Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

BenEadir wrote: »

So the margin of error in an exit poll was 1.6%.

That could have meant 50.4% were in favour of abortion on request up to 12 weeks or that 53.6% were in favour. Both are majority decisions.

The exit poll overshot the actual result. The margin of error tends towards closing rather than opening the gap. Also, if you want to get technical about it, the actual margin of error was greater than the estimate margin of error. You're looking down the barrel of a minority for aor12

Not only have self declared christians

The OP queried whether a Christian could vote for unrestricted abortion. He didn't ask whether a self-defined Christian (which is another thing altogether, in the view of the OP) could vote for unrestricted abortion.

I have no problem with your assessment regarding self-declared Christians. But for the purposes of the OP, you're sunk.

Overheal wrote: »

You yourself called it the ”demonstrably accurate RTE poll” it looks awfully funny of you to recolor that now just to split hairs.

Demonstrably accurate in the context of someone saying "it's just a poll". I'm splitting hairs because some suppose a sliver of an advantage to mean a carte blanche.

If they want to persist in that view, then I'll split hairs more accurately and turn their argument against them.



I'd remind you that the only thing that is subject to a first past the post outlook (however narrow the majority) is the wording on the ballot paper. Outside that, it is reasonable to consider the views of the electorate on a proportional basis. Happens all the time.

Morbert wrote: »

antiskeptic, the RTE poll is an odd hill to die on.

The question boils down, I think, to how much of a democrat are you. If you leave your Yes hat off for a moment and look at this in terms of optimal democracy you find that ... it isn't and wasn't.

The vote was carried out with with knowledge of proposed legislation.

The vote was carried out in the knowledge of a balance of options. Retain the 8th or allow the Government to legislate. Tacked onto that is the Governments intent.

In rejecting the 8th, people aren't necessarily opting positively for the Government being able to legislate (they could, for example prefer a new, more liberal constitutional amendment still conferring rights to life of the unborn - with limited government control over legislation. But option wasn't presented to them. (leave aside whether or not that was possible - for we are looking at this "mandate" issue and how much a Yes vote gives positive mandate)




The only clear mandate the Government have, is for the words on the ballot paper. The mandate for the proposed legislation is a derivative of the ballot - relying on the fact it was pre-advertised.

But that mandate is weaker than the mandate on the ballot (Government allowed to legislate forever more). It is diluted because no direct connection can be made between the ballot and the electorates view of each piece of the proposed legislation. Remember that the legislation is split into two distinct groups. The group that will result in 5% of the abortion rate and a group that will represent 95% of the abortion rate.

In so far as a voter finds the proposal "government to legislate" positively attractive / least worst option, the electorate can go on to have a view on each element of the proposed legislation. Somebody can hate the proposed legislation, but hate the 8th more. In voting against the one, they are not approving the other.


The ballot-enabled mandate becomes a Trojan Horse for obtaining the derivative/diluted mandate. A mandate for carrying out the Governments own wishes. By making it impossible (when it didn't need to be impossible) for people to express on the proposals themselves, they insulted democracy.

It was a political stunt, perhaps a legal political stunt. But a stunt nonetheless

-

In so far as the RTE poll is ignored, you ignore, I think, the will of the people expressed at the only opportunity given for them to express it on the matter of the proposed legislation. You don't seem to mind that the government's proposals denied this expression and decry the only device where that expression outed, the RTE poll.

You want, one must conclude, aor-12 more than you want democracy. You are not, thus, a democrat. For a democrat prizes true expression and representation of the people - even if that means he doesn't agree with what they chose for. He would prize peoples getting to vote on what they want, rather than being restricted to voting on what the government wants them to vote on.


Clearly there are limits on this - you can't go to the nth degree to obtain perfect expression of the people. However, the government denied the electorate any expression on the elements of the proposed legislation by, like I say, a Trojan Horse (e.g. opinion on the 8th). This isn't just any old legislation, this was the topic of a generation.

A fail thus, at a very elemental level of democracy.