Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

Still doesn’t change how the country voted, and, it’s too late to include as a petition to the referendum even if we suppose your criticisms of the CA have merit.

Political distortion isn't a grounds for a challenge. They can bend things all they want politically and that's fine, legally. Which is to be expected really. I mean, if politicians couldn't skew things without ending up in court, then politics as we know it would grind to a halt.

Then the Dail will legislate. Simple as that.

This is a discussion on the nature of democracy - as it rolled out in the referendum. The question isn't whether the referendum can be overturned or whether legislation can be rowed back upon.

The question is whether a voter is happy being played like a fiddle - even if they like the tune the government have them dancing to.

uptherebels

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're what's known in the trade as a "marketeers wet dream". Dazzled by the packaging, you swallow wholesale the idea that what's inside will be the same.

You've not actually said anything btw. No argument for your position. Free vote? Which is best: maintaining the charade of a "people's referendum" or using the whip to force a vote you're going to win anyway? The gov had a win in the bag. The issue is how much they could cram into the bag. They had themselves, Labour, Sinn Fein and Mr. Martin and some independents. Why whip when you can pour..

Na marketeers don't like me cause I actually research my position not listen to soundbites or scaremongering. Logic over emotion.
I understood that a yes vote would mean a proposed legislation for abortion up to twelve weeks. As was everybody else as the government was very transparent on this. Kinda it said on the packaging. ;-)
The arguement for a yes vote and abortion up to twelve weeks has been given to you numerous times over this thread and others! Selective memory?
Charade? I was free to inform myself on the issue on hand and vote accordingly as was every other eligible voters and member of the government. That people didn't get fooled by the lies,half truths and scaremongering of the no side is hardly the fault of the government.

Overheal

No this is a discussion about abortion. Politics forum is that way.

uptherebels

antiskeptic wrote: »

Still of the opinion that the CA was representative? Still of the opinion that it was fit for purpose?

If you can't drink milk there's no point in moving onto meat with you.

And you deflect and deflect and still don't give an alternative

Turtwig

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is a discussion on the nature of democracy - as it rolled out in the referendum.

Mod:

Some overlap to politics is expected. Please keep in mind though there are probably more appropriate fora on boards to discuss this - and in much greater depth. This thread isn't really intended for it.

antiskeptic

It was shut down on the Politics forum. I was pointed to the Conspiracy forum.

Continue or desist?

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was shut down on the Politics forum. I was pointed to the Conspiracy forum.

Continue or desist?

Not to veer off topic here but you’re welcome to post it in CT. Like I said earlier your concerns are valid and intriguing and discussion by itself would be of some interest, but as it relates to this thread - to abortions, and abortion law to follow - I just think it’s pointless as it does nothing to change what happened or what will happen with these matters. But by all means as it’s own topic I think it’s interesting enough to land it’s own thread. There are some regulars and regular skeptics that would happily have a go at it with you that would make a great convo.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

Not to veer off topic here but you’re welcome to post it in CT. Like I said earlier your concerns are valid and intriguing and discussion by itself would be of some interest, but as it relates to this thread - to abortions, and abortion law to follow - I just think it’s pointless as it does nothing to change what happened or what will happen with these matters. But by all means as it’s own topic I think it’s interesting enough to land it’s own thread. There are some regulars and regular skeptics that would happily have a go at it with you that would make a great convo.

Thanks. But to me a conspiracy theory is exampled by the Twin Towers. A plane full of fuel heats steel to the consistency of play-doh, a heavy section above impacts on what's below and pancakes the building in a cascade of further impacts. Then a load of people come out of the woodwork with timed explosive idea.

The idea that the CA was skewed isn't new. Breda O'Brien highlighted a letter written by an accountant to the Irish Times a good while ago, pointing out the statistical nonsense: that another 99 people could be expected to arrive (assuming not lead by the nose) at an entirely different conclusion. There's plenty more of that concern, before the fact.

I'm not willing to label government manipulation of the electorate (which I don't think is particularly unusual, btw) as a conspiracy.

Call me a snob..

If it can't be in Politics (where it belongs) and it can't be here (where truth is nominally what it's all about) then I don't see a place at all for it.

Overheal

Then, neither do I. Though there’s plenty of discussion that goes on in CT that, occasionally, turns out to be quite founded (conspiracies do actually happen sometimes, you know). Ultimately though it certainly does strike me as odd not to label alleged plans to manipulate the electorate (and democracy) by people in the government a conspiracy, and/or a theory of said conspiracy.

Conspiracies range in validity from flat earth (comically weak) to operation north woods or watergate (actual and factual). We’ve had a Mary Boyle thread running for five years now with limited incident and seems to be an example of most people happily convinced of what might have happened.

Back on topic: roll on AOR12!

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Antiskeptic banned for one day for repeated breaches of the charter.

Please refrain from swearing on your return.

Thanks for your attention.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was shut down on the Politics forum. I was pointed to the Conspiracy forum.

This gives you a big hint about the mindset you have. Maybe take note of it.

Next you'll be claiming the moon landing was faked and the earth is flat.... These are the logical conclusions based on your evidence no dount
:rolleyes:

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

This gives you a big hint about the mindset you have. Maybe take note of it.

Next you'll be claiming the moon landing was faked and the earth is flat.... These are the logical conclusions based on your evidence no dount
:rolleyes:

The big difference between a C. Theory and this issue is that C. Theory's tend to arise after the event: twin towers brought down by the government / moon landings faked by the government.

Citizen's Assembly: a skewed, unfit for use device arose prior to the referendum. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how representative 99 people can be.

All you have to do, for a little political manipulation is not focus on how representative is. I mean a CA of 1 citizen is "representative" to some degree or other. So when Mary Laffoy says she is fully confident the CA is representative, she's not telling fibs. She might just be disingenuous.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

The big difference between a C. Theory and this issue is that C. Theory's tend to arise after the event: twin towers brought down by the government / moon landings faked by the government.

Well, naturally. You can’t have a theory about there being two shooters in Vegas before there is a shooting. If you knew that here was going to be a calamity..

That said it just seems late to start contesting the CA now (or again), imho. The abortion votes by the CA happened over a year ago, the campaigns carried on and to be fair the CA wasn’t exactly a big bugbear with the No campaign leading up to the referendum.

Plus if we are to fully disregard the CA or it’s proposeals you’d want to give up the entire body of work, which includes among other things reforms to the referendum process to make it even more democratic as you have argued for:

replacing the ad-hoc Referendum Commission with a permanent Electoral Commission, which would be "obliged to give its view on significant matters of factual or legal dispute that arise during a referendum campaign in the public domain (including on social media)"

giving equal public money to both sides in referendum campaigns, imposing spending limits for registered parties and advocacy groups, and prohibiting anonymous donations to these groups;
allowing multiple referendums on the same day, as at present; 41.7% preferred a maximum of two simultaneously

allowing for preferendums with more than two (yes/no) options; in which case 52% preferred single transferable vote would be used to determine the outcome

allowing citizens' initiatives for bringing questions either to the Oireachtas or to a referendum

the preferendum proposal in particular being more of what you seem to be arguing for, in general.

Carfacemandog

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Shocking, or perhaps not, how the pro abortion lobby got away with exploiting that poor woman Norma McCorvey[Wade] in the Roe vs Wade case, and how she never found out the full truth untill years later.

Quoting am old post because an interesting confession from this woman came out today...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52733886

The woman behind the 1973 ruling legalising abortion in the US is seen admitting in a new documentary that her stunning change of heart on the issue in later life was "all an act".

...

In her "deathbed confession", as she calls it, a visibly ailing McCorvey says she only became an anti-abortion activist because she was paid by evangelical groups.

"I was the big fish," she said. "I think it was a mutual thing. I took their money and they'd put me out in front of the cameras and tell me what to say.

"That's what I'd say. It was all an act. I did it well too. I am a good actress. Of course, I'm not acting now."