate voted No.
Therefore it is safe to assume that approximately* 78.51% of the electorate was in favour of repealing the 8th. Otherwise, the 35.87% that didn't vote would have voted.

These figures don't include the number of people who were eligible to be on the electoral register but didn't bother to register. They could be considered Yes voters too because if they weren't then they would have voted No :P

*use of the word approximately to allow for those who were unable to vote due to being sick, on holiday, etc.

??

Why are you assuming that people who didn't vote were Yes? So you think the Yes side was represented by The Yes votes PLUS those who didn't vote, and the No side was represented by those who voted No? That's some fancy mental gymnastics...

Fighting Tao

sabat wrote: »

https://www.unfpa.org/gender-biased-sex-selection

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-lost-girls-it-seems-that-the-global-war-on-girls-has-arrived-in-britain-9059610.html

I can't see how anyone who argued for abortion as a woman's right could have a problem with taking preventative legislative measures to prevent this happening here.

Sorry, but where is the infanticide?

Fighting Tao

OldNotWIse wrote: »

??

Why are you assuming that people who didn't vote were Yes? So you think the Yes side was represented by The Yes votes PLUS those who didn't vote, and the No side was represented by those who voted No? That's some fancy mental gymnastics...

If the no side are are doing mental gymnastics (as you put it) by claiming that 33.6% of the population voted no then I can claim otherwise! Why, because I can make up figures too. I'm just highlighting a point that may have been too subtle regardless of having a sticky out tongue face included.

What is fact is:
Total turnout: 64.13%.
Yes vote: 66.4%
No vote: 33.6%
21.49% of the total electorate voted No. That is not even 21.49% of the total eligible to register to vote.

tretorn

mcmoustache wrote: »

Of all the concerns provided by the No side, the Down Syndrome on is one that I can sort of understand. Some people are more badly affected by it than others. Some sufferers can lead fairly normal and often successful lives while others need full time care. Sex selection is also a legitimate concern but neither of these is a strong enough reason to hang onto the 8th.

Absolutely but why not accept that abortion will lead to a fall of the numbers of people born with disabilities. Why would we be any different to other countries where people have a choice. The only babies born with Down syndrome in Iceland for example are the ones who were missed in the screening which is provided by the State.

This disability can now be picked up by nine or ten weeks and then it takes another week or ten days for the foetal sample to be sent to the States for confirmation that Down syndrome is a definite conclusion. There are no questions asked up to twelve weeks so why on earth would a child with a disability have greater protection than a child without a disability, this doesnt make sense. At the moment over 50% of children with this disability are referred by hospital staff to the UK for termination. This number will for up for definite once the consultant can hand over abortion pills there and then.

I was wondering about FFA. Someone was on from the a maternity foetal unit the other day talking about referring women with FFA every single day to Liverpool, that seems a lot of pregnancies with FFA. Are children with Down syndrome included in the FFA figures, that wasnt made clear.

Anyway we are spending billions on special needs education and abortion will definitely mean money can be saved there, Leo and Simon know this and thats why they are suggesting providing abortion at no cost.

gctest50

tretorn wrote: »

.............
abortion will definitely mean money can be saved there, Leo and Simon know this

and thats why

they are suggesting providing abortion at no cost.

Fighting Tao

tretorn wrote: »

Absolutely but why not accept that abortion will lead to a fall of the numbers of people born with disabilities. Why would we be any different to other countries where people have a choice. The only babies born with Downs syndrome in Iceland for example are the ones who were missed in the screening which is provided by the State.

This disability can now be picked up by nine or ten weeks and then it takes another week or ten days for the foetal sample to be sent to the States for confirmation that Down syndrome is a definite conclusion. Whats to stop someone travelling with the blood sample to the States, having it confirmed that the child has this disability and then flying back from the States to have the termination carried out. There are no questions asked up to twelve weeks so why on earth would a child with a disability have greater protection than a child without a disability, this doesnt make sense. at the moment over 50% of children with this disability are referred by hospital staff to the UK for termination. This number will for up for definite once the consultant can hand over abortion pills there and then.

I was wondering about FFA. Someone was on from the a maternity foetal unit the other day talking about referring women with FFA every single day to Liverpool, that seems a lot of pregnancies with FFA. Are children with Down syndrome included in the FFA figures, that wasnt made clear.

Anyway we are spending billions on special needs education and abortion will definitely mean money can be saved there, Leo and Simon know this and thats why they are suggesting providing abortion at no cost.

My wife could have had tests that look for a multitude of issues. If found, we could have traveled to the UK for an abortion. We decided not to have the test in the first place. What makes you think that everyone will get tested and where is your evidence?

You do realise that if people wanted abortions last year they could easily get them? You are coming across like it is a case of NIMBY.

sabat

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Sorry, but where is the infanticide?

I said a figure of about 100 million due to selective abortion with the balance made up of other factors including infanticide-a quick google search will bring up mountains of literature on the subject.

Fighting Tao

sabat wrote: »

I said a figure of about 100 million due to selective abortion with the balance made up of other factors including infanticide-a quick google search will bring up mountains of literature on the subject.

So the balance is another 100m girls killed through other factors and infanticide? Compared to how many boys?

Igotadose

sabat wrote: »

I said a figure of about 100 million due to selective abortion with the balance made up of other factors including infanticide-a quick google search will bring up mountains of literature on the subject.

Exactly what law are you looking for? We don't need a law against infanticide. It already exists.

Fighting Tao

Igotadose wrote: »

Exactly what law are you looking for? We don't need a law against infanticide. It already exists.

It is a form of murder and regardless of who is murdered, it is covered by existing laws.

[Deleted User]

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you look at a users posting history you normally get an idea of if and how they can actually debate a point or just try to soap box etc.

The views some of the no posters on the thread on how Women are treated in other countries when complaining about people from these counties arriving in Ireland is interesting to say the least.

sabat

Igotadose wrote: »

Exactly what law are you looking for? We don't need a law against infanticide. It already exists.

In my original post I stated that I would like a ban on gender tests in the womb.