But that's just what happens in a democracy, surely? Let's leap to the ludicrous assumption that Corbyn wins a general election (I know it's daft, but stay with me) then socialist rules will be dictated to non-socialists because that's what the majority want. Religion, in this instance, has nothing much to do with it - the people could vote for representatives who would legalise abortion, but choose not to - that's freedom of choice in action.

Hardly surprising. The cynic in me says that if there were enough of them, politicians would find a way to accommodate their "tastes" and encourage their vote. The liberals might even find a way to make them the victims.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (03 Feb 2016 11.49am)

Thing is though that Liberals have been down this road with PIE etc and long since turned away from that. Plus in terms of consent, there is a reasonable consensus among society to place that at 16 - without any real prejudice.

I can't really see the age of consent being lowered - especially with the provision the CPS makes for those around the age of consent (ie where two kids are under sixteen, or one is 15 and the other is 1.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

It should depend not on the desire, but on the argument presented. The problem with the Irish scenario regarding abortion is that it was irrational and based in implementing a moral code onto people when a reasonable compromise could be presented. There wasn't a consensus and there was plenty of scope for a compromise (as exists in the UK).

Democracy has to protect minority groups 'choice and lifestyles' from the moral majority. We've seen this time and again through the previous century where the majority has implemented its will to oppress others essentially on the basis of gender, race, lifestyle choices, religion and sexual orientation. And in every case its turned out to be wrong and unjust - eventually. But we still seem to keep doing it...

In the abortion example firstly the law didn't prevent abortions. They continued, and women were travelling out of the country to have abortions, or turning to other sources for abortion, or led to large families that are a drain on the state and increased poverty, especially among the working classes.

The problem is that such issues are a personal choice, not one that the state needs to be involved with (Infact arguably the state benefits from legalised abortion - as it reduces costs in benefits, education, child care etc...).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

In some ways religion and the state are similar - Both present the idea that they have the 'truth' and can dictate to others how to live, notably right from wrong. Whilst religion can oppress, it requires the influence over state to do so. Religion alone cannot outlaw gay marriage, for want of an example, except in its own premesis, it requires its followers to influence the democratic process to do that (and does).

But here in lies the problem, morality isn't a real thing, there is no single truth, and the imposition of what the truth on others, is oppression (a tyranny of the majority). For society to be truly democratic, the freedom of the individuals right to make their own choices in regards to lifestyle, beliefs etc has to the priority, otherwise we end up going down the same continual dead ends of preventing peoples individual and civil rights on false concepts.

For an individuals personal choice to be restricted must at least require a reasonable, sound and pragmatic argument that it protects others from the real harm (such as theft, sexual abuse).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]