The act of voting is democratic. Restricting the basic rights of others is not.

RedDave2 wrote:

Kow wrote:

Like gay marriage - you vote against it because you don't want to see a society where that exists. Democratic? I really don't think so.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this. Are you saying voting against gay marriage is undemocratic? I would have thought it's a perfect example of a democracy in action. Saying you won't recognise gay marriage even if it is voted in would be undemocratic surely.

Voting for something is not what makes democracy. They have elections in Iran. Does that make it a democratic country? Democracy means protecting the rights of everyone, especially minorities. Restricting the rights of one group because of a moral choice of the other group is not democratic. Even more so when it's primarily because of religious views that are not shared, in a supposedly secular country.

It's why what's happening in the US is a big deal. It goes against democratic values.

You are wrong. The idea of modern democracy is that you elect leaders who will protect the rights of everyone. Whether that happens or not is another question. You can look back to Madison, Burke etc for confirmation of their intentions. That's why all incoming leaders make claims about representing everyone.

Because of religion, yes. That's the problem.

Most countries with gay marriage haven't voted on it, the government introduced it as part of citizens' rights. Which is what a democratic government should do.

Kow wrote:

Most countries with gay marriage haven't voted on it, the government introduced it as part of citizens' rights. Which is what a democratic government should do.

I kinda see what you are saying, but if 90 percent of the populace didn't want gay marriage I don't think it's on the elected government to push that through.

I'd agree it's not something that should be voted for.

If the country decided to have a referendum blocking women from third level education because their place is in the home, and the country had 55% male population, would that be democracy in action?

Kow wrote:

If the country decided to have a referendum blocking women from third level education because their place is in the home, and the country had 55% male population, would that be democracy in action?

First off, if everyone gets a vote, yes. Second, you are assuming every male would vote in favour. You wouldn't. I wouldn't.

RedDave2 wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

Does anyone think aborting at 39 weeks would be ok?

Does that ever happen?

Yes, but it so rare effectively no. It's usually because of danger to the mothers life if they were to continue

acemuzzy wrote:

Does anyone think aborting at 39 weeks would be ok?

Nothing here is a black and white issue and of course things are complicated as it depends on circumstance. It's a strange and slightly loaded thing to ask. Why would someone get an abortion at 39 weeks?

Kow wrote:

No, but there's an immediate bias. And, democratically speaking, you would need to convince women why this was to their advantage. Similarly, you need to convince me why having no abortion is advantageous to me, and vice versa.

What's the bias? Because theres more men? That's a pretty harsh assumption. This is a mostly male forum. How many would vote that proposal through? I reckon none.

Again, I still don't think any of these ideals are necessarily part of a democratic government. They are ideals, subject to change and evolution. Democracy is a way to choose those in the seats of power.

Kow wrote:

With abortion, there are limits because at a certain point nobody will argue that we're taking about human life.

Nobody apart from RedDave2 ;-p

RedDave2 wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

Does anyone think aborting at 39 weeks would be ok?

Does that ever happen?

In theory, I don't have a problem with it. Why should the age really make a difference.

As Dante says, no this doesn't often happen. It was intended as a hypothetical, the expectation that (as kow says), the day before birth was basically as valuable a life as the day after.

I guess for me life isn't a binary "yes"/"no". It starts neither at conception not at birth, it's more a spectrum of lifiness through pregnancy. Which is why I find abortion conversations hard, as there are difficult judgement calls involved for all. I find pride at having had an abortion weird in the few cases it happens, but I guess that's more pride in women's rights which I'm all for (and absolutely lean me pro choice in general), but I don't think these things have "obvious" answers (after all, few we're argue for women's rights to kill a one year old if she was struggling as a single parent - and that's where an extrapolated argument leads one).

I do think there are limits after which abortion is pretty much akin to murder, but fortunately folk never go there. And I'm glad that I'm not the one having to decide where that line is, and indeed that's there's some kind of consensus forming in terms of when counts.

RedDave2 wrote:

What's the bias? Because theres more men? That's a pretty harsh assumption. This is a mostly male forum. How many would vote that proposal through? I reckon none.

But that's because there's a general lack of religion here, and that's the point. Religion has always been about control, and that includes the control of women. To assume the issue isn't in some form a biased male view thing is being naive

SpaceGazelle wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

Does anyone think aborting at 39 weeks would be ok?

Nothing here is a black and white issue and of course things are complicated as it depends on circumstance. It's a strange and slightly loaded thing to ask. Why would someone get an abortion at 39 weeks?

39 weeks is a full grown baby, so usually people would consider it not ok and infanticide. Generally, 24 weeks is considered the absolute limit when it comes to abortion. This is because before 24 weeks a foetus cannot survive outside of the mother due to underdevelopment of the lungs.

Anything after that is....no.