Abortion - left/right, anti/pro

Started to post something on the Libertas thread about this and realised I'd gone off topic a good bit so thought of starting a dedicated thread instead.

I support the right to abortion for those who want it, though I have misgivings about whether it is a morally right thing, and whether it is inherently self-destructive for us - but conclude that individuals must be allowed to determine their own views on it - the devastation of unwanted pregnancy is frequently life threatening and destructive for all involved too - not least the child who is born to a person who does not want a baby and cannot afford to have one. I don't agree that pro-life people have the right to impose their views on others.

But there's the rub: if someone belives abortion to be murder then of course they are going to want to stop it, by definition, and are going to be pretty fierce in their opposition to it, what is more. Anti-war protestors opposed to what they believe is state murder surely would understand this? Conversely, why is it that so many prominent pro-lifers are so eager to justify, eg, the US bloodlust in the Middle East and elsewhere? Why do not SPUC members come forward to protest the deaths of millions of innocent people, if they are genuinely pro-life (I'm sure some of them do oppose these wars)?

In the end it seems that people who support the right to abortion will have to come to terms with the fact that those who genuinely believe it is murder have no choice, if they are to be true to themselves, but to oppose it.

So, is it murder?

Aragon wrote:

Started to post something on the Libertas thread about this and realised I'd gone off topic a good bit so thought of starting a dedicated thread instead.

I support the right to abortion for those who want it, though I have misgivings about whether it is a morally right thing, and whether it is inherently self-destructive for us - but conclude that individuals must be allowed to determine their own views on it - the devastation of unwanted pregnancy is frequently life threatening and destructive for all involved too - not least the child who is born to a person who does not want a baby and cannot afford to have one. I don't agree that pro-life people have the right to impose their views on others.

But there's the rub: if someone belives abortion to be murder then of course they are going to want to stop it, by definition, and are going to be pretty fierce in their opposition to it, what is more. Anti-war protestors opposed to what they believe is state murder surely would understand this? Conversely, why is it that so many prominent pro-lifers are so eager to justify, eg, the US bloodlust in the Middle East and elsewhere? Why do not SPUC members come forward to protest the deaths of millions of innocent people, if they are genuinely pro-life (I'm sure some of them do oppose these wars)?

In the end it seems that people who support the right to abortion will have to come to terms with the fact that those who genuinely believe it is murder have no choice, if they are to be true to themselves, but to oppose it.

So, is it murder?

Yes

I'm a bit confused about the theme of the thread. Do you intend it to be about the morality of abortion, or about the activities of anti-abortion activists? Or both?

cactus flower wrote:

I'm a bit confused about the theme of the thread. Do you intend it to be about the morality of abortion, or about the activities of anti-abortion activists? Or both?

Partly I was motivated to post the thread because of the hatred directed at pro lifers by many on the left. Of course it cuts the other way too but it puzzles me that anti abortionists like Kathy Sinnott for instance, are so hated by the left. Sinnott is a whole lot more than her views on abortion and contraception - a dedicated campaigner for rights for people for the protection of the environment and other things besides. It's like this one issue has been made into a major taboo by the left so that perfectly ordinary people with no more than their fair share of human failing and weakness cannot say what they think about it without being howled out of it. Here's one discussion that was had a couple of years ago about Sinnott to illustrate what I'm driving at:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78284

I didnt intend to make this thread be about Sinnott but I suppose she serves a good example of what I'm talking about.

Aragon wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I'm a bit confused about the theme of the thread. Do you intend it to be about the morality of abortion, or about the activities of anti-abortion activists? Or both?

Partly I was motivated to post the thread because of the hatred directed at pro lifers by many on the left. Of course it cuts the other way too but it puzzles me that anti abortionists like Kathy Sinnott for instance, are so hated by the left. Sinnott is a whole lot more than her views on abortion and contraception - a dedicated campaigner for rights for people for the protection of the environment and other things besides. It's like this one issue has been made into a major taboo by the left so that perfectly ordinary people with no more than their fair share of human failing and weakness cannot say what they think about it without being howled out of it. Here's one discussion that was had a couple of years ago about Sinnott to illustrate what I'm driving at:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78284

I didnt intend to make this thread be about Sinnott but I suppose she serves a good example of what I'm talking about.

I read the article, which seems to me to be measured in tone and fact based. It is written from a left wing stand point. I didn't see any of the personalised venom and hatred or howling in it that I expected to find having read your post.

Sinnott has made a political alliance with Libertas and is as described in that article part of the conservative-religious right wing. The writer says

Quote :

The left should be careful not to let itself to be confused with clerical-conservatives.

I agree with this.

The right-wing Catholic grouping that Libertas is gathering together in my view is being formed with a view to using religious fundamentalism as a battering ram to try to drive wedges between people of different race and religion. Islamic fundamentalism has been used in just such a way, for decades now, with tragic results.

From Declan Ganley's recent statements it is apparent that we should expect the abortion card to be played heavily in the forthcoming Referendum. I am sure that he will get some support, but I am not so sure that all the supporters will have had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the track record of the members of other Libertas branches thoughout Europe.

cactus flower wrote:

Aragon wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I'm a bit confused about the theme of the thread. Do you intend it to be about the morality of abortion, or about the activities of anti-abortion activists? Or both?

Partly I was motivated to post the thread because of the hatred directed at pro lifers by many on the left. Of course it cuts the other way too but it puzzles me that anti abortionists like Kathy Sinnott for instance, are so hated by the left. Sinnott is a whole lot more than her views on abortion and contraception - a dedicated campaigner for rights for people for the protection of the environment and other things besides. It's like this one issue has been made into a major taboo by the left so that perfectly ordinary people with no more than their fair share of human failing and weakness cannot say what they think about it without being howled out of it. Here's one discussion that was had a couple of years ago about Sinnott to illustrate what I'm driving at:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78284

I didnt intend to make this thread be about Sinnott but I suppose she serves a good example of what I'm talking about.

I read the article, which seems to me to be measured in tone and fact based. It is written from a left wing stand point. I didn't see any of the personalised venom and hatred or howling in it that I expected to find having read your post.

Sinnott has made a political alliance with Libertas and is as described in that article part of the conservative-religious right wing. The writer says

Quote :

The left should be careful not to let itself to be confused with clerical-conservatives.

I agree with this.

The right-wing Catholic grouping that Libertas is gathering together in my view is being formed with a view to using religious fundamentalism as a battering ram to try to drive wedges between people of different race and religion. Islamic fundamentalism has been used in just such a way, for decades now, with tragic results.

From Declan Ganley's recent statements it is apparent that we should expect the abortion card to be played heavily in the forthcoming Referendum. I am sure that he will get some support, but I am not so sure that all the supporters will have had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the track record of the members of other Libertas branches thoughout Europe.

See the comments beneath the article. I might as well have left my comment on the Libertas thread if we are going to bring this back to Ganley and Libertas! Sinnott would be incapable of thinking in the way you describe, of wanting to drive wedges between different groups - it would offend every principle she has. She is a conviction politician like many others across the spectrum.

Why do you call it the 'abortion card'? The expression connnotes exactly the sort of perspective that I'd hoped to explore: that opposing abortion is axiomatically suspicious, that those who oppose it only have ulterior motives when they do not - certainly no more so than people who take the opposite view. In both cases most people are merely expressing genuinely held views. There is little respect for that fact. My point is that I think opposing abortion is a reasonable and rational position - even though on balance I support the right to abortion myself. It seems entirely rational that if you think something is murder then you are bound to try to stop it from happening. So the questions surely comes down only to whether it really is murder or not? Why can't that discussion be had in a mutually respectful attitude?

Here's the sort of issue that confounds certainty about the right or wrong of abortion: there are many in the disability lobby who have good reason to believe that abortion is being thought of as a solution to disability as a matter of policy. A lot of medical research is being done to indentify disability in utero and to provide people with the choice of whether to terminate or not. This is hearbreaking for people with disability to think about. Many who would support the campaign for rights for people with disability would also support the right to abortion. These positions are inconsistent. Able bodied people can chose whether the disabled get to have a life or not. It also means that disabled people who get pregnant would have the right to choose - and Im sure many support the right to abortion too. But for many - the most profoundly disabled - that right would be meaningless. No matter what way you cut it, the right to abort a disabled fetus because they are disabled puts those people on a lesser footing to the rest of us.

Having said all of the above, the reality of unwanted pregnancy is so appalling for so many women, the consequences in life terms for many children so dreadful that these things amount to an anti-life sentence in themselves. Thre's nothing noble in needless suffering especially when so much of it is the result only of prejudice and/or the greed which consigns most of humanity to driving poverty and inequalities of all sorts. Single mothers have once again been wheeled out on p.ie for scapegoating and are apparently responsible for our economic collapse and every evil in our society. I'd wager that many of the people posting their hatred on that thread are anti abortion too. In a society like ours, with those attitudes still screaming out at us from the pages of national newspapers, women have every right to abortion on demand. 'Life' is more than mere physical existence.

By the abortion card, I assume, though I cannot speak on her behalf, cactus is referring to the raising of issues which are not altogether relevant to the issue at hand. The default position in Irish law is that abortion is not permitted, except in some very limited circumstances of medical necessity. Thus, to raise it during a European election campaign is at best irrelevant and at worst an attempt to whip up some hysteria around the issue.

johnfás wrote:

By the abortion card, I assume, though I cannot speak on her behalf, cactus is referring to the raising of issues which are not altogether relevant to the issue at hand. The default position in Irish law is that abortion is not permitted, except in some very limited circumstances of medical necessity. Thus, to raise it during a European election campaign is at best irrelevant and at worst an attempt to whip up some hysteria around the issue.

This thread was supposed to be about abortion per se. The fact is abortion is a very hot topic in the EU at the moment on both sides of the debate and is indeed being fought over very hard. This blog gives a flavour of how that debate is raging on. I don't make and judgment or endorsement of any of the views registered there.

http://guardduty.wordpress.com/2007/02/13/theme-the-eu-and-abortion/

Kathy Sinnott's reasons for worrying about the Lisbon Treaty - her primary concern is not that abortion itself is specifically advocated but that the legal autonomy of Ireland on that and other matters is removed and therefore national law will be vulnerable to challenges at EU level which could effectively overturn our current position. Like I've said before, my view is that people who dont want abortion dont have to have one but should not impose their views on the rest of us, though I understand why they feel compelled to try. Either way, Sinnott's is a perfectly rational and reasonable interpretation of the proposed changes under Lisbon which basically set aside Irish law and leave the matter to the courts where someone decides to mount a challenge. As she says, nobody can know how such a case will be ruled - none of the yes side who are so adamant that this is 'hysteria' know either, and consequently their certainty on the point is misleading and dishonest.

http://www.wmaker.net/KathySinnott/Bishops-Pastoral-Letter-and-the-Lisbon-Treaty_a116.html

Aragon wrote:

johnfás wrote:

By the abortion card, I assume, though I cannot speak on her behalf, cactus is referring to the raising of issues which are not altogether relevant to the issue at hand. The default position in Irish law is that abortion is not permitted, except in some very limited circumstances of medical necessity. Thus, to raise it during a European election campaign is at best irrelevant and at worst an attempt to whip up some hysteria around the issue.

This thread was supposed to be about abortion per se. The fact is abortion is a very hot topic in the EU at the moment on both sides of the debate and is indeed being fought over very hard. This blog gives a flavour of how that debate is raging on. I don't make and judgment or endorsement of any of the views registered there.

http://guardduty.wordpress.com/2007/02/13/theme-the-eu-and-abortion/

Kathy Sinnott's reasons for worrying about the Lisbon Treaty - her primary concern is not that abortion itself is specifically advocated but that the legal autonomy of Ireland on that and other matters is removed and therefore national law will be vulnerable to challenges at EU level which could effectively overturn our current position. Like I've said before, my view is that people who dont want abortion dont have to have one but should not impose their views on the rest of us, though I understand why they feel compelled to try. Either way, Sinnott's is a perfectly rational and reasonable interpretation of the proposed changes under Lisbon which basically set aside Irish law and leave the matter to the courts where someone decides to mount a challenge. As she says, nobody can know how such a case will be ruled - none of the yes side who are so adamant that this is 'hysteria' know either, and consequently their certainty on the point is misleading and dishonest.

http://www.wmaker.net/KathySinnott/Bishops-Pastoral-Letter-and-the-Lisbon-Treaty_a116.html

There's nothing reasonable about Kathy Sinnot's interpretation at all. The only basis on which the ECJ can make judgements are the Treaties, and the Treaties contain this Protocol:

Quote :

Nothing in the Treaties, or in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.

That is, as they say, as plain as the balls on a dog. Flibbeting about making up worries about EU law overturning a Constitutional amendment which is in turn specifically protected in the foundations of EU law is a waste of everyone's time.

I would like to agree with Ibis. The Lisbon Treaty would have protected Irish abortion laws.

Interestingly a seperate part of the Lisbon Treaty to the bit that protected Irish abortion laws is the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 2 is below.

Article 2
Right to life
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or
executed.

I thought that this Article could be used to in the European courts to try to outlaw abortion across Europe, what does anyone else think? Once you prove life begins at conception, its a straightforward case surely.

Art wrote:

I would like to agree with Ibis. The Lisbon Treaty would have protected Irish abortion laws.

Interestingly a seperate part of the Lisbon Treaty to the bit that protected Irish abortion laws is the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 2 is below.

Article 2
Right to life
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or
executed.

I thought that this Article could be used to in the European courts to try to outlaw abortion across Europe, what does anyone else think? Once you prove life begins at conception, its a straightforward case surely.

Well, again, it can't be used to any such effect in Ireland for the same reasons that Lisbon more generally cannot be, since the Charter is supplementary to the Treaties and is therefore covered by the same Protocol.

As to the idea that more generally the Charter Article could be used to outlaw abortion - well, fortunately that's already been tested, in a sense, because Ireland is a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. This is Article 2 of the ECHR:

Quote :

Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights

1 Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2 Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

That should look pretty familiar, since the Charter Article is a direct copy of it. The following states are members of the CoE and signatories to the above:

Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.

A good number of those restrict or outlaw abortion, apparently without any side-effects from Article 2 of the ECHR.

Finally, the rights in the Charter could only be used to prevent the EU from introducing abortion, since the Charter only applies to the EU, not the member states (who are separately signatory to the ECHR) - and abortion is not an EU competence, nor ever likely to become one, so there's little point in using the Charter to prevent the EU doing things it isn't able to do anyway.

Art wrote:

Once you prove life begins at conception, it's a straightforward case surely.

LOL. Good luck with that one Art.

This supposed to be about abortion not about Lisbon - the point of my post is that those who oppose abortion are derided, treated with suspicion accused of being manipulative, fascist and a host of other epithets - in this instance 'hysteria' - all for expressing a rational and reasonable point of view - albeit it one I dont ultimately agree with.

This is not about the Lisbon Treaty puhleeze - can we relocate discussion of Sinnott's points about that to the Lisbon thread? I responded to a post of CF's to explain the point of the thread and its gone off topic from there. If it can't be brought back again, I'll have to start another one I suppose.

Aragon wrote:

This supposed to be about abortion not about Lisbon - the point of my post is that those who oppose abortion are derided, treated with suspicion accused of being manipulative, fascist and a host of other epithets - in this instance 'hysteria' - all for expressing a rational and reasonable point of view - albeit it one I dont ultimately agree with.

This is not about the Lisbon Treaty puhleeze - can we relocate discussion of Sinnott's points about that to the Lisbon thread? I responded to a post of CF's to explain the point of the thread and its gone off topic from there. If it can't be brought back again, I'll have to start another one I suppose.

I'm happy to help bring it back on topic, but I think we might as well leave the relatively brief discussion of abortion-and-Lisbon in place, since it will otherwise inevitably crop up again.

I don't really agree that "those who oppose abortion are derided, treated with suspicion accused of being manipulative, fascist and a host of other epithets" - or, rather, I think there's good reason for it, and in a sense it's a separate issue from their abortion stance. Many of those who are prominently associated with opposition to abortion are indeed both manipulative and in favour of extreme social conservatism as well as being opposed to abortion. It's the latter point that makes the general public - who, last time we voted, were themselves opposed to abortion - suspicious of the campaigners. Most people may oppose abortion, but that doesn't mean they want to be dragged back into the 1950's.

Abortion has nothing to do with left or right, it has no bearing on Lisbon either. I am utterly opposed to abortion being legal (and none of this flim-flammery about it being a personal choice), but politically, economically, and socially, I would be considered fairly left wing and libertarian. It has nothing, unlike say contraception, to do with religion either. Were I to become an atheist tomorrow, I'd still oppose it. Kathy Sinnott is a legend, by the way...

I think I would have been a flim flammer on abortion up to a certain point in my life, at which point I became staunchly anti-abortion. It had nothing to do with either religion or politics.

Aragon wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Aragon wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I'm a bit confused about the theme of the thread. Do you intend it to be about the morality of abortion, or about the activities of anti-abortion activists? Or both?

Partly I was motivated to post the thread because of the hatred directed at pro lifers by many on the left. Of course it cuts the other way too but it puzzles me that anti abortionists like Kathy Sinnott for instance, are so hated by the left. Sinnott is a whole lot more than her views on abortion and contraception - a dedicated campaigner for rights for people for the protection of the environment and other things besides. It's like this one issue has been made into a major taboo by the left so that perfectly ordinary people with no more than their fair share of human failing and weakness cannot say what they think about it without being howled out of it. Here's one discussion that was had a couple of years ago about Sinnott to illustrate what I'm driving at:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78284

I didnt intend to make this thread be about Sinnott but I suppose she serves a good example of what I'm talking about.

I read the article, which seems to me to be measured in tone and fact based. It is written from a left wing stand point. I didn't see any of the personalised venom and hatred or howling in it that I expected to find having read your post.

Sinnott has made a political alliance with Libertas and is as described in that article part of the conservative-religious right wing. The writer says

Quote :

The left should be careful not to let itself to be confused with clerical-conservatives.

I agree with this.

The right-wing Catholic grouping that Libertas is gathering together in my view is being formed with a view to using religious fundamentalism as a battering ram to try to drive wedges between people of different race and religion. Islamic fundamentalism has been used in just such a way, for decades now, with tragic results.

From Declan Ganley's recent statements it is apparent that we should expect the abortion card to be played heavily in the forthcoming Referendum. I am sure that he will get some support, but I am not so sure that all the supporters will have had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the track record of the members of other Libertas branches thoughout Europe.

See the comments beneath the article. I might as well have left my comment on the Libertas thread if we are going to bring this back to Ganley and Libertas! Sinnott would be incapable of thinking in the way you describe, of wanting to drive wedges between different groups - it would offend every principle she has. She is a conviction politician like many others across the spectrum.

Why do you call it the 'abortion card'? The expression connnotes exactly the sort of perspective that I'd hoped to explore: that opposing abortion is axiomatically suspicious, that those who oppose it only have ulterior motives when they do not - certainly no more so than people who take the opposite view. In both cases most people are merely expressing genuinely held views. There is little respect for that fact. My point is that I think opposing abortion is a reasonable and rational position - even though on balance I support the right to abortion myself. It seems entirely rational that if you think something is murder then you are bound to try to stop it from happening. So the questions surely comes down only to whether it really is murder or not? Why can't that discussion be had in a mutually respectful attitude?

Here's the sort of issue that confounds certainty about the right or wrong of abortion: there are many in the disability lobby who have good reason to believe that abortion is being thought of as a solution to disability as a matter of policy. A lot of medical research is being done to indentify disability in utero and to provide people with the choice of whether to terminate or not. This is hearbreaking for people with disability to think about. Many who would support the campaign for rights for people with disability would also support the right to abortion. These positions are inconsistent. Able bodied people can chose whether the disabled get to have a life or not. It also means that disabled people who get pregnant would have the right to choose - and Im sure many support the right to abortion too. But for many - the most profoundly disabled - that right would be meaningless. No matter what way you cut it, the right to abort a disabled fetus because they are disabled puts those people on a lesser footing to the rest of us.

Having said all of the above, the reality of unwanted pregnancy is so appalling for so many women, the consequences in life terms for many children so dreadful that these things amount to an anti-life sentence in themselves. Thre's nothing noble in needless suffering especially when so much of it is the result only of prejudice and/or the greed which consigns most of humanity to driving poverty and inequalities of all sorts. Single mothers have once again been wheeled out on p.ie for scapegoating and are apparently responsible for our economic collapse and every evil in our society. I'd wager that many of the people posting their hatred on that thread are anti abortion too. In a society like ours, with those attitudes still screaming out at us from the pages of national newspapers, women have every right to abortion on demand. 'Life' is more than mere physical existence.

I've now read the comments and still don't see signs of howling hatred. I agree with the article in Indymedia. The tone of a few of the comments on both sides of the debate is at times sharp, but by and large it is sound political debate. I think the writer makes a very valid point in saying that a political alliance should not be built on a single issue, if there are other issues of principle on which the two parties differ. As the article you cited was about the pros and cons of alliance between left and right in the Nice and Referendum campaigns, I didn't feel to follow on on this issue was off topic.

Kathy Sinnott, one of the comments points out, like Libertas, has chosen to be a member of a group with the League of Polish Families. This group is openly anti-semitic and homophobic. Their Youth Wing, of whom a Libertas member is a prominent activist, is particularly known for gruesome street violence against homosexuals. As a mother of a child with disabilities she may have been attracted to the religion-based opposition of the FPF to abortion on grounds of disability (they also oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest), but the broad view of the history of the far right in Europe suggests that its interest in people with disabilities has been anything but benign.

toxic avenger wrote:

Abortion has nothing to do with left or right, it has no bearing on Lisbon either. I am utterly opposed to abortion being legal (and none of this flim-flammery about it being a personal choice), but politically, economically, and socially, I would be considered fairly left wing and libertarian. It has nothing, unlike say contraception, to do with religion either. Were I to become an atheist tomorrow, I'd still oppose it. Kathy Sinnott is a legend, by the way...

Remind me to ask you some time what is left wing about you Toxic Avenger. It would be off topic here.

toxic avenger wrote:

Abortion has nothing to do with left or right, it has no bearing on Lisbon either. I am utterly opposed to abortion being legal (and none of this flim-flammery about it being a personal choice), but politically, economically, and socially, I would be considered fairly left wing and libertarian. It has nothing, unlike say contraception, to do with religion either. Were I to become an atheist tomorrow, I'd still oppose it. Kathy Sinnott is a legend, by the way...

As a matter of moral principle of course that is right. Im pointing to a general trend among left wing people who support a right to abortion and among right wingers who tend not to. As you say there are people right across the political spectrum who may be in either camp. Christian Marxists would be opposed eg.

I consider myself left wing libertarian too and while I understand that for you it is a question of murder you will have to accept that many of us profoundly disagree with you and see no reason why you should bust our heads with your convictions. Forcing people to have children they dont want is an abuse of both the woman and the child that results. At the same time I think you are entitled to express your views without being labelled a fascist or any of the usual crap that gets chucked at people. Sinnott is a tremendous person - just as determined a campaigner on any issue where she perceives injustice and will take on any and all vested interests necessary without fear or favour. On the thread I linked to above, left wingers were saying how they felt it would demean their cause to share a platform with her on any issue because of her stance on abortion. Unbelievable, totalitarian bollocks. On the other hand Kathy herself is incredibly open to working with people on the issues and does not write people off because they dont agree on everything.

(Re Lisbon - I just spoke to Sinnott briefly and will post her response on the other thread).

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Abortion has nothing to do with left or right, it has no bearing on Lisbon either. I am utterly opposed to abortion being legal (and none of this flim-flammery about it being a personal choice), but politically, economically, and socially, I would be considered fairly left wing and libertarian. It has nothing, unlike say contraception, to do with religion either. Were I to become an atheist tomorrow, I'd still oppose it. Kathy Sinnott is a legend, by the way...

Remind me to ask you some time what is left wing about you Toxic Avenger. It would be off topic here.

I'm pro-trade union recognition and rights, pro-progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth, pro-strong regulation of finance and business, pro-productive economy (rather than giant financial pyramid schemes and everyone in 'service' of everyone else, pro-the hanging, drawing, and quartering of corrupt politicians and businessmen, plus rip-off merchants in white-collars etc. etc. I know you said 'off-topic' but I detected scepticism and didn't wish to leave it hanging. If you wish to ask m about my stance on individual policies, go ahead.

Aragon wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Abortion has nothing to do with left or right, it has no bearing on Lisbon either. I am utterly opposed to abortion being legal (and none of this flim-flammery about it being a personal choice), but politically, economically, and socially, I would be considered fairly left wing and libertarian. It has nothing, unlike say contraception, to do with religion either. Were I to become an atheist tomorrow, I'd still oppose it. Kathy Sinnott is a legend, by the way...

As a matter of moral principle of course that is right. Im pointing to a general trend among left wing people who support a right to abortion and among right wingers who tend not to. As you say there are people right across the political spectrum who may be in either camp. Christian Marxists would be opposed eg.

I consider myself left wing libertarian too and while I understand that for you it is a question of murder you will have to accept that many of us profoundly disagree with you and see no reason why you should bust our heads with your convictions. Forcing people to have children they dont want is an abuse of both the woman and the child that results. At the same time I think you are entitled to express your views without being labelled a fascist or any of the usual crap that gets chucked at people. Sinnott is a tremendous person - just as determined a campaigner on any issue where she perceives injustice and will take on any and all vested interests necessary without fear or favour. On the thread I linked to above, left wingers were saying how they felt it would demean their cause to share a platform with her on any issue because of her stance on abortion. Unbelievable, totalitarian bollocks. On the other hand Kathy herself is incredibly open to working with people on the issues and does not write people off because they dont agree on everything.

(Re Lisbon - I just spoke to Sinnott briefly and will post her response on the other thread).

Please would you quote that passage Aragon? That is not what I understood the "left wingers" to be saying, certainly not the person who wrote the article.

Aragon wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Abortion has nothing to do with left or right, it has no bearing on Lisbon either. I am utterly opposed to abortion being legal (and none of this flim-flammery about it being a personal choice), but politically, economically, and socially, I would be considered fairly left wing and libertarian. It has nothing, unlike say contraception, to do with religion either. Were I to become an atheist tomorrow, I'd still oppose it. Kathy Sinnott is a legend, by the way...

As a matter of moral principle of course that is right. Im pointing to a general trend among left wing people who support a right to abortion and among right wingers who tend not to. As you say there are people right across the political spectrum who may be in either camp. Christian Marxists would be opposed eg.

I consider myself left wing libertarian too and while I understand that for you it is a question of murder you will have to accept that many of us profoundly disagree with you and see no reason why you should bust our heads with your convictions. Forcing people to have children they dont want is an abuse of both the woman and the child that results. At the same time I think you are entitled to express your views without being labelled a fascist or any of the usual crap that gets chucked at people. Sinnott is a tremendous person - just as determined a campaigner on any issue where she perceives injustice and will take on any and all vested interests necessary without fear or favour. On the thread I linked to above, left wingers were saying how they felt it would demean their cause to share a platform with her on any issue because of her stance on abortion. Unbelievable, totalitarian bollocks. On the other hand Kathy herself is incredibly open to working with people on the issues and does not write people off because they dont agree on everything.

(Re Lisbon - I just spoke to Sinnott briefly and will post her response on the other thread).

You're right about the irrelevance of 'left/right' designations to this issue, it's an absurd idea. You are also very right about the illiberal intolerance of the supposedly most 'tolerant liberals' towards people like Sinnott who stand up for what they believe is right. To clear a something up though: It isn't necessarily murder, though it is, in my view, in many cases, in other cases there is no moral culpability at all owing to poor understanding of what is being done, emotional immaturity, etc. So I certainly don't demonise women who have abortions as murderers, nor am I fit to judge anyone. But I would say this: Surely if someone believes, whether you agree or not, that a human life is being killed in the abortion process, they are under an absolute moral obligation to oppose it in all circumstances, and to support it being illegal? It's not about 'busting' anyone's heads, it's about a clear moral imperative to act in defence of all human life. An equivalent would be for someone to argue that just because person A opposes slavery, he has no right to impose his view on person B, it's an individual preference.

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Abortion has nothing to do with left or right, it has no bearing on Lisbon either. I am utterly opposed to abortion being legal (and none of this flim-flammery about it being a personal choice), but politically, economically, and socially, I would be considered fairly left wing and libertarian. It has nothing, unlike say contraception, to do with religion either. Were I to become an atheist tomorrow, I'd still oppose it. Kathy Sinnott is a legend, by the way...

Remind me to ask you some time what is left wing about you Toxic Avenger. It would be off topic here.

I'm pro-trade union recognition and rights, pro-progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth, pro-strong regulation of finance and business, pro-productive economy (rather than giant financial pyramid schemes and everyone in 'service' of everyone else, pro-the hanging, drawing, and quartering of corrupt politicians and businessmen, plus rip-off merchants in white-collars etc. etc. I know you said 'off-topic' but I detected scepticism and didn't wish to leave it hanging. If you wish to ask m about my stance on individual policies, go ahead.

Does that mean that you disagree with Declan Ganley's economic and social policies ?

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Abortion has nothing to do with left or right, it has no bearing on Lisbon either. I am utterly opposed to abortion being legal (and none of this flim-flammery about it being a personal choice), but politically, economically, and socially, I would be considered fairly left wing and libertarian. It has nothing, unlike say contraception, to do with religion either. Were I to become an atheist tomorrow, I'd still oppose it. Kathy Sinnott is a legend, by the way...

Remind me to ask you some time what is left wing about you Toxic Avenger. It would be off topic here.

I'm pro-trade union recognition and rights, pro-progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth, pro-strong regulation of finance and business, pro-productive economy (rather than giant financial pyramid schemes and everyone in 'service' of everyone else, pro-the hanging, drawing, and quartering of corrupt politicians and businessmen, plus rip-off merchants in white-collars etc. etc. I know you said 'off-topic' but I detected scepticism and didn't wish to leave it hanging. If you wish to ask m about my stance on individual policies, go ahead.

Does that mean that you disagree with Declan Ganley's economic and social policies ?

Aww Cactus, me thread! Whatchya dooin' to it?

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Abortion has nothing to do with left or right, it has no bearing on Lisbon either. I am utterly opposed to abortion being legal (and none of this flim-flammery about it being a personal choice), but politically, economically, and socially, I would be considered fairly left wing and libertarian. It has nothing, unlike say contraception, to do with religion either. Were I to become an atheist tomorrow, I'd still oppose it. Kathy Sinnott is a legend, by the way...

Remind me to ask you some time what is left wing about you Toxic Avenger. It would be off topic here.

I'm pro-trade union recognition and rights, pro-progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth, pro-strong regulation of finance and business, pro-productive economy (rather than giant financial pyramid schemes and everyone in 'service' of everyone else, pro-the hanging, drawing, and quartering of corrupt politicians and businessmen, plus rip-off merchants in white-collars etc. etc. I know you said 'off-topic' but I detected scepticism and didn't wish to leave it hanging. If you wish to ask m about my stance on individual policies, go ahead.

Does that mean that you disagree with Declan Ganley's economic and social policies ?

I don't know what the economic policies are. I glean from Libertas a very hostile approach to trade union rights and recognition, and that alone would be enough for me not to vote for them. I suspect their economic policies would be right-wing, PD-on-speed stuff, but I don't know. On social policies, I have no idea what they stand for either. I am a staunch opponent of relativism, I agree with Ganley there, but beyond that he would have to translate sweeping generalities into specific policy proposals before I could comment. I certainly do not agree with the imposition of religious beliefs on others, but then does Ganley? I don't know. That's the thing with Libertas, we really don't know very much. I do know that the anti-Ganley campaign is a clear hatchet-job motivated by one thing and one thing alone - Lisbon. And so I attack the attackers, not for any love for Libertas, but because I don't like people trying to manipulate me, and because it's aimed at all no voters in the end, the idea being to get Ganley in order to get the yes. I am therefore called a stooge or a sockpuppet of Libertas, because it's easier for simple minds to box people that way...

EDIT- Aragon, sorry, you're right, this is off-topic. When I responded to cactus's post I actually got confused about which thread I was on. Apologies, it ends here.