Congratulations Portugal

[Urethra Franklin]

Portugal drags itself into the 21st century

BBC NEWS | Europe | Portugal will legalise abortion

Portugese women will no longer have to drag themselves over the border to Spain for this basic human right.
Bravo Portugal!
Now when is Ireland going to follow suit?

Bottle of this going down in Portugal's honour

:2party:

 

[GarzaUK]

Portugal drags itself into the 21st century

BBC NEWS | Europe | Portugal will legalise abortion

Portugese women will no longer have to drag themselves over the border to Spain for this basic human right.
Bravo Portugal!
Now when is Ireland going to follow suit?

Bottle of this going down in Portugal's honour

:2party:

Ireland won't follow for a while. The Irish girls usually just cross the border into Northern Ireland for abortions though, only £20 for a train ticket.

Ah Mateus, nice wine.

 

[C Foster]

Portugal drags itself into the 21st century

How?

They defied democracy!

That is caveman behaviour.

 

[ChristopherHall]

Well...Portugal is now on board with the rest of the "civilized nations" with their legalization of child sacrifice.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

How?

They defied democracy!

That is caveman behaviour.

You refer to the low turnout?
Abstentions and people not bothering to vote are neither yes nor no votes.
This referendum was carried off with a yes vote of over 59%
Victory!

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Well...Portugal is now on board with the rest of the "civilized nations" with their legalization of child sacrifice.

No sweetpea, not child sacrifice but termination of pregnancy.
Your English very bad.

 

[C Foster]

You refer to the low turnout?
Abstentions and people not bothering to vote are neither yes nor no votes.
This referendum was carried off with a yes vote of over 59%
Victory!

Read your own source:

...Turnout was about 40%, far less than the 50% required,...

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Read your own source:

...Turnout was about 40%, far less than the 50% required,...

Read threads properly. I wasn't quoting turnout. I SAID it was a low turnout. Irrelevant. If people can't be bothered to use their vote they've chosen not to have a voice. This was carried by over 59%. A victory for common sense.

 

[C Foster]

Read threads properly. I wasn't quoting turnout. I SAID it was a low turnout. Irrelevant. If people can't be bothered to use their vote they've chosen not to have a voice. This was carried by over 59%. A victory for common sense.

No, you should invest in a little knowledge of democracy and mathematics, for the vote to count there has to be over 50% turn over, that is the rule in that country. So it transpires that only 26% of the Portuguese voted in favour of abortion law changes. Hence only a small proportion want abortion, remember the vote was to determine whether there should be a change in the law, obviously the majority do not want a change.

Caveman politics.

 

[Dezaad]

No, you should invest in a little knowledge of democracy and mathematics, for the vote to count there has to be over 50% turn over, that is the rule in that country. So it transpires that only 26% of the Portuguese voted in favour of abortion law changes. Hence only a small proportion want abortion, remember the vote was to determine whether there should be a change in the law, obviously the majority do not want a change.

Caveman politics.

Wow I can't believe people's capacity for viewing things the way they want to see them. The breakdown actually goes something like this:
23% In favor of changing the law
17% Want no change
60% Are ambivalent or don't care enough either way to go vote

Citing only the 23% is so misleading. But, I am not sure if you are misleading yourself or attempting to mislead readers. A case can still be made against the parliament changing the law, it is just more difficult and will turn out less clear cut.

However, I think the strongest case is made on the other side: The people have had at least 20 years to think about how they feel about the legal status of abortion, and still have not made up their minds. It seems to me that this indicates that they don't want to be responsible for making their own policy on this matter. So, by default they want it to be decided by their representative body. If this were a new issue, I would not come to this conclusion.

 

[C Foster]

Wow I can't believe people's capacity for viewing things the way they want to see them. The breakdown actually goes something like this:
23% In favor of changing the law
17% Want no change
60% Are ambivalent or don't care enough either way to go vote

Citing only the 23% is so misleading. But, I am not sure if you are misleading yourself or attempting to mislead readers. A case can still be made against the parliament changing the law, it is just more difficult and will turn out less clear cut.

However, I think the strongest case is made on the other side: The people have had at least 20 years to think about how they feel about the legal status of abortion, and still have not made up their minds. It seems to me that this indicates that they don't want to be responsible for making their own policy on this matter. So, by default they want it to be decided by their representative body. If this were a new issue, I would not come to this conclusion.

Well I not surprised at all that you are attempting to mislead people.

The article says:

"Prime Minister Jose Socrates has said abortion will be legalised in Portugal despite the turnout for a referendum being too low to be legally binding. "

Turnout was about 40%, far less than the 50% required, but of those who did vote, 59.3% backed a proposed change to the current law.

Therefore they will legalize early stage abortion on demand though only 26% of voters approved referendum motion.

 

[Dezaad]

Well I not surprised at all that you are attempting to mislead people.

What are you talking about, precisely? Did I leave something out? Did I say something factually untrue?

The article says:

"Prime Minister Jose Socrates has said abortion will be legalised in Portugal despite the turnout for a referendum being too low to be legally binding. "

I acknowledge this in my post: 60% were ambivalent or didn't have an opinion. This means that 60% didn't vote, either because they haven't made up their minds or because they don't care.

Turnout was about 40%, far less than the 50% required, but of those who did vote, 59.3% backed a proposed change to the current law.

Turnout was 40%: See above and in my post where I said "60% Are ambivalent or don't care enough either way to go vote". (100%-40%=60%)

Therefore they will legalize early stage abortion on demand though only 26% of voters approved referendum motion.

Your math is wrong here, and is more in your favor than you are asserting. As I asserted in my post, it was only 23% that favors making a change in the law.

 

[C Foster]

What are you talking about, precisely? Did I leave something out? Did I say something factually untrue?

I acknowledge this in my post: 60% were ambivalent or didn't have an opinion. This means that 60% didn't vote, either because they haven't made up their minds or because they don't care.

Turnout was 40%: See above and in my post where I said "60% Are ambivalent or don't care enough either way to go vote". (100%-40%=60%)

Your math is wrong here, and is more in your favor than you are asserting. As I asserted in my post, it was only 23% that favors making a change in the law.

You have great audacity to claim that I'm misleading people, the vote was asking people whether they want a change in the law, less than 30% of the population voted for a change, this means most people do not want a change, do you understand that?

Either by voting against or abstaining from voting means that they do not want a change in the law.

LifeSite - Your Life, Family and Culture Outpost featuring daily news and information not widely available in the mainstream media.

Prime Minister Jose Socrates, with the ruling Socialist Party, said the government will ignore the 44 percent voter turnout, significantly under the more-than 50 percent necessary for a valid result. In a previous referendum held in 1998 on the issue, opposition to abortion came out ahead in the polls but the vote was discarded because of a low voter turnout of 30 percent.

The new proposal will introduce abortion on demand up to 10 weeks gestation. Under the current law, abortion is illegal unless the mother’s life or health is in serious danger, in cases of rape and for fetal abnormality.

Nearly 60 percent of those who showed up to vote were in favour of changing Portugal’s abortion laws. That was enough for Prime Minister Jose Socrates to justify bypassing the insufficient voter turnout rule. That is, according to the government, the expressed wish of 60% of 44% of the voters, which translates into 26% of all Portuguese voters, is considered enough to justify a dramatic change in law on a very contentious issue.

Caveman politics.

 

[Dezaad]

You have great audacity to claim that I'm misleading people, the vote was asking people whether they want a change in the law, less than 30% of the population voted for a change, this means most people do not want a change, do you understand that?

Either by voting against or abstaining from voting means that they do not want a change in the law.

Your claim that abstention = 'do not favor a change' is what is audacious. When there is a 'no' vote available, you don't just get to sit at home and do nothing!! It is unbelievable that you would propose such a thing.

 

[jallman]

You have great audacity to claim that I'm misleading people, the vote was asking people whether they want a change in the law, less than 30% of the population voted for a change, this means most people do not want a change, do you understand that?

Either by voting against or abstaining from voting means that they do not want a change in the law.

Nearly 60 percent of those who showed up to vote were in favour of changing Portugal’s abortion laws. That was enough for Prime Minister Jose Socrates to justify bypassing the insufficient voter turnout rule. That is, according to the government, the expressed wish of 60% of 44% of the voters, which translates into 26% of all Portuguese voters, is considered enough to justify a dramatic change in law on a very contentious issue.

What "insufficient voter turn out rule"? If you don't vote, your vote doesn't get counted.

 

[C Foster]

Your claim that abstention = 'do not favor a change' is what is audacious. When there is a 'no' vote available, you don't just get to sit at home and do nothing!! It is unbelievable that you would propose such a thing.

How else do you interpret it, if the question asked at the polls is “Do you favour a change in the abortion laws?”.

 

[C Foster]

What "insufficient voter turn out rule"? If you don't vote, your vote doesn't get counted.

Precisely!

So you don't favour a change.

 

[Dezaad]

What "insufficient voter turn out rule"? If you don't vote, your vote doesn't get counted.

I'll answer that: Portugal makes it part of their referendum process that if fewer than 50% show up for a vote, the vote 'is not legally binding'. Only 40% of eligible Portugese showed up, so the vote is not legally binding, either for or against a change.

 

[C Foster]

I'll answer that: Portugal makes it part of their referendum process that if fewer than 50% show up for a vote, the vote 'is not legally binding'. Only 40% of eligible Portugese showed up, so the vote is not legally binding, either for or against a change.

Well done, I knew you would see it eventually.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Your claim that abstention = 'do not favor a change' is what is audacious. When there is a 'no' vote available, you don't just get to sit at home and do nothing!! It is unbelievable that you would propose such a thing.

Same applies when there is a yes vote available. Hence the Portugese governement, as the democratically elected government of the day whose position was clear when they were elected, have taken the "yes" referendum victory as a green light to enhancing women's rights. Over 59% who voted, voted yes. The figures speak for themselves. C Foster can read 'em and weep.:rock

 

[C Foster]

Same applies when there is a yes vote available. Hence the Portugese governement, as the democratically elected government of the day whose position was clear when they were elected, have taken the "yes" referendum victory as a green light to enhancing women's rights. Over 59% who voted, voted yes. The figures speak for themselves. Read 'em and weep.:rock

Less than a third voted for a change in the law.

 

[Dezaad]

Less than a third voted for a change in the law.

And even less voted against a change...

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Less than a third voted for a change in the law.

If the majority were REALLY against change (which you can't know unless you're a mind reader) they should have arsed themselves to go out and vote. As it stands, the YES vote won! And you can't change that!
Sulking is a very unattractive trait sweetpea.
Let the celebration continue!:2party:

 

[jallman]

So bottom line...does Portugal have safe and legal abortion now or not?

 

[talloulou]

So bottom line...does Portugal have safe and legal abortion now or not?

Abortion is never safe for the unborn. But I guess from a women's perspective it is now much safer to terminate your offspring in Portugal. Not something I woohoo over but apparently many thrill over the prospect.