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.
Vela wrote: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.
Kow wrote: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.
Kow wrote: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.
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.
acemuzzy wrote:Does anyone think aborting at 39 weeks would be ok?
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?
acemuzzy wrote:Does anyone think aborting at 39 weeks would be ok?
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.
Kow wrote:With abortion, there are limits because at a certain point nobody will argue that we're taking about human life.
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.
Kow wrote:This is the problem with Trump - he has no political education or experience and doesn't understand the concept of democracy. Much as we didn't like Bush etc, they did understand this. Trump is just forcing laws through to please his base, which is not how things work.
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.
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?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!