Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

laoch na mona

splinter65 wrote: »

They may have the right to go in and out of a church, churches are public places of course, but no priest is obliged to marry baptise or conduct a funeral mass for anyone at all, and they can and do refuse to do all these things, all the time .
Waving your baptismal cert in the air and demanding service doesn’t work.
I hope you understand that.

once you are baptised you are a catholic, being lapsed or indifferent about religion doesn't undo baptism

splinter65

....... wrote: »

Well, from my own experience priests used to refuse things when they actually held some kind of perceived power in the community. The usual trying to shame people, refusing to baptise children who were born out of wedlock for example.

These days theyd baptise you no matter your parentage so eager are they to keep the numbers up and justify themselves. The numbers are too low to be choosy.

Plenty of time for real catholics these days as a result.

I too would like to see churches only cater for "real" catholics as it would mean the end of the catholic church in this country within a few decades. However, for that very reason, you wont see it happening.

The Catholic Church survives and thrives as a minority in countries all over the world, for example in the UK.
I don’t know why you think a priest would baptise a child of non catholic parents. I guess you don’t know very much about the Catholic Church at all.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

The Catholic Church survives and thrives as a minority in countries all over the world, for example in the UK.
I don’t know why you think a priest would baptise a child of non catholic parents. I guess you don’t know very much about the Catholic Church at all.

Actually they can and have done so through out history, as there is nothing in cannon law stating that the parents have to be Catholic only that the parents consent to the child's baptism and will bring them up in the faith. Godparents must be baptised catholic and have received their first holy communion and confirmation. Other than this it's up to the priest to decide if they will perform the baptism or not.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19801020_pastoralis_actio_en.html

If your going to make statements about other people's knowledge of Catholicism perhaps check what your saying first.

As Splinter has me on ignore if anyone else wants to point this out to her fire away.

Turtwig

Mod:

This thread isn't really for discussing Catholicism per se. It is accepted there will be some overlap but please keep in mind the core subject matter when making your posts. This thread is for abortion, and the Christian theologies and ethics associated with it.

Thanks.

splinter65

laoch na mona wrote: »

once you are baptised you are a catholic, being lapsed or indifferent about religion doesn't undo baptism

Still doesn’t mean a priest has to match or dispatch you if you don’t meet the criteria or agree to the conditions.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Actually political pressure from the Pro-Life side brought about the Hyde Amendment. It prohibits federal spending being spent on abortion unless its in the case of rape or incest and the mothers life is in jeopardy.

This also hasnt stopped a lot of drives to make TRAP laws (look that up - red tape designed to legislate clinics into oblivion) and defunding clinic ops like Planned Parenthood that otherwise qualify for medicare medicaid and social security funds for providing services not directly related to abortion.

Thanks as I said my knowledge of your tax system is very limited. Have cousins over there but most times we talk/meet it's around family stuff not our different tax laws 😀

.......

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal

splinter65 wrote: »

The Catholic Church survives and thrives as a minority in countries all over the world, for example in the UK.

Your definition of thrive must be different to everyone elses so,given Christianity in general has seen a 10% drop in the UK since 2001.

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t know why you think a priest would baptise a child of non catholic parents. I guess you don’t know very much about the Catholic Church at all.

I do,
A few in fact,

If you don't know any none catholic parents who got their kid baptised then no offence but you must live in a bubble,

The only recent enough rejection of a baptism I've heard locally is the local priest refused to baptise the child of a unmarried mother, she just went to the next nearest church and that priests had no issue.

I also know of at least one couple who got married and when the priest asked if they did the marriage course the women replied she hadn't and wouldn't be and that she was only getting married in the church for her other half as she didn't believe in it. The priest married them anyway.

It seems the church has some big problems enforcing some of its basic rules, sort of makes you wounder are they capable of enforcing the more important stuff like child protection after their previous handling of children

splinter65

....... wrote: »

Because Ive attended such baptisms.

As for your snide comment, having been raised in the Catholic faith and attending a convent school where they beat us as children, I know more than I wish to know about the Catholic Church.

At least one of the parents has to be a catholic.
http://rathminesparish.ie/sacraments-a-services/2-uncategorised/64-why-baptism-some-general-pointers.
Anyway, the mod has said that this thread is gone off topic so if that link isn’t enough then I have no more to say.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

At least one of the parents has to be a catholic.
http://rathminesparish.ie/sacraments-a-services/2-uncategorised/64-why-baptism-some-general-pointers.
Anyway, the mod has said that this thread is gone off topic so if that link isn’t enough then I have no more to say.

The link you provided says generally one of the parents is a Catholic not that they must. so that would indicate as does cannon law and history that your post stating no priest will baptise a baby when the parents are not Catholic is factually incorrect.

.......

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic

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

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

52% in the poll said they were in favor of it. Don’t like it, run another poll.

antiskeptic

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

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

The vote was carried out with with knowledge of proposed legislation. Abortion rights are coming, and pro-life efforts to keep abortion rates low will be most effective if they are turned to ensuring social services are comprehensive enough to ease the worries of potential mothers fearful of their ability to raise a child.

Overheal

Morbert wrote: »

pro-life efforts to keep abortion rates low will be most effective if they are turned to ensuring social services are comprehensive enough to ease the worries of potential mothers fearful of their ability to raise a child.

Say it again!

I just wish this wasn't a satirical piece even if some parts of it are true.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2018/05/26/no-side-to-tirelessly-campaign-for-vulnerable-children-from-now-on/

antiskeptic

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.

The people were quite aware of what they were voting for as it was the largest turn out in the history of the state in terms of voter numbers since the referendum to join the then EEC, to state otherwise and that the options were undemocratic or a stunt is both disingenuous and a lie to put it politely.

The people know that the no campaign wanted no abortion in any circumstances, including rape and FFA, a stance echoed by a good number of the posters here and in other threads

The leadership of the no campaign during the final week of the campaign realised that people were not buying into their campaign based on a mix of false emotive and unfactual statements across all media formats, their stance on cases of rape and FFA along with the acts of groups such as the icbr also affecting their stance, tried to say that once the referendum went their way and the people voted no they would propose amendments to deal with cases if rape and FFA. The majority of the people seen this for what it was and they voted accordingly.

A good review of the vote in relation to breakdown etc.

https://adriankavanaghelections.org/2018/05/29/geographical-perspectives-on-the-may-2018-referendum-contest/

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

Pretty poor logical deductions there. Surely a democrat knows that when the majority of people (50.4~53.6%) Say they are in favor of AOR up to 12 weeks, then that is what should pass, surely. Democracy is after all the rule of the majority. The majority has spoken.

Even if you want to continue to die on this hill of yours, it stands to reason they could set AOR at 11 weeks and this would more than satisfy your belief in democratic majority rule.

Nobody is restricted here to 'voting on what the government wants them to vote on' - demonstrably, any Irish citizen can run to be a TD and introduce their own legislation, or they can go to their TD and have them sponsor legislation on their behalf. But either way you needn't worry: legislation will continue to be introduced, amended, and debated on this issue, so how does it make sense to pretend that democracy in Ireland is dying because you lost because more than 50% of people on an exit poll indicated they would be in favor of AOR at up to 12 weeks?

Seems like you're jumping the gun a bit. Heck, they haven't even formally signed the 8th out of the constitution yet, and you're yelling "no true democrat" at people already as if there is already 1st trimester abortion on request in Ireland.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

Pretty poor logical deductions there.

Lets look.

Surely a democrat knows that when the majority of people (50.4~53.6%)

1. Margin of error.

2. RTE overshot the split in the main yes/no question. Which direction might we begin to expect the +/- to apply?

3. What was the actual margin of error % (poll vs. result)? Ought we apply the theoretical or actual margin?

4. We have an indication, rather than a vote on a piece of legislation that will account for 95% of abortions. Its in the region of 50/50. More we can't say.

Would you be disturbed that:

- the process failed to seek to obtain a clear mandate on the most significant element of the legislation

- the process isn't interested in following up on the indication given by the poll?

Even if you want to continue to die on this hill of yours, it stands to reason they could set AOR at 11 weeks and this would more than satisfy your belief in democratic majority rule.

Whatever about the split, you're applying a first past the post thinking onto something that doesn't warrant first past the post application.

There was no vote on this particular piece of legislation. The only first past the post element involved is repeal vs allow government to legislate. You can begin to infer mandate for the proposed legislation (given its advertisement was included). But you have no direct fpp mandate for it.

Nobody is restricted here to 'voting on what the government wants them to vote on' - demonstrably, any Irish citizen can run to be a TD and introduce their own legislation, or they can go to their TD and have them sponsor legislation on their behalf.

No single citizen can ensure another sort of vote. That single citizen is confined to voting within the boundary the government sets. No citizen was given the opportunity to mandate for a piece of legislation which will cover 95% of abortions.

Overheal

Well I did indeed include the polls margin of error my dude, and still a majority of 50.4% at the bottom end of that.

I also think you will find “single citizens” did have influence in the legislation in the very least bit certainly not exclusively in the Citizens Assembly that you are so eager to smear as a quango.

You can argue the lack of a mandate all you want and that’s all well and good, but do stop pretending like the data doesn’t show half the electorate would approve of 12 weeks AOR. I’d just relax and come off with the tinfoil for a minute and realize the Daíl is also not obviously beholden to those poll results and will almost certainly over these next several months debate and poll and amend into existence some form of legislation that is not beholden solely to the exit poll of a television station.

Your energy may be more wisely spent debating in the public sphere what you think is a better alternative. I look at the polling data and the 8th debate at large and it leads me to think that surely, you must agree that legislation would fall somewhere between “morning after pill” and “12 weeks” and indeed in a previous thread you had argued for 10 though I am unclear as to your reasons why 10 is acceptable when 12 is not.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

Well I did indeed include the polls margin of error my dude, and still a majority of 50.4% at the bottom end of that.

Keep going. What say you in the event the actual margin poll error drops you below 50%?

I also think you will find “single citizens” did have influence in the legislation in the very least bit certainly not exclusively in the Citizens Assembly that you are so eager to smear as a quango.

I smeared with substance (that is, the CA was an insult to the very notion of national representation not least because its being an insult to sampling). You rebut with sentiment.

You can argue the lack of a mandate all you want and that’s all well and good, but do stop pretending like the data doesn’t show half the electorate would approve of 12 weeks AOR.

Your looking at a bottom line. I'm looking at how we got here.

I think the government manipulated the electorate. I think a larger liberal agenda manipulated the electorate. I see a government who said nothing more could be done with the 8th examining - not a week after the referendum- whether it would be possible to legislate to permit doctors to refer people for UK abortions.

The government are entitled, as it happens, to do this.

But I don't like it. And so I think it fair enough to play whatever cards there are in any way see fit.

I'll accept the vote in as much as its able to stand legally/constitutionally. And would note the people have expressed for more liberal abortion laws - notwithstanding the govz attempt to play them like a fiddle.

Your "citizens" assembly being but one obvious device.

I don't have to accept your rose-tinted, pure as the driven snow version of it - thats for certain

the Daíl is also not obviously beholden to those poll

The difference between you and me is that I mind they ensured they wouldnt have to.

. I look at the polling data and the 8th debate at large and it leads me to think that surely, you must agree that legislation would fall somewhere between “morning after pill” and “12 weeks” and indeed in a previous thread you had argued for 10 though I am unclear as to your reasons why 10 is acceptable when 12 is not.

I dont recall arguing for anything on demand (quite the contrary) so the 10 weeks must have another context.

I dont know where a representative legislation would end up. But it should be representative

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Keep going. What say you in the event the actual margin poll error drops you below 50%?

I already told you: Drop it to 11 weeks. Sorted! That would be representative, surely?

But you yourself called the same poll, "demonstrably accurate," so it seems funny of you to wiggle away from that now that you don't like the other conclusions drawn from that.

I smeared with substance (that is, the CA was an insult to the very notion of national representation not least because its being an insult to sampling). You rebut with sentiment.

Your substance as you call it, was sentiment.

Your looking at a bottom line. I'm looking at how we got here.

I think the government manipulated the electorate. I think a larger liberal agenda manipulated the electorate. I see a government who said nothing more could be done with the 8th examining - not a week after the referendum- whether it would be possible to legislate to permit doctors to refer people for UK abortions.

The government are entitled, as it happens, to do this.

But I don't like it. And so I think it fair enough to play whatever cards there are in any way see fit.

I'll accept the vote in as much as its able to stand legally/constitutionally. And would note the people have expressed for more liberal abortion laws - notwithstanding the govz attempt to play them like a fiddle.

Your "citizens" assembly being but one obvious device.

I don't have to accept your rose-tinted, pure as the driven snow version of it - thats for certain

Like I keep reminding you, CA only influenced at most 1% of the vote. That's in the same exit polling you cited as "demonstrably accurate."

The difference between you and me is that I mind they ensured they wouldnt have to.

Cool.

I dont recall arguing for anything on demand (quite the contrary) so the 10 weeks must have another context.

I dont know where a representative legislation would end up. But it should be representative

We'll see.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

I dont know where a representative legislation would end up. But it should be representative

So if no won by say 51% you think that any changes in legislation should represent the 49%?

Perhaps abortions upto 6 weeks eh?

Some how I can't see the no side thinking anything should change if no won, you've fought every single change including the right to travel and information over the past 35 years.

Claiming the no vote should be represented in legislation is laughable at this stage, you wouldn't for a second claim yes side should be afforded the same if it had lost in a landslide for no.

You honestly need to build a bridge and get over this issue, you need to realise that regardless of if people are urban or rural they don't see a fetus as equal to a born child and they believe it should all change

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

So if no won by say 51% you think that any changes in legislation should represent the 49%?

Personally? Or part of some homogenous No group with a 35 year long mindset? Did you read the RTE poll? Did you see how people self described. There is no homogenity. On either side. Your boxing a myth of Yes making there.

As stated on boards during the campaign I was prepared to legislate for hard cases. I would also be prepared to accept (if lament) the will of the people if they voted for a more liberal regime.

If it was 51/49 No then of course a proper assessment of where the medium ground was to be found.

You'd have darn better chance of support services than you have now, for one. You really think the gov, faced with the cheapest possible solution for a significant political problem (aor12) are going to start coughing up for eye-wateringly expensive support services in order to offset the cost of a pill? Lived much?

As it is we have that split result for 95% of the numbers of abortions - but with a gov with a technical k.o. + an abortion agenda. And democrats like you and overheal where technical k.o. is king.

I wouldnt rely on political will to extract democracy - it brought to this place in the first place. So failing a legal challenge or winds of political change between now and legislation it'll be your style democracy that'll win.

Some win..

Cabaal

Middle ground, support services... Pull the other one.

Those involved in the founding of the no compaign wanted no middle ground, they opposed right to travel, right to info and even the 2013 legislation. So please don't make me laugh.

As for support services, contraception availability etc were brought on board by progressive people, many of which were breaking the law to do so at first. The no side had 35 years to bring services on boards and all they did was fight changes like putting condoms up for sale or making the morning after pill legal.

Yet, somehow suddenly the no side only believed in the last few months that such things were massively important.

It was nothing more then misdirection to try win a compaign

Noo

Cabaal wrote: »

Middle ground, support services... Pull the other one.

Those involved in the founding of the no compaign wanted no middle ground, they opposed right to travel, right to info and even the 2013 legislation. So please don't make me laugh.

As for support services, contraception availability etc were brought on board by progressive people, many of which were breaking the law to do so at first. The no side had 35 years to bring services on boards and all they did was fight changes like putting condoms up for sale or making the morning after pill legal.

Yet, somehow suddenly the no side only believed in the last few months that such things were massively important.

It was nothing more then misdirection to try win a compaign

Exactly, did antiskeptic and other no voters start fighting for middle ground abortion 35 years ago? Or did this "fight" only suddenly begin when there was a real chance the 8th could be repealed?

Flex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lets look.

1. Margin of error.

2. RTE overshot the split in the main yes/no question. Which direction might we begin to expect the +/- to apply?

3. What was the actual margin of error % (poll vs. result)? Ought we apply the theoretical or actual margin?

4. We have an indication, rather than a vote on a piece of legislation that will account for 95% of abortions. Its in the region of 50/50. More we can't say.

Would you be disturbed that:

- the process failed to seek to obtain a clear mandate on the most significant element of the legislation

- the process isn't interested in following up on the indication given by the poll?


Whatever about the split, you're applying a first past the post thinking onto something that doesn't warrant first past the post application.

There was no vote on this particular piece of legislation. The only first past the post element involved is repeal vs allow government to legislate. You can begin to infer mandate for the proposed legislation (given its advertisement was included). But you have no direct fpp mandate for it.


No single citizen can ensure another sort of vote. That single citizen is confined to voting within the boundary the government sets. No citizen was given the opportunity to mandate for a piece of legislation which will cover 95% of abortions.

Regards the 'only 52% of people were in favour of unrestricted abortion, 48% were opposed', thats a very inaccurate presentation of the facts

Please see slide 18 in this presentation, it is the question in the exit poll being referenced

https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2018/05/rte-exit-poll-final-11pm.pdf

Points to note

• It wasnt a "Yes or No" question
• It was based on a scale of 0-10 with respondents asked for their answer in a number
• '0-3' meant disagreed or strongly disagreed; this bracket came to 23%
• '4-6' meant didnt feel strongly for or against, with '4' being against, but not strongly and '6' being in favour but not strongly
• '4' came in at 4%, '6' came in at 8% (and '5', being neutral, at 13%)
• '7-10' (agreed to strongly agreed) came in at 51%

Conclusion,

• those anywhere from slightly against to strongly against the abortion unrestricted to 12 weeks (answering 0-4) came to 27%
• those slightly in favour to strongly in favour of abortion unrestricted to 12 weeks (answering 6-10) came to 59%
• that means of the 86% who answered other than '5', 69% favoured unrestricted abortion to 12 weeks, 31% opposed, near identical to the referendum result

I hope this puts your mind at ease regards the country being split down the middle

antiskeptic

Flex wrote: »

Regards the 'only 52% of people were in favour of unrestricted abortion, 48% were opposed', thats a very inaccurate presentation of the facts

Please see slide 18 in this presentation, it is the question in the exit poll being referenced

https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2018/05/rte-exit-poll-final-11pm.pdf

Points to note

• It wasnt a "Yes or No" question
• It was based on a scale of 0-10 with respondents asked for their answer in a number
• '0-3' meant disagreed or strongly disagreed; this bracket came to 23%
• '4-6' meant didnt feel strongly for or against, with '4' being against, but not strongly and '6' being in favour but not strongly
• '4' came in at 4%, '6' came in at 8% (and '5', being neutral, at 13%)
• '7-10' (agreed to strongly agreed) came in at 51%

Conclusion,

• those anywhere from slightly against to strongly against the abortion unrestricted to 12 weeks (answering 0-4) came to 27%
• those slightly in favour to strongly in favour of abortion unrestricted to 12 weeks (answering 6-10) came to 59%
• that means of the 86% who answered other than '5', 69% favoured unrestricted abortion to 12 weeks, 31% opposed, near identical to the referendum result

I hope this puts your mind at ease regards the country being split down the middle

Firstly. thanks for the link. I wonder if any of your thankee's have pondered it.

Secondly. It's important that we try our best not to assume of words or project our assumptions onto them. For that reason we have to leave aside the poll question you're referring to above as being instructive. It simply isn't phrased in such a way as to extract accurate information. Have a look:

Strongly believe there should be a total ban on abortion:

On first sight, it's reasonably clear what this question means. Total ban on abortion means total ban. Are we to suppose a person scoring 0 here is even less liberal than what is possible under the 8th? That they don't want abortion permissible under any circumstances, not even to save the life of the mother. Certainly there will be some of that view.

We could also suppose (in the context of a referendum setting out of stalls: retention vs. Government proposals) that a voter scoring 0 here intends to convey their strong preference for retention of the status quo under the 8th, with no further relaxation. Because both meanings are possible, the question is corrupted. We simply can't say how the respondent understood the question.



Strongly believe abortion should be freely available in Ireland to any woman who wants to have one

Again, this question can mean at least a couple of things. It can mean abortion on request up to term - there are some who hold that view. It can also be taken to mean - in the mind of a voter primed to consider within the referendum framework [retention vs Government proposals], abortion on request up to 12 weeks. This is the meaning you yourself took from it in your post above, afterall. Because both meanings are possible, the question is corrupted. We can't say how the respondent understood the question.

Thirdly, you are projecting onto the question issues of strong/weak agreement at each phase that aren't actually in the question. It isn't asked that way and you can't assume that way. Especially not in light of the above variable readings of the question.


On the matter of the specific issue of abortion (on request up to 12 weeks and in other scenarios) we have to scroll down to page 130 and beyond. On the matter of aor12 (p.130) we see:

29% strongly disagree
9% somewhat disagree
7% neither agree nor disagree
17% somewhat agree
35% strongly agree.

"Strongly agree" includes a range of people, we must suppose. The strongest "strongly agree" would want a more liberal regime: maybe even abortion on request up to the time the umbilical cord is cut The weakest "strongly agree" are over the line on abortion regarding abortion on request up to 12 weeks. The Government proposals on this matter give "Strongly Agree" something they strongly want (even if some of them wanted more than aor12).

We have to draw a line between someone walking out of a shop with their purchase under their arm and somebody deciding this isn't quite it .. and walking out empty handed. The strongest of the "Strongly Agree" might be running into the shop money in hand hoping for a bogoff, the weakest of the "Strongly Agree" might take some persuasion from the sales assistant in order to close the sale. But out of the shop, with purchase under arm, they all walk.


Once you fall out of that category (i.e. you look at the 65% remaining), you are dealing with people who aren't getting what they want, to some degree or another. Something about the proposals isn't fitting the shopping bill and they walk out of the shop empty handed. They somewhat want the product, but something else is desired which is missing in this product.

If you were a shop owner, would this represent good business - letting 65% of your customers walk, when you could have gotten more?

Or to put it another way, are 35% being satisfied democratically representative enough? I wouldn't have thought so.

In light of that, democratically speaking, you would respond by applying restrictions to the core idea of aor12. You'd cut your prices, in other words. In the measure you apply such restrictions to the proposals, the more people, currently residing in the 65%, move to the 35% side. The more sales you'd rack up, as it were.

It would take x amount of restriction in order to get the next cohort (the 17% who "Somewhat Agree") fully into the "Strongly Agree" category. At that point you would have 52%* Strongly Agreeing.

Seeing as we're interested in broad representation (rather than first past the post, no matter how small the sliver margin), we don't necessarily have to call a halt there. We can slash our prices further.

Granted, 52% now Strongly Agreeing on one side vs. a range of views ranging Slightly Agree > Strongly Disagree on the other, is not a near split of strength. We're not looking to please all of the people all of the time. But is this a good place to draw the line? What does a good democracy do? Should you add further restriction such as to obtain, say, 66% strongly agreeing for example?


Suffice to say however, the current proposals sees 65% of the electorate not getting what they want.

* We also have to look at the actual margin of error (exit poll result vs. actual result) rather than the theoretical one. 3.4% disparity between exit and actual, tending towards less liberal. What that would that do to the figures below I'm not able to calculate, but it points towards less liberalism. Here they are again - but this time start imagining a shift towards conservatism in them, brought about by the actual margin of error being applied. They don't look so democratically convincing, do they? Where oh where the landslide on this, the most critical and far reaching element of the Govz proposals?

29% strongly disagree
9% somewhat disagree
7% neither agree nor disagree
17% somewhat agree
35% strongly agree.



Suffice to say also, that the Government managed to evade obtaining a clear view from the electorate on a piece of legislation which is going to account for 95% or so of all abortions. They had options at their disposal (e.g.have a referendum on the specific matter of aor once the general issue of abortion liberalization was dealt with). Had they done such a thing, you would have more strongly agree on the issue off some kind of aor at the cost of a less liberal aor.

What they did instead, was obtain a landslide on the wider matter of liberalisation of abortion. Hard cases was one of the tools used for that. And they used that landslide to carry along with it, a matter with which the electorate is far less enamoured. That the government is Constitutionally entitled to bring forward a referendum inspired by the contents of a fortune cookie isn't the issue. The issue is about what it is they wanted (the ideological contents of a fortune cookie) and how they go about disguising that less saleable product.

Political ideology 1 - Democracy 0

You either care about that or you don't.

In failing to bring in the legislational changes trotted out but a week after the referendum (a.k.a. keeping your powder dry), in following Zappone's advice in 2015 that the electorate weren't ready (for aor), in establishing that fig leaf of a Citizens Assembly, in pointing to a 2.5:1 Yes-weighted Joint Oireachtas Committee as if it was some kind of honest broker, in camouflaging aor12 in amongst a range of issues, most evocatively: hard cases...

...they timed their run and played the electorate like. a. fiddle. It must be galling to know that they are laughing at you as much as they are me.

Overheal

You can continue to think so until the cows come home my dude, but you had 7 days to file your appeal against the referendum, which has since passed.

I should remind you based on recent referendum appeals against Child Protections and Same Sex Marriage, the courts have already established that the government wanting a particular outcome, or supporting a particular side, are not legal grounds for disqualifying a referendum. So too, the courts have also rejected arguments that non-voters should be considered as being against a referendum.

Whatever argument you have left after that (conspiracy about voter manipulation by the government based on the referendum that was run and the legislation ex post facto that politicians put forth as preview) is meritless. I still also fail to see the point in trying to argue the outcome of the exit polls ad infinitum.

Feel free to oppose AOR12 as I guess we’re now boiling the term down to, but I hardly see the conniption: for days I have yet to hear you make a case against it based on any reason other than the exit polling, when if you really don’t want it in shouldn’t it be for some other matter of logic? Half the country don’t like speed limits either but that’s no argument for removing or easing them.

If anything AOR12 surely makes the most sense rather than settling for some “Ground C” loophole in the legislation that the No side would argue will see the same result anyway. Support a more straightforward law.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

You can continue to think so until the cows come home my dude, but you had 7 days to file your appeal against the referendum, which has since passed.

Its less what I think and more what you think. A Thierry Henry win? Or democracy? That is the question.

I'm not sure the statute of limitation on a legal challenge is 7 days by the way - laws have to be enacted and they can be found unconstitutional. You can be sure someone is picking over this with a fine toothcomb.

(As an aside: they most certainly are picking it over - my having the accidental fortune to be on the fringes of the loop as to efforts in this direction. For one who had but a nodding acquaintance with matters political / legal, it's fascinating to see the threads that get tugged on to this end: the Constitution > Supreme Court is a complex mechanism and the aim is to find the right place to insert the spanner in order to jam the works. Now it can't just be any idea - the spanner does have to have enough robustness to it. Still, fascinating to read the legal thinking and how it stitches together)

You came kicking and screaming around to the notion that "slut shaming" didn't disqualify the idea that some women will fall pregnant through utter carelessness and seek abortions for the most selfish, puerile reasons. And that you valued the life in the womb at less than your desire to "Trust Women" in every circumstance, including those. There is hope for you yet..

I should remind you based on recent referendum appeals against Child Protections and Same Sex Marriage, the courts have already established that the government wanting a particular outcome, or supporting a particular side, are not legal grounds for disqualifying a referendum.

Spoken like a democrat.

That the Constitution permits the government to play the electorate like a fiddle isn't exactly a thumbs up for the Constitution, is it?

Or mayhaps it is in your book, so long as you've a liberal media / government ensuring the fiddle plays a tune you like. How delightfully shortsighted.

Whatever argument you have left after that (conspiracy about voter manipulation by the government based on the referendum that was run and the legislation ex post facto that politicians put forth as preview) is meritless. I still also fail to see the point in trying to argue the outcome of the exit polls ad infinitum.

The point of pointing out the polls supports the idea that the government got the result it desired by leaning on the electorate. I'm not at all saying that the country hasn't liberalized nor that the government could turn A minor into C sharp by clever manipulation. Turning what the electorate might want into what the government wanted can, however, significantly change the tune. You ever used a distortion pedal?

Whatever: the fact that you consider the Citizens Assembly a bona fide device for enquiring into the will o' da people and rolling it's findings out into referendum wording and proposed legislation ... says more about your ability to understand statistical nonsense than it does about my conspiracy theorizing.

for days I have yet to hear you make a case against it based on any reason other than the exit polling, when if you really don’t want it in shouldn’t it be for some other matter of logic? Half the country don’t like speed limits either but that’s no argument for removing or easing them.

I'd warrant a landslide in the event a poll was taken on the single matter of whether or not speed limits. Which kind of proves my point.

You don't mind that the gov Trojan Horsed aor12 (as the polls appear to support). That's fine, like I say. The world turns...

If anything AOR12 surely makes the most sense rather than settling for some “Ground C” loophole in the legislation that the No side would argue will see the same result anyway. Support a more straightforward law.

Do what the electorate want. Not what makes sense to you or folk who are equally happy that the electorate don't get what they want. Don't believe them when they say "it's not possible". They said the same thing all the way through the campaign only to turn around, before the dust had settled, and talk of doctors referrals to England / financing abortions in the interim.

Straightforward costs lives - or so some of the electorate seem to think.



PS: Could you put a factor on any increase in abortions once the new law comes in? For the sake of posterity and further elaborating on your expression of value of life in the womb. Let's say we've a baseline of 4500 (the number bandied around by Yes in the debates). At what point would you reckon you'd backed the wrong horse? 2x? 3x? 4x? No limit? I mean, even if it was only to ensure Ireland wouldn't be subject to Sharia Law 100 years from now.

You do know there isn't a snowballs chance in hell of any significant change by way of support? Probably sex education (not least because of the stick which can be wielded in another task to hand) and perhaps free condoms and pills. Budgetary nickel and dime stuff. That will still take years (although the smoking ban and cars out of bus lane's does indicate a theoretical possibility of swift action).

But beyond that it's waaaay to expensive (given it's the whole social welfare / health system that would need to be dragged up by it's bootstraps) - so zero chance.

Follow the money trail.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure the statute of limitation on a legal challenge is 7 days by the way - laws have to be enacted and they can be found unconstitutional. You can be sure someone is picking over this with a fine toothcomb.

Ahem,

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/referenda/referendum_result_in_ireland.html

"The following information explains how referendum results are collated.

The day after the poll, the ballot boxes are opened at a designated count centre in each constituency. The votes for and against the referendum proposal are counted and the local returning officer reports the result to the referendum returning officer. The results are published online as they come in. You can view the live stream on referendum.ie.

When the results from all constituencies have been collated, the referendum returning officer draws up a provisional referendum certificate, stating the overall result of the voting. The certificate also states whether or not the proposed amendment has been approved by the people.

The provisional certificate is published in Iris Oifigiúil (the State Gazette).

If you wish to challenge the provisional certificate, you must present a petition to the High Court within 7 days of the publication of the provisional certificate. If no petition is presented to the High Court, the certificate becomes final."

You came kicking and screaming around to the notion that "slut shaming" didn't disqualify the idea that some women will fall pregnant through utter carelessness and seek abortions for the most selfish, puerile reasons. And that you valued the life in the womb at less than your desire to "Trust Women" in every circumstance, including those. There is hope for you yet..

Quite possible I would suppose, if by some, you mean 1 in 1,000 abortions, I might be willing to believe that. Hardly a cause to disallow freedom of choice in 99.999% of other cases.

Spoken like a democrat.

Independent, actually.

That the Constitution permits the government to play the electorate like a fiddle isn't exactly a thumbs up for the Constitution, is it?

Or mayhaps it is in your book, so long as you've a liberal media / government ensuring the fiddle plays a tune you like. How delightfully shortsighted.

Ahem #2:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/court-of-appeal-dismisses-two-challenges-against-same-sex-marriage-referendum-result-31416534.html

"Dealing with Mr Lyons’ appeal, the judge said arguments the Constitution could only be amended by a proposal initiated by the people themselves were based on a “fundamental misunderstanding” of what the Constitution says, what it means and what the powers of the courts are.

Mr Lyons also erred in arguing the sovereign people cannot approve amendments that contradict other provisions of the Constitution as any amendments approved were a matter for the people, the judge said.

The judge rejected further arguments that those members of the electorate who do not vote in referendums must be regarded as no voters.

Mr Lyons’ arguments in that regard were “contrary to principle” and “contrary to common sense”."

The point of pointing out the polls supports the idea that the government got the result it desired by leaning on the electorate. I'm not at all saying that the country hasn't liberalized nor that the government could turn A minor into C sharp by clever manipulation.Turning what the electorate might want into what the government wanted can, however, significantly change the tune. You ever used a distortion pedal?

Whatever: the fact that you consider the Citizens Assembly a bona fide device for enquiring into the will o' da people and rolling it's findings out into referendum wording and proposed legislation ... says more about your ability to understand statistical nonsense than it does about my conspiracy theorizing.

]Ahem #3:

link above,

"Other complaints about An Post issuing a St Valetine’s Day Love stamp with an equality symbol, which Mr Walshe alleged amounted to a “subliminal message” in favour of a Yes vote, were also dismissed."

and http://www.thejournal.ie/joanna-jordan-supreme-court-costs-2202386-Jul2015/

"The court ruled the Government’s conduct – specifically using State monies to publish an unbalanced information campaign (breaching the McKenna principles) – did not impact on the outcome of the referendum."

As you can see, the Supreme Court of Ireland has already ruled and set precedent that the government providing 'unbalanced information' (ie. information in favor of repeal) is not grounds for establishing distortion of the outcome, or the nullification of a referendum.

It really doesn't matter whether the Citizens Assembly captured with crystal clarity 'the will of the people.' The government could stick its ear up to a conch shell on a tuesday morning to have decided what to bring forward. "What's that conch shell? Repeal the 8th? Abortion on demand to follow?" What's important is they initiated the referendum by the requirements of the law, the people were duly informed of the nature of the referendum, they were offered a glimpse at what the legislature was considering should the referendum pass, and the electorate voted.

I'd warrant a landslide in the event a poll was taken on the single matter of whether or not speed limits. Which kind of proves my point.

Made no sense here, try again?

You don't mind that the gov Trojan Horsed aor12 (as the polls appear to support). That's fine, like I say. The world turns...

Trojan horsed it how? The electorate didn't vote on aor12. It wasn't slipped on to the ballot the night before. aor12 is just a question that showed up on an RTE exit poll. Comparing apples to donuts here.

Do what the electorate want. Not what makes sense to you or folk who are equally happy that the electorate don't get what they want. Don't believe them when they say "it's not possible". They said the same thing all the way through the campaign only to turn around, before the dust had settled, and talk of doctors referrals to England / financing abortions in the interim.

Straightforward costs lives - or so some of the electorate seem to think.

Not sure what you're ranting about here at all. The electorate wants the Dail to legislate abortion. Any discussion past that at this point is premature, the 8th still hasn't even been repealed formally, the Dail afaik is not yet free to introduce bills to be considered even. The Dail has instead, from a cursory look, has since the referendum been busy passing bills to restructure how judges are appointed and removing the baptism requirement from school admissions.

PS: Could you put a factor on any increase in abortions once the new law comes in? For the sake of posterity and further elaborating on your expression of value of life in the womb. Let's say we've a baseline of 4500 (the number bandied around by Yes in the debates). At what point would you reckon you'd backed the wrong horse? 2x? 3x? 4x? No limit? I mean, even if it was only to ensure Ireland wouldn't be subject to Sharia Law 100 years from now.

You do know there isn't a snowballs chance in hell of any significant change by way of support? Probably sex education (not least because of the stick which can be wielded in another task to hand) and perhaps free condoms and pills. Budgetary nickel and dime stuff. That will still take years (although the smoking ban and cars out of bus lane's does indicate a theoretical possibility of swift action).

I have no idea where Sharia law comes into it: are you anti-muslim as well as antisemite, as we've previously seen on this thread? What are you saying there exactly.

At over 200,000 abortions per year in the UK and a population of 66 million, that's about 1 abortion per 330 people per year, just to get a sense of magnitudes. If the 4,500 figure is ballpark for Ireland (4.8 million), that's 1 abortion per 1067 people. There will be some transfer from the UK to Ireland of course but that should be statistically insignificant for this consideration. Going off those numbers I think the 4,500 number is cautiously optimistic, and Ireland would really be no more irregular for having a rate of abortion that triples that estimate. But, 4,500 is the number of Irish women and girls that manage to travel to the UK each year only. That figure does not capture how many more that likely order pills online or some other methods of DIY abortion.

The number of abortions depends on a lot of considerations; ultimately no one has any idea how many under-the-table abortions are actually occurring, and therefore it is impossible to know the weight of the social issues - point being primarily that if you want to reduce abortion rates you need to be able to understand why they are undertaken. Fundamentally, you would think more support for family planning and support for newborns and their parents wold be paramount to reducing any given figure - and indeed in the US for instance, once the numbers peaked (the point at which its safe to conclude all or most abortions converted to over-the-table), those numbers have continued to decline, while the expansions of family planning and support services have grown.

I fundamentally disagree that sex education is pointless. Another thread for another day. Suffice to say enough studies have shown that abstinence-only education (which is what is mainly taught in the Republic of Ireland) is shown to be less effective than more comprehensive sex education programs.

It's not really a case of "backing the wrong horse" though. These are women and girls who should have the freedom to choose regardless. Their ability to choose really should not be any matter for how many make that choice. This isn't Chicken or Beef - 100% of women could freely choose either, and neither chicken nor beef should be outlawed because too many women pick it.

But beyond that it's waaaay to expensive (given it's the whole social welfare / health system that would need to be dragged up by it's bootstraps) - so zero chance.

Follow the money trail.

Could you perhaps present some numbers for this implied argument? You think that abortions are more expensive than pregnancies and live births? Do tell.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

If you wish to challenge the provisional certificate, you must present a petition to the High Court within 7 days

My point was that legislation can be constitutionally challenged. Meaning it can be constitutionally challenged.

Quite possible I would suppose, if by some, you mean 1 in 1,000 abortions, I might be willing to believe that. Hardly a cause to disallow freedom of choice in 99.999% of other cases.

Er... that's 1 in 100,000. Trust women?

Independent

Non-democratic independent to be precise

The judge rejected further arguments that those members of the electorate who do not vote in referendums must be regarded as no voters.

Not sure what relevance this has to the point made.

"The court ruled the Government’s conduct – specifically using State monies to publish an unbalanced information campaign (breaching the McKenna principles) – did not impact on the outcome of the referendum."

As you can see, the Supreme Court of Ireland has already ruled and set precedent that the government providing 'unbalanced information' (ie. information in favor of repeal) is not grounds for establishing distortion of the outcome, or the nullification of a referendum.

I haven't read the decision. My reading from this that a) The McKenna principles do mean unbalanced information financed by the State can be held to impact on the outcome of a referendum b) that transgression in this case weren't sufficient enough to impact on this referendum.

It really doesn't matter whether the Citizens Assembly captured with crystal clarity 'the will of the people.' The government could stick its ear up to a conch shell on a tuesday morning to have decided what to bring forward. "What's that conch shell? Repeal the 8th? Abortion on demand to follow?" What's important is they initiated the referendum by the requirements of the law, the people were duly informed of the nature of the referendum, they were offered a glimpse at what the legislature was considering should the referendum pass, and the electorate voted.

The nub of my post.

The question is whether you are concerned that the electorate can be manipulated such as to dilute democratic representation. Whether this is legally sustainable or not isn't the question.

What say you?

Trojan horsed it how? The electorate didn't vote on aor12. It wasn't slipped on to the ballot the night before. aor12 is just a question that showed up on an RTE exit poll. Comparing apples to donuts here.

Trojan Horse: A general liberalisation of abortion in Ireland. Landslide = Doors of Troy opening

Contents of Trojan Horse: a specific piece of legislation which only 33% of the population strongly support. No landslide there.

Don't weigh on the analogy too much by pointing to the fact aor12 wasn't unknown. The analogy works when you compare landslide for Trojan Horse with 33% for the contents of same

The electorate wants the Dail to legislate abortion. Any discussion past that at this point is premature, the 8th still hasn't even been repealed formally, the Dail afaik is not yet free to introduce bills to be considered even. The Dail has instead, from a cursory look, has since the referendum been busy passing bills to restructure how judges are appointed and removing the baptism requirement from school admissions.

That has all the weight of your supposing a 72 hour waiting period constituting a restriction. Technically right / practically nonsense.

Going off those numbers I think the 4,500 number is cautiously optimistic, and Ireland would really be no more irregular for having a rate of abortion that triples that estimate.

This reminds me of your "latent demand" explanation for the staggering rise experienced in the UK. From 25K per year to 167K per year in 5 years. That that level of demand was always there but the UK took years to "roll out services" or some such.

I asked you to evidence that:

- by pointing to queues around the block in the early years

- by dealing with the fact that the numbers would be a drop in the ocean in terms of extra load on health services

- by dealing with the fact that abortion was already well established in UK hospitals and that there was no need to "tool up" or "train staff. There was nothing preventing the UK health system from accommodating 167K abortions annually in year 1


You kind of went silent on that. Methinks you're simply hedging your bets. You can be your bottom dollar that if there was an inkling of support for your musings, the YES side would have wheeled them out during the campaign.

But, 4,500 is the number of Irish women and girls that manage to travel to the UK each year only. That figure does not capture how many more that likely order pills online or some other methods of DIY abortion.

Yes, in the debates put it at 9 a day. Pills at 3 a day. They didn't mention coathangers or herbal remedies but we might suppose those negligible in this day and age.

In my industry, one customer complaint received equated to 10 unreported. I'd trust customs to have a correlation between illegal substances intercepted and the actual amount getting through (more than I would your 3 times figure plucked from the air

Methinks you're simply hedging your bets.

Fundamentally, you would think more support for family planning and support for newborns and their parents wold be paramount to reducing any given figure

Agreed. Whilst the family planning side of things is cheap, the rest is expensive. Think about it: free 3rd level education as a tool to offset the crisis nature of a pregnancy means free 3rd level education for anyone who can tick the "crisis" box. You can't start discriminating

indeed in the US for instance, once the numbers peaked (the point at which its safe to conclude all or most abortions converted to over-the-table)

I really would like you to flesh out the idea that it takes years for people to forsake backstreet abortions in order to take up abortion in regulated setting. To drag them over the table.

I fundamentally disagree that sex education is pointless.

I didn't say it was pointless. Far from it - indeed, prevention at the very root of a problem is always the best approach.

My point was that it is comparatively cheap. And so that can be expected to roll out (especially in light of another fish to fry: clattering the Church).

When it comes to the expensive stuff however, I think you might hold your breath

These are women and girls who should have the freedom to choose regardless. Their ability to choose really should not be any matter for how many make that choice. This isn't Chicken or Beef - 100% of women could freely choose either, and neither chicken nor beef should be outlawed because too many women pick it.

This is about democracy. Society has a right to decide how it shapes itself. The level of choice an individual ought enjoy is granted to it by that society.

You're weak on the issue of your democratic credentials. You appear to want your result more than you want democratic representation.

You think that abortions are more expensive than pregnancies and live births? Do tell.

I think that abortions are cheaper than pregnancies and live births. I don't think I have to explain that one to you.

See the connection: cost of abortion vs. cost of supplying support services such as 3rd level education (to all) / childcare facilities (to all) / housing (to all)

You don't see a political angle to this?

antiskeptic

All quiet on the Western Front? Not a dickie bird on the fact that aor12 has no democratic mandate? Let's sum up the fig leaves so far:



- The people spake in the polling booth. Not on aor12 they didn't. Not least because they weren't asked.

- The RTE exit poll is just a poll - I bet you weren't saying that as the exit poll figures emerged, dampening strong Yes knickers countrywide. Selective amnesia!

- The government is legally entitled to manipulate the electorate to obtain the result it desires. And you think that's a good thing for a democracy?



Come all ye thankees...

Delirium

Ireland voted to repeal the 8th which would allow the government to legislate for abortion where previously it would have been unconstitutional to do so.

So there is a democratic mandate to change abortion legislation in Ireland.

The referendum was not a vote on what shape the legislation would take. That applies to rape, incest, FFA and abortion on request up to 12 weeks.

Do you contend that the government has no democratic mandate to alter any legislation (re abortion/or criminal in general) or taxation because there was no referendum on it?

Lantus

Should this thread be closed now. The referendum passed with a very clear majority. Clearly many people who may label themselves as Christian did vote to repeal the 8th.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

Ireland voted to repeal the 8th which would allow the government to legislate for abortion where previously it would have been unconstitutional to do so.

Correct.

So there is a democratic mandate to change abortion legislation in Ireland.

Correct.

The referendum was not a vote on what shape the legislation would take. That applies to rape, incest, FFA and abortion on request up to 12 weeks.

Correct

Do you contend that the government has no democratic mandate to alter any legislation (re abortion/or criminal in general) or taxation because there was no referendum on it?

The government by virtue of having been elected have a democratic mandate to legislate how they please, once entitled to legislate

It's not quite that simple however. As Overheal indicates, they could have extracted the wording for the referendum and the proposed abortion legislation from a fortune cookie. They have a democratic mandate, by virtue of having been elected, to do that.

They didn't present it that way however. They chose instead to manipulate the electorate into voting in a direction in the referendum. They are democratically entitled to do so, by virtue of having been elected by the nation. They are also legally/constitutionally entitled to do so.

That they are democratically, legally and constitutionally entitled to manipulate the electorate is problematic. That there was a political need to manipulate means they weren't politically weren't entitled to do what they did. If they were on politically sound ground, they wouldn't have had a need to manipulate the electorate

Which boils down to a dilution of their democratic mandate. In other words, they obtained a technical mandate at a cost of a truer democracy.

The question is, whether that concerns you - notwithstanding the fact it works for you this time round.

antiskeptic

Lantus wrote: »

Should this thread be closed now. The referendum passed with a very clear majority. Clearly many people who may label themselves as Christian did vote to repeal the 8th.

Another "democrat"!

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

The government by virtue of having been elected have a democratic mandate to legislate how they please, once entitled to legislate

It's not quite that simple however. As Overheal indicates, they could have extracted the wording for the referendum and the proposed abortion legislation from a fortune cookie. They have a democratic mandate, by virtue of having been elected, to do that.

They didn't present it that way however. They chose instead to manipulate the electorate into voting in a direction in the referendum. They are democratically entitled to do so, by virtue of having been elected by the nation. They are also legally/constitutionally entitled to do so.

That they are democratically, legally and constitutionally entitled to manipulate the electorate is problematic. That there was a political need to manipulate means they weren't politically weren't entitled to do what they did. If they were on politically sound ground, they wouldn't have had a need to manipulate the electorate

Which boils down to a dilution of their democratic mandate. In other words, they obtained a technical mandate at a cost of a truer democracy.

The question is, whether that concerns you - notwithstanding the fact it works for you this time round.

So it's not that they don't have a mandate, but rather the voters didn't understand what they were voting for because of misinformation?



I ask then what is it that a yes vote gave mandate for that the public didn't actually realise at the time of voting?

Lantus

antiskeptic wrote:

Another "democrat"!

Democracy was a good idea 100 years ago. Its long passed its sell by date like money.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

So it's not that they don't have a mandate, but rather the voters didn't understand what they were voting for because of misinformation?

Its not that they didnt understand what they were voting on (although that understanding was skewed by manipulation).

Its that the options given them prevented them from voting for what they would have preferred to have voted on.

There was nothing preventing the government from enabling the latter. But it didnt suit their own political / ideological book.

Hence the framing so as to herd the electorate into an all or nothing. And manipulation a sheepdog

I ask then what is it that a yes vote gave mandate for that the public didn't actually realise at the time of voting?

All or nothing ( where 'nothing' for a yes voter meant retention of the 8th). They understood it was all or nothing but had no choice on the matter other than avoid 'nothing'

D'ya ever hear of a least worst option? Do you think it democratic to herd the electorate into a least worst option rather than give them a choice they'd prefer?

I mean, the whole point of a referendum is to let the people decide. Not trick your way into extracting a mandate for that which you prefer.

The goverment shouting 'landslide' from the rooftops and solemnly promising to 'do the will of the people" ought to make you weep - not rejoice.

Delirium

Could you elaborate on what should have been voted so as to avoid the suggestion of manipulation?

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

Could you elaborate on what should have been voted so as to avoid the suggestion of manipulation?

Cart before the horse I think.

Whatever an unmanipulated process would produce, by way of referendum wording and proposed legislation, ought to have been what occurred.

Starting with a representative C.A. which isn't a bad idea in itself.

Although the proposals werent voted on directly, what was voted on is being parlayed into a mandate for their introduction. Those too, ought to have reflected twotpeople

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Cart before the horse I think.

Whatever an unmanipulated process would produce, by way of referendum wording and proposed legislation, ought to have been what occurred.

Starting with a representative C.A. which isn't a bad idea in itself.

Although the proposals werent voted on directly, what was voted on is being parlayed into a mandate for their introduction. Those too, ought to have reflected twotpeople

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

ArmaniJeanss

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, the whole point of a referendum is to let the people decide. Not trick your way into extracting a mandate for that which you prefer.

That might be your opinion, but it isn't necessarily fact or accepted wisdom.

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.
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.

To be honest I'm kinda struggling to see your argument. There's a lot of words saying the same thing but not much coherence.
Interestingly none of the high court challengers seem to have considered it an angle worth pursuing either.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

All quiet on the Western Front?

Me oh my: you complain minutes after making an essay reply that you waited over a day to post that nobody has responded yet.

Would have been better yesterday when I wasn’t on the road. Suffice to say for the time being that the government didn’t manipulate anyone, both campaigns were allowed to run without government interference; and deciding to glean from the Citizens Assembly what the electorate may be comfortable with is not manipulating the voter base.

Government gathers focus group of citizens. Citizens want peanut butter and jelly. It doesn’t follow that by having a referendum to hark in PBJs that the electorate is “manipulating the country” to vote in PBJs. The government is holding a referendum based on fairly principled indications that the country wanted a referendum. They were ultimately correct.

As for constitutional challenges to legislation: that was the entire point of the referendum. any proposed abortion legislation would be challenged and almost certainly fail in the courts which would find the Legislature has no constitutional basis to affect the consitutional equality between mother to be, and zygote.

Now, as far as referendums go, once the referendum is in, that IS what is constitutional. It can’t be unconstitutional against itself! Think man, think.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

All quiet on the Western Front? Not a dickie bird on the fact that aor12 has no democratic mandate? Let's sum up the fig leaves so far:

- The people spake in the polling booth. Not on aor12 they didn't. Not least because they weren't asked.

- The RTE exit poll is just a poll - I bet you weren't saying that as the exit poll figures emerged, dampening strong Yes knickers countrywide. Selective amnesia!

- The government is legally entitled to manipulate the electorate to obtain the result it desires. And you think that's a good thing for a democracy?

Come all ye thankees...

You seem to be of the opinion that you in your wisdom are better informed than the public at large. The fact that repealing the 8th would lead to aor12 as you put it was discussed ad nauseum at great length on every form of media out there, not least to No side campaign posters. Suggesting that the yes voters weren't fully cognisant of this is clearly nonsense. Your arguments are not only arrogant but suffer from extreme confirmation bias; the public at large voted against you preferred position therefore they must be wrong because you are clearly right.

And seriously, dampening knickers? I'd suggest that says far more about how your mind works than those you seek to castigate.

Timberrrrrrrr

Overheal wrote: »

Me oh my: you complain minutes after making an essay reply that you waited over a day to post that nobody has responded yet.

Would have been better yesterday when I wasn’t on the road. Suffice to say for the time being that the government didn’t manipulate anyone, both campaigns were allowed to run without government interference; and deciding to glean from the Citizens Assembly what the electorate may be comfortable with is not manipulating the voter base.

Government gathers focus group of citizens. Citizens want peanut butter and jelly. It doesn’t follow that by having a referendum to hark in PBJs that the electorate is “manipulating the country” to vote in PBJs. The government is holding a referendum based on fairly principled indications that the country wanted a referendum. They were ultimately correct.

As for constitutional challenges to legislation: that was the entire point of the referendum. any proposed abortion legislation would be challenged and almost certainly fail in the courts which would find the Legislature has no constitutional basis to affect the consitutional equality between mother to be, and zygote.

Now, as far as referendums go, once the referendum is in, that IS what is constitutional. It can’t be unconstitutional against itself! Think man, think.

This!!! He makes a snarky remark about it being "all quiet" as if people are avoiding him lol. It was 10 minutes after his long post on a Wednesday morning when people may have been doing other things like working

It's like he is in a different time zone or something