The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Abortion: Don't Blame the Voters > Comments

Abortion: Don't Blame the Voters : Comments

By Helen Pringle, published 3/11/2010

As an issue 'right to life' has no discernible effect on how electors vote.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Helen, thank you for your article.

I think that the AFA and other right-to-life organisations have very little sway over voters intentions anyway, and most politicians (as do most people) don't change their opinions on abortion based on a few flimsy statistics from a questionable telephone poll.

What is a much larger threat for a woman's right to control her fertility and the impediment to abortion law reform, is the branch stacking that takes place within political parties. Why is it that well over 80% of Australians support a womans right to abortion but the majority of politicians in QLD and NSW are against reform?

The moderate NSW Liberals have been systematically replaced with right-to-lifers by means of branch-stacking by Maronite X-tians over the last ten years. The NSW Libs will probably be voted in by default next election, but the unsuspecting voter will have little idea of who they are actually be voting for. eg. Greg Smith. (Ex president of NSW Right-To-Life) and David Clarke (vocal anti-choice). Abortion probably won't even rate a mention during the campaign.
Posted by crumpethead, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 12:43:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
killing the unborn is abhorrent whether it is a political issue or not.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 3:46:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Except for "god", who can order "his" armies to do so, on the unsubstantiated verbal order given a dodgy priest or two. *then* it is hunky dory. The same lack of due process now wouldn't excuse a parking ticket.

I guess it's OK for "god" because he doesn't dirty his own hands but uses hired hands.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 4:40:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The polls show the public don't want abortion legalised. They don't want to see more women and children suffering from abortion. And to think the pro-abortion lobby tried to say that there was 90% support for more abortion in QLD.

What is our female premier doing to reduce the number women having abortions each year in QLD? What support is QLD's first Premier who is a mother providing to mothers here? How many abortions is enough?
Posted by Joe2008, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 6:02:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Runner,

My opinion piece does not deal with the question of whether abortion is abhorrent. It deals with the question of whether Australians decide how to cast their vote at elections on this issue. Many if not most Australians do have views on abortion (including on whether it is abhorrent or not), but I have found no evidence to suggest that people vote on "abortion", as they do vote on "economic issues" (or so a substantial body of evidence suggests). So people may feel strongly about abortion, the issue has a low salience in their decision on how to vote. Unlike in the US, opinions on abortion in Australia have not become divided along party lines for the most part, and have not aligned with other issues, further accentuating its low salience in voting decisions.

But as for its being abhorrent, that's another question entirely. As you know.

Helen
Posted by isabelberners, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 6:13:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
isabelberners

I think I agree with you that abortion is not an issue that many consider when voting at elections. Our media certainly would not allow that. I imagine that is why the perverted policies of the left often don't come up at election time. You have Labour saying they are economic conservatives and rational and then showing themselves the opposite. I would assume that most legislation to kill babies is done by State Governments in mid election cycles. It is quite sneaky but then again if the public was made to look at what is being done it is quite repulsive.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 6:28:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just remember folks, when "christians" object to abortion on religious grounds, particularly biblical literalists, they are hypocrites of the first order.

Abortion may or may not be wrong, but the "christian" "god" has no objection to killing. Killing adults, killing children, killing first-born males of a given family, or even the disemboweling of pregnant women before their husbands, usually by proxy. (as a father, I imagine that the fathers of the first-bormn of egypt would regard "christ's" crucifixion as a light sentence).

Any "christian" church or adherent that has not expressly disavowed the old testament cannot comment honestly or thoughtfully about abortion.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 8:12:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty and Runner anymore carry-on about what Christians do or do not allegedly believe will be regarded as off-topic. If you want to have an argument about that start a general thread and I _might_ approve it.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 8:36:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't forget that our system of 'representatives';
1- Are only elected by the largest party-preference MINORITY per electorate
2- these electorates in question are forced to vote for whichever party proxy is allocated to their region for their preferred party to effectively be supported (thanks to the double nature of select parliamentarians also filling executive roles)
3- voters in safe seats, as well as voters in opposition seats are completely ignored in these issues- only the tipping balance are considered
4- There really is nothing to do with 'representation' -we elect which personalities we feel least pricarious about to do whatever THEY like.

Considering differences of spending, workplace policy, war policy or refugee policy (real or only percieved)- voter's personal safety is likely going to dominate which package deal they'd rather vote for.

If there were a referendum- it'd be a different story- but that would require us becoming an actual democracy.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 10:10:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, Hazaa,

We could have *optional* preferences, thereby starving the minor parties more, though justly depriving those beyond the pale.

... or we could go for the same system used for senate quotas, this would get a few more voices of sanity in, leave the same parties with a reduced majority in power and let the fundies have their justly deserved and excessively generous 1% representation, as in the senate.

I suggest we distribute laser skirmish gear to all and let the "survivors" vote.

Or restrict it to those who could pass high school or better, Right now, no warning, no study time......

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 10:20:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted and poster suspended. Appears very provocative after my comments above.]
Posted by Big Frog, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 10:48:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[And deleted for the same reasons also and suspension made indefinite.]
Posted by Big Frog, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 11:04:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY

'Rusty and Runner anymore carry-on about what Christians do or do not allegedly believe will be regarded as off-topic'

Funny enough I had not mentioned what Christians believe or not. I offered an opinion without reference to God or theology.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:11:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You did. Sorry about that.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 4 November 2010 8:03:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good ideas Rusty- quite frankly those should have been the obvious standard, and would at least drastically improve upon what we have now in government.

Another consideration is to have the option to directly-elect persons to major portfolios, to ensure that regardless of whether a more liberal or more conservative government is preferable in general- at least there is the option to vote (one or more) a moderate into an independent ministry of health- as I seriously doubt many people who voted Liberal would also have ever put someone like Tony Abbot in the health department if they had the choice to single that portfolio individually and it meant their other areas of governance were unaffected.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 4 November 2010 8:49:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with you Runner when you say "the perverted policies of the left often don't come up at election time." The article tries to claim that there is no voter backlash from voters. But this is when the abortion laws are snuck in mid term. Also I think QLD is much more conservative than other states so this sneaking is much harder to get away with.

When Pro-life Victoria did a video on Victoria's laws the Herald Sun classed it "controversial" - just for saying what laws had been passed! What about the controversy of what is now happening in the state?

If the public are so pro abortion as many on the left say then why didn't Anna Bligh bring is up at election time? Yet more dishonesty?

Many conservatives are waking up to groups like Labor's Emilies List which work to elect pro-abortion females to parliament. There are no votes in this for the left where this is just one more little issue on their list along with things like gay marriage, surrogacy and same sex adoption. But there is a big chance of loosing votes on the right where this is a primary issue to many - a big vote changer.
Posted by Joe2008, Thursday, 4 November 2010 9:44:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy