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

Apiarist

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

People who didnt like the brexit result want a second referendum.

Why wouldnt people who dont like the abortion result seek a second referendum.

Its equally absurd. I voted no.

There is a difference between the Brexit result (51.9% for Leave) and the abortion referendum result (66.4% for allowing it). In the former case, a re-vote may actually change the outcome.

Mr. Incognito

I respect anyones views.

I disrespect anyone seeking to foist their views onto others.

Raheem Euro

Not very impressive, just seven die-hards.
A cold snap should see the back of them.

biko

The people had their chance and voted according to what they think is best (right or wrong according to anyone's personal opinion doesn't matter)

orourkeda1977

victor8600 wrote: »

There is a difference between the Brexit result (51.9% for Leave) and the abortion referendum result (66.4% for allowing it). In the former case, a re-vote may actually change the outcome.

51.9% was enough to win.

The margin was irrelevant

gctest50

Sheeeeeeeeeeet wrote: »

They're entitled to protest.

They got their vote n lost badly - they need to get over it

Apiarist

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

What are ye at lads? ..

I think those must be some unemployed wasters. Don't they have a job to go to? Or kids to look after?

[Deleted User]

They should be allowed protest of course but I don't think directly outside a GP is appropriate in this case and they should be moved on

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Merged

McMurphy

Dafuq is Willy Frazer doing (3rd from the right) campaigning against abortion clinics down here.

dudara

They’re impacting everyone who is going to visit that GP practice. They don’t know who is going in to access abortion services. Imagine going in for a regular check-up or prescriptions and having to deal with that sh*te.

seamus

Raheem Euro wrote: »

Not very impressive, just seven die-hards.
A cold snap should see the back of them.

I guarantee you at least half these pricks are American students in NUIG doing philosophy or "Celtic Studies" paid for by their church back home.

SusieBlue

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

People who didnt like the brexit result want a second referendum.

Why wouldnt people who dont like the abortion result seek a second referendum.

Its equally absurd. I voted no.

If they don't like it, they aren't obliged to have one, they aren't compulsory.

They need to leave the women and couples who are attending clinics to procure a legal, medical procedure alone (not to mention the other patients attending for non abortion services) and stop harassing them.
They should start lobbying their TD's about the legislation if they are truly passionate about their cause.

I don't think that's the case though, they just seem to be out to harass and intimidate vulnerable people and feel entitled to shove their self entitled, irrelevant opinions on others.

PopePalpatine

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Dafuq is Willy Frazer doing (3rd from the right) campaigning against abortion clinics down here.

There's no hard border obstructing any women from NI attending our clinics, that's why.

NuMarvel

eagle eye wrote: »

I thought it was just a vote to repeal the law that was in place. I didn't need to read anything to know that it had to go.

Did it not occur to to you that if you repeal an old law, then there would probably be a new one to replace it?

I can understand if you're opposed to the specifics of the new law, but I'm at a loss to understand how you thought that there would be no change after the referendum. Particularly when you seem to agree that there had to be some kind of change afterwards.

ELM327

NuMarvel wrote: »

Did it not occur to to you that if you repeal an old law, then there would probably be a new one to replace it?

I can understand if you're opposed to the specifics of the new law, but I'm at a loss to understand how you thought that there would be no change after the referendum. Particularly when you seem to agree that there had to be some kind of change afterwards.

And the intended legislation was published in national media before the election

eagle eye

NuMarvel wrote:

I can understand if you're opposed to the specifics of the new law, but I'm at a loss to understand how you thought that there would be no change after the referendum. Particularly when you seem to agree that there had to be some kind of change afterwards.

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

ELM327

eagle eye wrote: »

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

There is nothing in the constitution except what you directly approved with your vote and written on the ballot paper.
"The state will legislate..."

NuMarvel

eagle eye wrote: »

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

This is what was inserted into the Constitution:
“Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.”

What's wrong with that?

volchitsa

eagle eye wrote: »

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

All that was inserted this time is a clause saying that the government is entitled to legislate to allow abortion. That was made necessary precisely because of the legal precedents created over 35 years of a constitutional ban, not all of which will have been voided with the removal of 40.3.3.

Mr. CooL ICE

eagle eye wrote: »

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

I call bullsh1t on this. I simply cannot believe anybody who voted could have been this ignorant on the topic.

The Referendum Commission distributed a leaflet to every single home in the country outlining exactly what the referendum entailed. Here is the copy in PDF format. See page 5:

On 25th May 2018 you are being asked whether or not to delete the present Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and replace it with a new Article.

The PRESENT Article 40.3.3:
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right. This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state. This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

The PROPOSED new Article 40.3.3
Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.

ELM327

NuMarvel wrote: »

This is what was inserted into the Constitution:
“Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.”

What's wrong with that?

Not to mention it was written on the ballot paper.
You don't have to be eagle eyed to read what is written on the page before checking the yes or no box!

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

Wasn't very responsible of you to vote without fully understanding what you were voting on.

eagle eye

NuMarvel wrote:

What's wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that.
I'm saying that I'm against abortion of a healthy fetus if the reason for it is irresponsibility.
As I've explained already there are plenty of drugs and other contraceptives available. Even after the fact you can sort yourself out before it gets to the stage that you are pregnant.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

eagle eye wrote: »

I did think there would be change but didn't think they'd insert something into the Constitution.

All that's in the constitution now is that the oireachteas (I.e. the dail and seanad) can legislate for the regulation of termination of pregnancy. They removed the constitutional right to life of the unborn, they did not insert a constitutional right to abortion or anything like that.

That is separate from the legislation, which allows for termination of pregnancy in the first trimester without distinction as to reason and under circumstances thereafter. That can be changed without a referendum, it's not in the constitution.

The wording of the amendment would have been right over that box you ticked in the polling booth, whatever about avoiding the media debate and missing the very widely broadcast details of the then proposed legislation, seriously probably read the actual voting slip in general. I mean sound for voting yes but I'm not even 100% sure you didn't accidentally vote no.

Mr. CooL ICE

eagle eye wrote: »

As I've explained already there are plenty of drugs and other contraceptives available.

Do you know what these drugs are and how they work?

eagle eye

amcalester wrote:

Wasn't very responsible of you to vote without fully understanding what you were voting on.

As it turns out now I was aware. I voted to repeal a law and nothing was put in it's place in the Constitution.

volchitsa

eagle eye wrote: »

As it turns out now I was aware. I voted to repeal a law and nothing was put in it's place in the Constitution.

So what's your problem then? It was made perfectly clear what legislation was planned for after a Repeal vote, wasn't it?

If it becomes clear that that legislation is throwing up problems, it can be changed. Because the detail of it is not in the constitution.

amcalester

eagle eye wrote: »

As it turns out now I was aware. I voted to repeal a law and nothing was put in it's place in the Constitution.

No, you weren't and it would appear that you are still not fully aware of what you voted for.

Not exactly being a responsible member of society now are you?

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with that.
I'm saying that I'm against abortion of a healthy fetus if the reason for it is irresponsibility.
As I've explained already there are plenty of drugs and other contraceptives available. Even after the fact you can sort yourself out before it gets to the stage that you are pregnant.

I'm sorry but its extremely frustrating to see the same ill thought out, throwaway "solutions" being suggested again and again as they were before the referendum.
"Just use a condom, Just put it put for adoption, Close your legs if you don't want a baby" et al were all trotted out repetitively before the referendum.

You suggested adoption as an option yesterday when you clearly have no knowledge of how adoption in this country even works, you have no answer as to why you think irresponsible people should be trusted to rear children they DO NOT want, you are happy to have these kids dumped in state care, and you clearly don't have a clue how contraceptives or the morning after pill works.

You care more about punishing irresponsible people than you do about the kind of lives these children will be born into.

Its a bit late in the day to be suggesting all these "alternatives" (that have all been proven unworkable) when your vote has already been cast and the outcome decided.
You really should have considered all this before May 25th.