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

Loafing Oaf

Igotadose wrote: »

Pettiness from the RCC in NI: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/bridetobe-so-stressed-she-ended-up-in-hospital-after-priests-message-cast-doubt-on-ceremony-36977869.html

(personally I think they're overreacting - can't you get another priest to officiate- but if indeed the priest in question is withholding doing the ceremony because the couple are pro-choice, he should be de-frocked or whatever they do, reassigned to a war zone, whatever.)

There's a lovely little island, off the coast of Surinam and they have a couple of tribes there- you're going to love this!- and they have been knocking the **** out of each other since 1907! And we have never found the right man to bring them together in the spirit of Christian harmony, but I think that you, Fr Quigley, are the man!

spookwoman

ELM327 wrote: »

In fairness the quicker the public realise the controlling nature of the RCC (and other religions) the quicker they (religion) will die out.

Therefore I'm fully supportive of the priest

Have to agree with the priest here, it was the couples decision and choice to have their wedding in a church.
The church are doing a fantastic job with the referendum I don't think they have managed to alienate and turn so many people off them in such a short space of time ever

eviltwin

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Were you married in a church?
Are your kids babtised?
Did they make their communion?
Are they confirmed?
Do you regularly attend church occasions such as for taking these sacraments?
Or do you stay true to your church hating principles and stay well clear of the church?

I'm not expecting too many answers. Its possible to justify anything these days by hating the church. All I am expecting is even more faux outrage which if it could be harnessed would power Ireland for generations. The level of fake and likely hypocritical outrage is amusing at this stage.

I suspect I could summarize most answers as follows by the way:
I post on boards.ie saying I hate the church yet I attend significant church occassions. Once they are over I go back to hating the church.

No, registry office
No, they weren't baptised
No, they aren't Catholic
As above
Haven't set foot inside a church in about 15 yrs
I don't hate the church but I'd like them to stay in their lane and keep out of civil issues.

Igotadose

Some details from the anti-referendum legal proceedings. Seems there are 2 challenges, and we're at least a week away from these being cleared out by the courts due to the Bank holiday yesterday: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/two-court-challenges-initiated-to-abortion-referendum-result-1.3520188

Loafing Oaf

Achasanai wrote: »

Was anyone watching Anthony Hopkins's King Lear the other night?

I will have such revenges on you both,
That all the world shall--I will do such things,--
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth.

Zubeneschamali

Igotadose wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/two-court-challenges-initiated-to-abortion-referendum-result-1.3520188

If the summary there is accurate, there is no chance of Joanna Jordan's appeal lasting three years this time. Utter nonsense.

spookwoman

Igotadose wrote: »

Some details from the anti-referendum legal proceedings. Seems there are 2 challenges, and we're at least a week away from these being cleared out by the courts due to the Bank holiday yesterday: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/two-court-challenges-initiated-to-abortion-referendum-result-1.3520188

If they loose I hope they are made pay court costs for both sides

VinLieger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the summary there is accurate, there is no chance of Joanna Jordan's appeal lasting three years this time. Utter nonsense.

Her "evidence" is hilarious, no wonder shes representing herself

.......

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the summary there is accurate, there is no chance of Joanna Jordan's appeal lasting three years this time. Utter nonsense.

No, and my apologies to Mr Brophy for making assumptions.

She's representing herself, which usually means that no solicitor would touch it. Based on the article, all of her claims appear to be whispers and gossip, with no actual data or evidence to back it up.

The court will be eager to move these forward and out as quickly as possible.

spookwoman

seamus wrote: »

No, and my apologies to Mr Brophy for making assumptions.

She's representing herself, which usually means that no solicitor would touch it. Based on the article, all of her claims appear to be whispers and gossip, with no actual data or evidence to back it up.

The court will be eager to move these forward and out as quickly as possible.

Whispers and gossip that was mentioned here by 1 or 2
Hi Joanna if you are reading

SusieBlue

Her claims are of no surprise. Ciara Sherlocks latest FB live video is carcrash stuff, basically saying the scenes at Dublin Castle on May 26th were demonic celebrations of satan, implying the Yes side had assistance from the devil in their win.
It almost makes Joanna Jordans notions look normal and level headed.
They just cannot accept defeat.
They are blaming conspiracies, corruption, government interferance, the devil himself, literally anything except the fact that the majority of the public didn't support their disgusting campaign.

[Deleted User]

SusieBlue wrote: »

Her claims are of no surprise. Ciara Sherlocks latest FB live video is carcrash stuff, basically saying the scenes at Dublin Castle on May 26th were demonic celebrations of satan, implying the Yes side had assistance from the devil in their win.
It almost makes Joanna Jordans notions look normal and level headed.
They just cannot accept defeat.
They are blaming conspiracies, corruption, government interferance, the devil himself, literally anything except the fact that the majority of the public didn't support their disgusting campaign.

Any blame being placed on Google and facebook while posting on Facebook?

Shurimgreat

bubblypop wrote: »

What is it about rape cases that makes you believe they are not innocent healthy fetuses?

Excuse me? We were told we need the 12 week provision by Yes siders to deal with rape cases. I should clarify, abortion should be an option to raped women who want an abortion rather than forced on them. You knew that already though.
Don't see why this post was thanked by so many Yes siders by the way! Seems they are thanking a post that goes against their own views. Guess they will thank anything that's different to my view, even when it also differs to their own! Sad really.

Shurimgreat

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Same conversations repeated. One of the same participants.

Well why are you responding if you are so fed up? Maybe you should take heed of your own advice? No-one is forcing you to be on this thread or to reply to anyone. Generally I put people on ignore who I think have nothing new to say.

[Deleted User]

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Excuse me? We were told we need the 12 week provision by Yes siders to deal with rape cases. I should clarify, abortion should be an option to raped women who want an abortion rather than forced on them. You knew that already though.
Don't see why this post was thanked by so many Yes siders by the way! Seems they are thanking a post that goes against their own views. Guess they will thank anything that's different to my view, even when it also differs to their own! Sad really.

I'm genuinely interested in why people who are anti abortion will accept that it is OK in cases of rape?
I just wonder how they sort that out in their head?
Like, you, for example, how is it OK to abort an innocent healthy fetus which was conceived in rape, if you don't believe in aborting innocent healthy fetuses?

Shurimgreat

Achasanai wrote: »

I think this is because the only time for the last 35 years that the No side mentioned anything about targeted legislation was in the run-up to the referendum. 35 years and not a word. The only time that legislation was brought in was when the 8th amendment was shown to be a horrific and unworkable law, and these legislative acts were brought in by those on the Yes side. But please, by all means, tell us what targeted legislation you would have brought in (perhaps based on previous suggestions by the No side over the last 35 years).

This has been answered elsewhere on the thread.
35 years and nothing from the Yes side either.
Fine Gael and Fianna Fail who had the political power came up with nothing until Savita died and only then with the public outcry did they get interested.
So save us the nonsense.
The only ones with power enough to introduce a referendum was FG and FF. But they sat on their hands for 35 years.
Harris and Varadkar said there wouldn't be any new legislation or a referendum for another 35 years if this one was defeated. They are in government FFS. Shows you how much they care about getting it right. They were quite content to wait another 35 years. Except they weren't. They LIED.

erica74

SusieBlue wrote: »

Her claims are of no surprise. Ciara Sherlocks latest FB live video is carcrash stuff, basically saying the scenes at Dublin Castle on May 26th were demonic celebrations of satan, implying the Yes side had assistance from the devil in their win.
It almost makes Joanna Jordans notions look normal and level headed.
They just cannot accept defeat.
They are blaming conspiracies, corruption, government interferance, the devil himself, literally anything except the fact that the majority of the public didn't support their disgusting campaign.

As I've said before, can you imagine what the headlines and stories would have been like had the 8th not been repealed? The past week or so would have been absolutely unbearable.

We celebrated choice and freedom on 26 May, had the 8th not been repealed, there would have been absolutely nothing to celebrate.

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm genuinely interested in why people who are anti abortion will accept that it is OK in cases of rape?
I just wonder how they sort that out in their head?
Like, you, for example, how is it OK to abort an innocent healthy fetus which was conceived in rape, if you don't believe in aborting innocent healthy fetuses?

I asked that question many times across all the threads and it was never answered.

Shurimgreat

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Answers above. I am atheist and I took some difficult decisions in my early 20s (I am 49 now). It was tough going to be honest. Some of my family did not talk to me for years. I stayed the course though and things are quite different now. Now the excuses that non-believers give me for forcing their kids to do Roman sacraments disgust me. It's cowardice.

Good post. And I respect your courage and principles a thousand times more than those non believers who forced their kids to go through the sacraments.
I'm also glad things are changing and there's more tolerance for people of all religions and none.
I admire people who stay true to their principles through good times and bad.

Fighting Tao

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Well why are you responding if you are so fed up? Maybe you should take heed of your own advice? No-one is forcing you to be on this thread or to reply to anyone. Generally I put people on ignore who I think have nothing new to say.

If I stopped responding then you wouldn't be getting the same level of attention. I am a bit more tolerant than ignoring people left, right and centre.

Shurimgreat

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm genuinely interested in why people who are anti abortion will accept that it is OK in cases of rape?
I just wonder how they sort that out in their head?
Like, you, for example, how is it OK to abort an innocent healthy fetus which was conceived in rape, if you don't believe in aborting innocent healthy fetuses?

Read again what I said. I am in favour of giving rape victims the OPTION of having an abortion.
I am against the easy availability of abortion in this country for non hard case scenarios.
Sorry if I sound repetitive, no doubt someone will be along in a while to say that. But I am only answering the point you made.

Shurimgreat

Fighting Tao wrote: »

If I stopped responding then you wouldn't be getting the same level of attention. I am a bit more tolerant than ignoring people left, right and centre.

I am not here for attention. So get that idea out of your head.

This is a free country and a website where free speech is allowed. I make no apologies to you for saying what I want to say. So get used to it.

Fighting Tao

Igotadose wrote: »

Some details from the anti-referendum legal proceedings. Seems there are 2 challenges, and we're at least a week away from these being cleared out by the courts due to the Bank holiday yesterday: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/two-court-challenges-initiated-to-abortion-referendum-result-1.3520188

The examiner has it as 3 challenges: https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/two-separate-challenges-initiated-to-8th-amendment-referendum-result-847049.html

[Deleted User]

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Read again what I said. I am in favour of giving rape victims the OPTION of having an abortion.
I am against the easy availability of abortion in this country for non hard case scenarios.
Sorry if I sound repetitive, no doubt someone will be along in a while to say that. But I am only answering the point you made.

But, what I don't understand is why you give rape victims the option?
If you don't believe healthy fetuses should be aborted why is it OK if they were conceived in rape?
It's something I don't understand, just wondering if you can explain it

Graces7

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm genuinely interested in why people who are anti abortion will accept that it is OK in cases of rape?
I just wonder how they sort that out in their head?
Like, you, for example, how is it OK to abort an innocent healthy fetus which was conceived in rape, if you don't believe in aborting innocent healthy fetuses?

It is not, ever OK to abort a healthy foetus ( and all are innocent so stop with the emotionally overloaded terminology please). But at some point the suffering of the victim of rape becomes paramount, something that you of all people claim to understand? With huge reluctance.

Odd that you pick on that as you did on that we who abbhor abortion have no compassion, or maybe not... You won nothing and seemingly know that.

Sooner this thread dies the better. It is feeding wrong.

Goodnight! Try to ..

Fighting Tao

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I am not here for attention. So get that idea out of your head.

This is a free country and a website where free speech is allowed. I make no apologies to you for saying what I want to say. So get used to it.

Not true. Many have come a cropper with that belief. The dispute resolution and prison forums are testament. Sometimes quite entertaining to read too

The free country....it is getting freer with thanks to the referendum last week :pac:

Ineedaname

SusieBlue wrote: »

Her claims are of no surprise. Ciara Sherlocks latest FB live video is carcrash stuff, basically saying the scenes at Dublin Castle on May 26th were demonic celebrations of satan, implying the Yes side had assistance from the devil in their win.
It almost makes Joanna Jordans notions look normal and level headed.
They just cannot accept defeat.
They are blaming conspiracies, corruption, government interferance, the devil himself, literally anything except the fact that the majority of the public didn't support their disgusting campaign.

She also wanted to boycott Starbucks because they fund Planned Parenthood. In the past she's campaigned against adding Fluoride to the water and wanted to boycott the Late late toy show because it had no mention of christianity.

The woman is clearly not well so I wouldn't pay too much attention to her.

eviltwin

Ineedaname wrote: »

She also wanted to boycott Starbucks because they fund Planned Parenthood. In the past she's campaigned against adding Fluoride to the water and wanted to boycott the Late late toy show because it had no mention of christianity.

The woman is clearly not well so I wouldn't pay too much attention to her.

According to one of her posts Jesus came to her in a vision and told her the referendum was rigged.

She's really not all there and I think she should be left alone.

end of the road

erica74 wrote: »

As I've said before, can you imagine what the headlines and stories would have been like had the 8th not been repealed? The past week or so would have been absolutely unbearable.

i don't know tbh. i think business would have just gone on as usual. the rags (as in papers) would have forgotten it and moved on quickly IMO.

Igotadose

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The examiner has it as 3 challenges: https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/two-separate-challenges-initiated-to-8th-amendment-referendum-result-847049.html

My bad. 3 Challenges. IANAL, imo the last one from Tracey regarding the booklet, seems to at least not be insane like the stuff from Joanna Jordan. However, the referendum was about repealing the eighth not passing any other legislation. Whether someone can make a case about the government being misleading will likely be the question the judges will need to tackle. Or not, again IANAL and mostly unfamiliar with the workings of the Irish judicial system.