Abortion - left/right, anti/pro

cactus flower wrote:

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.

Here we go again Aragon

It seems that people on the pro-life side are willing to spread the mustard equally liberally:

Quote :

I find terms like "ultra-catholic whackjobs" and "christian right" to be very offsensive. It implies there is something wrong with being pro-life, Catholic or Irish.

We should oppose all forms of communism. Propaganda from the blood thirsty pro-choice mobsters, must be banned. Racism is currently banned in Ireland, so should anti-Catholic bashing.

ibis wrote:

It seems that people on the pro-life side are willing to spread the mustard equally liberally:

Quote :

I find terms like "ultra-catholic whackjobs" and "christian right" to be very offsensive. It implies there is something wrong with being pro-life, Catholic or Irish.

We should oppose all forms of communism. Propaganda from the blood thirsty pro-choice mobsters, must be banned. Racism is currently banned in Ireland, so should anti-Catholic bashing.

Who is quoting whom here, Ibis? Aragon has not yet pointed out the comments she felt were hate-filled. It all looked rather sedate to me.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

It seems that people on the pro-life side are willing to spread the mustard equally liberally:

Quote :

I find terms like "ultra-catholic whackjobs" and "christian right" to be very offsensive. It implies there is something wrong with being pro-life, Catholic or Irish.

We should oppose all forms of communism. Propaganda from the blood thirsty pro-choice mobsters, must be banned. Racism is currently banned in Ireland, so should anti-Catholic bashing.

Who is quoting whom here, Ibis? Aragon has not yet pointed out the comments she felt were hate-filled. It all looked rather sedate to me.

Well, that one is from an abortion discussion on p.ie.

Ah.

Cactus

From the comments on that discussion/thread:

Quote :

And I explicitly addressed that in my post and completely disagree with your analysis. To restate for the hard of reading: there is no point in the left sharing a platform with people that are fundamentally opposed to a woman's right to choose. As you point out there are a myriad different people with different reasons for making decisions and with some contradictory beliefs in their own philosophies. All that the left can do is put the case as to why, to people that hold left-wing, progressive and liberal beliefs why EU superstatedom is a bad idea. That message doesn't gain in clarity and cogency from being presented along with a lot of reactionary bollocks from Catholics and other christian recidivists. In fact, it confuses and dilutes it and plays into the hands of the business class by tarnishing perfectly good, clear arguments that can stand on their own. That's why Nice got passed. I was very nearly tempted to vote for it when I saw the backward, ignorant bigots that were against it and I know that wasn't an uncommon reaction.

cactus flower wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Aragon wrote:

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.

Here we go again Aragon

Quote :

Rather I am arguing that we who argue for a progressive alternative to the EU elite should not let ourselves be associated or confused with the militant clerical-conservatives

Quote :

Kathy Sinnott is opposed to the EU Constitution and other aspects of EU policy. That’s fine. She can mobilise the conservative opposition along with Youth Defence – as Youth Defence did in the past and probably will do again if the occasion arises.

But the left has a different social agenda for ‘Another Europe’, and we should say so. If we allow confusion, we undermine our own arguments and our own potential support.

From: Debate on EU: left-wing, or clerical-conservative? by Brendan Young.
from http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78284

There's nothing about demeaning anything or anyone there. The writer is saying he has a core difference of principle with people who are religious and right wing, that a woman's right to choose is a line in the sand for him and that he believes that it is not justifiable (or effective) to form alliances of convenience that ignore what to him is an "in principle" difference.

Are there not issues that you would find "deal breakers" - is there anyone you wouldn't "share a platform" with?

cookiemonster wrote:

Quote :

Rather I am arguing that we who argue for a progressive alternative to the EU elite should not let ourselves be associated or confused with the militant clerical-conservatives

Quote :

Kathy Sinnott is opposed to the EU Constitution and other aspects of EU policy. That’s fine. She can mobilise the conservative opposition along with Youth Defence – as Youth Defence did in the past and probably will do again if the occasion arises.

But the left has a different social agenda for ‘Another Europe’, and we should say so. If we allow confusion, we undermine our own arguments and our own potential support.

From: Debate on EU: left-wing, or clerical-conservative? by Brendan Young.
from http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78284

There are elements on the left, the Dave Sparts of Private Eye fame, who truly believe that they alone represent the true views of the left, there is a set of policies from which any deviation in opinion is heresy. That article is one more example. Why is it just accepted by some that opposition to abortion or euthanasia is some kind of betrayal or heresy, as if there is something intrinsically left or right about the topic? Your opinions on economic matters and political structures are set at naught if you quibble about slipping granny a pill 'for her own good'. There are sections who call themselves left-wing and liberal that are truly the most illiberal and intolerant people I have ever met. Subtlety and nuance of thought will not be tolerated...

No "deal breakers" then?

toxic avenger wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Quote :

Rather I am arguing that we who argue for a progressive alternative to the EU elite should not let ourselves be associated or confused with the militant clerical-conservatives

Quote :

Kathy Sinnott is opposed to the EU Constitution and other aspects of EU policy. That’s fine. She can mobilise the conservative opposition along with Youth Defence – as Youth Defence did in the past and probably will do again if the occasion arises.

But the left has a different social agenda for ‘Another Europe’, and we should say so. If we allow confusion, we undermine our own arguments and our own potential support.

From: Debate on EU: left-wing, or clerical-conservative? by Brendan Young.
from http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78284

There are elements on the left, the Dave Sparts of Private Eye fame, who truly believe that they alone represent the true views of the left, there is a set of policies from which any deviation in opinion is heresy. That article is one more example. Why is it just accepted by some that opposition to abortion or euthanasia is some kind of betrayal or heresy, as if there is something intrinsically left or right about the topic? Your opinions on economic matters and political structures are set at naught if you quibble about slipping granny a pill 'for her own good'. There are sections who call themselves left-wing and liberal that are truly the most illiberal and intolerant people I have ever met. Subtlety and nuance of thought will not be tolerated...

That's as may be, but they own the word "progressive".

tonys wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Quote :

Rather I am arguing that we who argue for a progressive alternative to the EU elite should not let ourselves be associated or confused with the militant clerical-conservatives

Quote :

Kathy Sinnott is opposed to the EU Constitution and other aspects of EU policy. That’s fine. She can mobilise the conservative opposition along with Youth Defence – as Youth Defence did in the past and probably will do again if the occasion arises.

But the left has a different social agenda for ‘Another Europe’, and we should say so. If we allow confusion, we undermine our own arguments and our own potential support.

From: Debate on EU: left-wing, or clerical-conservative? by Brendan Young.
from http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78284

There are elements on the left, the Dave Sparts of Private Eye fame, who truly believe that they alone represent the true views of the left, there is a set of policies from which any deviation in opinion is heresy. That article is one more example. Why is it just accepted by some that opposition to abortion or euthanasia is some kind of betrayal or heresy, as if there is something intrinsically left or right about the topic? Your opinions on economic matters and political structures are set at naught if you quibble about slipping granny a pill 'for her own good'. There are sections who call themselves left-wing and liberal that are truly the most illiberal and intolerant people I have ever met. Subtlety and nuance of thought will not be tolerated...

That's as may be, but they own the word "progressive".

Who are these Left wing granny murderers Toxic?

I'm talking about those people on the left who can't accept other people on the left might possibly disagree on an issue like euthanasia, as if we are somehow committing heresy. Believe it or not, socialism in Britain and Ireland tends to have its roots in evangelical Protestantism, most socialists up until the 60s would hold what some might describe as socially conservative views. Abortion and euthanasia opinions are not definitive of 'left' and 'right' is my point, no matter how much some on both wings would like us to believe otherwise...

toxic avenger wrote:

I'm talking about those people on the left who can't accept other people on the left might possibly disagree on an issue like euthanasia, as if we are somehow committing heresy. Believe it or not, socialism in Britain and Ireland tends to have its roots in evangelical Protestantism, most socialists up until the 60s would hold what some might describe as socially conservative views. Abortion and euthanasia opinions are not definitive of 'left' and 'right' is my point, no matter how much some on both wings would like us to believe otherwise...

Support for euthanasia certainly is more commonly found in people on the far right, in my experience. In fact I've never met anyone on the left for whom it was an issue. Similarly, I don't know anyone on the left for whom anti-abortion campaigning is a core issue. Both on the evangelical right in the US and in the traditional Catholic right in Europe it is a very big issue indeed. Outside of that, people who are not politically active may have more mixed views, but I have no doubt that conservatism with a small c more often than not goes with Conservatism with a big one.

The left wing granny murderers Cactus?

Just one example. You may all know about this already - I didn't until recently. It took a lot of people to do this - left and right.

In 2003 a heatwave struck Paris during the annual industrial holiday end July/early August - the time when all of the workers in France go to the seaside and the country virtually shuts down in many respects. Those who are in care already dont have their usual family visits or people who are usually cared for in the homes of family members have temporary care arranged for them in care homes etc.

When the heatwave struck, within a day or two the death rates began to soar. Staff in these facilities began to complain that they were unable to cope and that people were dying. Calls were made to government reps pleading for, among other things, the family members to be recalled wherever possible because their parents/relatives were dying because of their inability to cater to for them properly. The auhtorities refused these and other appeals for assistance. The situation was the worst thing possible: because it was the holiday period, there were fewer staff than normal and for the same reason they had the maximum number of people to care for. Repeatedly, government reps refused to respond to appeals for help. Meanwhile family at the seaside and on holiday were unaware of the gravity of the situation and as they returned to Paris only then began to discover what had happened. All together 12,000 people died because of that heatwave - 95% of whom were elderly, disabled or other people in care. Amost all of the deaths were preventable.

Subsequently the government blamed the families, alleging abandonment, breakdown in family cohesion and other stuff of that sort. The grief of family members was made unbearable by these accusations. The French media pretty much shut the true story down - presumably because it was so shameful for the government and the country as a whole.

IN one Parish alone in Paris there were so many people who had died (the priest had been on holiday too and like the families was unaware of what was going on) that a single mass was held for 60 people who had died.

This is not a question of mistake. At the very best it is one of callous indifference to the plight of extremely vulnerable people, which in the circustances was a form of euthanasia. Indifference is a killer. If the guests at the George Cinq or wherever had been dying in significant numbers (they wouldnt of course because many of those who did die, died for lack of air conditioning and dehydradtion, which would not have been a problem at the GV), there would have been a hue and cry within hours of the problem manifesting itself.

Many with disabled people in their families often lie awake at nights wondering how their relative will be looked after when they are gone. In Ireland it's a terrifying prospect, services are so shockingly bad. Several people have come forward to say that they have contemplated killing their own children and then themselves so as to ensure their children are not left to live out their lives heartbroken, lonely and bewildred by uncaring and/or uncomprehending services providers.

'Granny killers' come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, hiding behind all sorts of justifications for their inaction.

toxic avenger wrote:

I'm talking about those people on the left who can't accept other people on the left might possibly disagree on an issue like euthanasia, as if we are somehow committing heresy. Believe it or not, socialism in Britain and Ireland tends to have its roots in evangelical Protestantism, most socialists up until the 60s would hold what some might describe as socially conservative views. Abortion and euthanasia opinions are not definitive of 'left' and 'right' is my point, no matter how much some on both wings would like us to believe otherwise...

I'd certainly agree that's the case - it's sometimes true of environmental views as well. There are those to whom my pro-market stance immediately means I'm not really Green - and indeed there are those to whom my pro-science stance means the same thing. Narrow-minded bigots aren't restricted to any one place on the political spectrum.

tonys wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Quote :

Rather I am arguing that we who argue for a progressive alternative to the EU elite should not let ourselves be associated or confused with the militant clerical-conservatives

Quote :

Kathy Sinnott is opposed to the EU Constitution and other aspects of EU policy. That’s fine. She can mobilise the conservative opposition along with Youth Defence – as Youth Defence did in the past and probably will do again if the occasion arises.

But the left has a different social agenda for ‘Another Europe’, and we should say so. If we allow confusion, we undermine our own arguments and our own potential support.

From: Debate on EU: left-wing, or clerical-conservative? by Brendan Young.
from http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78284

There are elements on the left, the Dave Sparts of Private Eye fame, who truly believe that they alone represent the true views of the left, there is a set of policies from which any deviation in opinion is heresy. That article is one more example. Why is it just accepted by some that opposition to abortion or euthanasia is some kind of betrayal or heresy, as if there is something intrinsically left or right about the topic? Your opinions on economic matters and political structures are set at naught if you quibble about slipping granny a pill 'for her own good'. There are sections who call themselves left-wing and liberal that are truly the most illiberal and intolerant people I have ever met. Subtlety and nuance of thought will not be tolerated...

That's as may be, but they own the word "progressive".

What's the problem tony's? Do you want it back?

Really Toxic your argument seems to me "relativist" even though you say you have no time for relativism. Plus the suggestion that there is a faction of doctrinaire socialists out there pushing enforced euthanasia is more than a little bizarre.