Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Cabaal wrote: »

Actually seriously, what a term to use. It really shows a extremely dim, immature view towards women.

Women? Why would such a remark be limited to women? (Not that it doesn't accurately describe Miriam Lord writing in The Irish Pravda). Wouldn't that show a certain attitiude?

Delirium wrote: »

Would the proposed legislation be voted on before/after/parallel to the referendum?

If the gov didn't rig the game, then the rederendum wording and proposed legislation would largely reflect twotp. The referendum becomes a mandate for the whole shebang.

Once the gov decide to rig, then what ought to happen is irrelevant (unless it can be legally challenged)

A genuine c.a. could have established t.w.o.t.p.

RTE showed what can be achieved if you look for genuine representation

Delirium wrote: »

I still don't understand what we would be voting on in the referendum.




Would it still have been a repeal question or would it be an insertion of additional text, e.g. "abortion is permissible in case of rape, incest, FFA or on request up to 12 weeks"?

Assuming for the moment twotp is reflected in the exit poll ( which isn't quite the case - since the parameters being discussed throughout the campaign were bent by the c.a./joc and so led the electorate to consider shooting towards a particular goalpost. If a representative c.a. set the goalpost somewhere else and thats what the electorate would consider), then you would have the same ballot wording and proposed legislation reflecting the will of the people.

A different (less liberal) formulation in place of a.o.r.12. Perhaps no aor at all?

What do you think might sit in place of aor12 in light of the exit poll (page 130 of the exit poll breakdown that is)?

Delirium wrote: »

I'm really struggling to see how your proposal would work regarding the referendum.

I'm struggling to see why you see it as so difficult:

1. A representative C.A. finds appetite for difficult cases and far less appetite for aor12*.

2. The wording is the exact same as appeared the ballot

3. The proposed legislation is the same as it is now with respect to difficult cases. The proposed legislation on aor12 is different reflecting twotp per representative CA.

Yes ministers, Yes campaign, The Irish Pravda ... all campaign on that basis.

It places no legal requirement on government to act on the result. In much the same way abortion on request can be voted no in the Dail when legislation is proposed.

The above steps don't legally prevent the government deciding to introduce aor12 after the fact, despite the people having voted in a referendum for something a good way short of it.

Given them shouting "mandate!" from the rooftops, do you really suppose they would introduce aor12 in the face of a referendum mandate to do something a good way short of it?

Not a chance - for the "importance of mandate" shouted from the rooftops gives an indication of how important a mandate is. The government could have pulled their legislation out of their backsides - but that wouldn't fly. The importance of a mandate, on this particular issue, is reflected in their efforts to lead the electorate with a CA/JOC. That this referendum wording / proposed legislation stemmed from da people. A pre-mandate of sorts.



*not forgetting my point about the parameters of discussion being skewed by the CA/JOC in the first place.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

To me it seems perfectly reasonable for the government to say "our preferred path is blocked by the constitution, may we remove the barrier?" and letting the people decide on that. I don't see that there's any trickery involved in that method. That's the way the system is supposed to work if the government wants to do something which the constitution currently doesn't allow, whether that's an EU treaty or social issues.

1. It wasn't presented as the governments preferred path. It was presented as the peoples preferred path. This isn't any old piece of legislation. This is a sea change movement in society. And society is the decider on it, not government.

The government (and social liberalism activists like The Irish Times and the YES campaign) prove their recognition of that fact by:

- their attempts to pretend that this all stems from the will of the people.

- their not campaigning as a government, TD's and ministers allowed a free vote on it.

"This isn't from us, it's from you" they said.

Also the bit on the referendum ballot which said 'remove this clause, let the Oireachtas decide instead' couldn't really be more clear. You keep saying Trojan horse but I don't think that allegory works unless the Greeks wrote 'something inside, check before bringing in' on their gift.

It's a subtle usage. Give the electorate an all or nothing option. Wrap up what we want (aor12) with what they want (liberalization of abortion short of aor12)

Result: no mandate for aor12.

What do you see now? The same pretending. Pretending that the referendum result gives a mandate for aor12.

Delirium wrote: »

The voters were voting to repeal the 8th, that's it.

and allow the gov to legislate. Oh strictly legally, yes.

You'd want to talk to some of your buddies here though. Screaming from the rooftops that there is a mandate given for the legislation because people knew what they were voting for. Strictly there isn't. Practically politically there is. A technical mandate parlayed into actual mandate.

And the government/media is doing precisely the same. Screaming mandate / rush the legislation through asap / whipping td's into line.

It seems to me, Delirium, that you are intent on resting on some kind of technically-right argument. The kind of technical reasoning that mirrors the technical mandate obtained by the government. Your ignoring political realities: that the game is won using a variety of devices - not just what's strictly legal

You can suggest that the government has no mandate to legislate for certain scenarios regarding abortion, but that's not correct as the voters gave them a mandate for any legislation they decide on.

See post above. All or nothing. It needn't have been this way.

Your mixing up what the government were legally permitted to do (bend the electorate with tricks) with what serves democracy better.

That's what's at root here: how is democracy best served. Not some technical argument as to how the government managed to avoid serving democracy.

Delirium wrote: »

Read the post again, I said I see no problem with what was offered. I.e the "all or nothing" that we voted on is by no means undemocratic.

The 'all or nothing' presented turns out not to reflect twotp. "Undemocratic" is the wrong phrase. "Less democratic than it easily could have been" is the right phrase to apply.

The only insight into whether the "all or nothing" did or didn't reflect twotp is the exit poll. You might see no problem, but the exit poll begs to differ

Would you care to provide a template on how to answer your posts so as to avoid the suggestion of evasion?

Perhaps find agreement on fundamentals before inserting those into later elements of the argument facing you?

For example:

- do you accept the exit poll is an accurate representation of the will of the people on specific elements of the referendum package?

- do you accept that the Citizens Assembly couldn't be representative? That 100 people hadn't a snowballs chance in hell of being representative? That another 99 citizens (assuming no steering from outside) could have arrived at a substantially different conclusion which led to ballot wording / proposed legislation?

- if yes to the above, do you accept that the government would know beforehand that the Citizens Assembly couldn't be representative?

- do you accept that the government had, politically, to appear one-step-removed from the wording/proposed legislation?

volchitsa wrote: »

Not"undemocratic" then but just "less democratic"? Than what?
If the vote had been 2/3 for keeping the 8th, with an equivalent exit poll saying that under half thought the law was too strict, would you now have been arguing that it was necessary to find a way to loosen the legislation, maybe allow abortion up to 8 weeks?

You know you wouldn't.

a) we're dealing with page 130 of the exit poll breakdown. 33% (margin or error corrected) strongly to very very very strongly in favour of aor12. 66% somewhat in favour to dead against aor12.

b) what would or wouldnt be the case the other way around isnt the discussion under cobsideration. I was for liberalisation / against aor

volchitsa wrote: »

That's how politics works. Not by opinion polls.

The way politics worked was to prevent people voting specifically on aor12. It was wrapped up in an "all or nothing" presentation.

It needn't have been that way but was. Do you accept that it needn't have been -that the politicians could have given an all or nothing that better represented the view of the people?

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

If the proposed 12 week legislation is really such a massive non-mandated sea change and utterly abhorrent to a large percentage of the population (and you are implying that it is to around 33%, and of dubious preference to a further percentage)

Possession 9/10ths of the law. With good reason. People voting in elections don't vote on single issues. They very often vote on the economy, for example

The question is whether democracy was served or screwed over in the referendum. Not whether that can or can't be changed in the future.

I still genuinely don't get how anyone who goes on about mandates, percentages, democratic will of the people etc thinks that a multi generational blocker like the 8th was a good idea.

As we have seen, the government were out of the traps figuring out ways to change legislation under the 8th, once the referendum was over.

I think you ought to take with a pinch of salt, the claim that nothing could be done under the 8th. Indeed, if you conclude democracy screwed over, then all government claims regarding the limitations of the 8th or amendments to the 8th impossible, are suspect.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It needn't have been that way but was. Do you accept that it needn't have been - that the politicians could have given an all or nothing that better represented the view of the people?

Or to put it another way: what measure do you use to assess the politicians giving the people options that they wanted to have a vote on.

For if they could set the parameters to reflect the view of the people, but choose instead to limit the people so as to get their own agenda in, what would you think of that, as a democrat?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just seeing you and raising you, s'all