She’s hoping that progressives vote Labour. Only the Liberal Democrats can keep her out.

“I don’t care about refugees. I care about my little boy and I want the treatment he deserves.”

Why is that “utterly barmy”? You might not share her sentiments, but I’m sure you’d get the same response from any mother of a sick child.

Usual leftwing ad hominem bollocks. Always attacking the person, trying to make out they’re evil or deranged, simply because they think differently on certain issues.

But Richard, she is not “any mother of a sick child”. She is seeking office as member of parliament and this is her pitch.

Was the comment made in the context of her child being sick? The OP doesn’t say so, but maybe you have inside information?

By the way, I have kids. Sometimes they get sick, like kids do. That doesn’t mean I have to be an arsehole to everyone else! Does she care about her would-be constituents?

@2 – quite. I guess in the Fabian world little autistic kids would be put down under the banner of eugenics. A mother loving her child unconditionally? Utterly barmy!

With an increasing number of immigrants and asylum seekers then the pot is reduced for the rest of us.

Ironically, a lot of those immigrants would agree with her on abortion.

Mr Blair has got to stop focusing on issues around the world such as Afghanistan and Aids in Africa and concentrate on the issues that affect the people of Middle England, like myself who pay the taxes which keep the country going.

I think many of us would agrre about the Afghanistan bit.

This argument is idiotic anyway, as even Cameron has pointed out. Contributing to help people in other countries helps the UK and is worthwhile.

I’m stiil waiting for my share of the proffits from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even Nadine Dorries only wanted it to reduced to 20 weeks (though she has gone further in other places, at least Dorries calls herself pro-choice).

She can call herself a unicorn if she wants.

@3 He’s autistic, course it depends on whether we class someone who’s autistic as being sick as to whether that means she is the mother of a ‘sick child’.

@3 He’s autistic, course it depends on whether we class someone who’s autistic as being sick as to whether that means she is the mother of a ‘sick child’.

Depends on the severity. My Asperger’s is comparatively mild and I generally pass for excentric but neurotypical – but I don’t multi-task, I melt down under stress and I can’t handle other people’s emotionsl ‘scenes’ and that can bring on my depression. The depression is a disability; the Asperger’s is a condition I can generally manage. Don’t stress me and I’m generally fine.

@ Richard Carey

“I’m sure you’d get the same response from any mother of a sick child.”

What a thoroughly depressing view of the world. I get that not everyone is a bleeding-heart leftie, but surely it’s not entirely unheard of for someone’s experience of personal hardship to foster empathy (how would I want to be treated in their shoes?) rather than callousness (yeah, yeah, I’ve got my own problems, thanks)?

The more people like Ms Hutchings voted into the tory ranks the better.

The facade of modernity that Cameron has tried to create is weak, and there are a lot of loons that need expunging. Until it re4aches breaking point that just won’t happen.

So – lets hope she wins and pushing the tory party that step closer to radical collapse.

Shatterface

Would it be churlish of me to point out that a lot of those immigrants would not agree with her on abortion – and thus your comment there was a bit pointless?

@Richard Carey #2:

Always attacking the person, trying to make out they’re evil or deranged, simply because they think differently on certain issues.

OK, then; make the reasoned case for reducing the limit for abortion to 10 weeks. Not for prohibiting abortion; nor for reducing it to some extent from the current 24 weeks; but to 10 weeks specifically, which is the limit in her view of what is “possible”.

Would it be churlish of me to point out that a lot of those immigrants would not agree with her on abortion – and thus your comment there was a bit pointless?

Religion in the UK was dying on it’s arse.

@5

I’m still waiting for my share of profits from the money spent on foreign aid.

“With an increasing number of immigrants and asylum seekers then the pot is reduced for the rest of us.”

Well yes that’s true. But it’s also true of British emigrants to other countries (some 350,000 of them in 2011) whose governments might raise the same concern.

Presumably, then, Ms Hutchings would want to impose retrictions on British people retiring abroad. Though I guess this wouldn’t be much of a vote winner.

“Why is that “utterly barmy”? You might not share her sentiments, but I’m sure you’d get the same response from any mother of a sick child.”

Any immoral mother of a sick child maybe.

I don’t like the use of the term “anti-choice”. It’s way too slanted and ideological. “Anti-abortion” would be more neutral and fair.

@Chris #16:

I don’t like the use of the term “anti-choice”. It’s way too slanted and ideological. “Anti-abortion” would be more neutral and fair

“Pro-life”, their chosen term for themselves, isn’t “slanted and ideological”?

“Anti-abortion” doesn’t correctly describe their position – many accept the necessity for abortion to protect the mother’s life, for example. Similarly, the antonym “pro-abortion” doesn’t correctly describe the pro-choice position. It is the “choice” element that makes the difference; and if you feel that “anti-choice” is ideologically slanted, then you need to re-examine your own position.

[img]http://i50.tinypic.com/23mr951.jpg[/img]
test

ok fail to embed
http://oi50.tinypic.com/23mr951.jpg

I always love the idea of pro lifers.
Most, not all are believers that once the individual is born then it can die.
It is then god’s will.
Like the potato famine, let’s not mess around with the market. It is god’s will that the baby dies with malnutrition. We must not interfere

@ 2 Richard

“Why is that “utterly barmy”? You might not share her sentiments, but I’m sure you’d get the same response from any mother of a sick child.”

‘Barmy’ isn’t the word I’d use (as I’m not a writer for the Beano), but it reads like both whataboutery and non-sequitur. Although I am aware it’s stripped of context.

“Usual leftwing ad hominem bollocks.”

The ‘leftwing’ in that sentence is perilously close to being an ad hominem in itself.

@ 17 Robin

““Pro-life”, their chosen term for themselves, isn’t “slanted and ideological”?”

As is ‘pro-choice’, and every other term used to describe either side by either side.

It’s a bit churlish to say they’re not anti-abortion based on the fact that they’re not complete zealots about it. In the example you mention, they still think abortion is bad – just that letting the mother die is worse.

So we have three choices:

1) Overreact and use terms like ‘pro-the-choice-to-abort-a-pregnancy-within-a-certain-time-period-or-for-other-special-circumstances’. Or PtCtAaPwaCTPofOSC as a handy acronym!

2)Be childish like most of the people on both sides and deliberately pick terms that will offend the people being described, like ‘anti-choice’ and ‘anti-life’. No doubt while bemoaning the other side’s refusal to have a mature debate.

3) Be sensible and recognise that ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ are the names the two sides want to go by and agree to use them out of courtesy. And obviously try not to lose too much sleep over the fact that pro-lifers aren’t vegetarians and pro-choicers don’t think you should be allowed the choice to beat people up.

@Chaise #22:

The problem is that “pro-choice” does what it says on the tin; you’d (not) be surprised how many pro-lifers are pro-death penalty…

@ 23 Robin

No it doesn’t, unless pro-choicers are in favour of people being allowed to choose to steal, harm and kill.

This idea that “pro-life” is inaccurate while “pro-choice” isn’t is utter nonsense. Neither of them are literally true; we all know what they both mean; let’s be adults about it instead of arguing on the playground level.

@ 21 Chaise,

“it reads like both whataboutery and non-sequitur. Although I am aware it’s stripped of context. ”

the context, as I understand it, was her being interviewed back in 2005, after she had marched up to Tony Blair and started complaining about special schools being shut down, her son being a pupil at such a school. It may well be incorrect to say she had a sick child, more that she had a son with special needs. Of the statements that are being trawled up, some of them she denies making. As far as I know she wasn’t at that time active in party politics, but I could be wrong in that, and I don’t know whether the reported comments are accurate.

I don’t think what I said was a non-sequitur. All I meant was, even if you don’t agree, lots of people will complain about foreign wars and foreign aid, especially if their local hospital is closing down. I think this was the kind of point the woman in question was making back in 2005.

“The ‘leftwing’ in that sentence is perilously close to being an ad hominem in itself.”

I suppose. I just find a certain attitude very common round here, which you yourself nailed down very well just above:

“2)Be childish like most of the people on both sides and deliberately pick terms that will offend the people being described, like ‘anti-choice’ and ‘anti-life’. No doubt while bemoaning the other side’s refusal to have a mature debate.”

I’m not accusing you of doing this.

@Chaise #24:

I’m sorry, but we’ll have to agree to disagree; thewoman’s right to choose is in my view at the heart of the disagreement. That is precisely why the 1967 At (as amended) is criticised by the anti-choicers/pro-lifers as allowing the woman to choose to sue abortion as a method of contraception.

And I make no apology for pointing out that those who claim that there is no basis upon which it can be right to kill a baby in the womb (as they put it), because human life is sacrosanct at whatever stage of life, are also often amongst the most vocal supporters of killing humans as punishment. The usual fudge is to insert “innocent” before “human” when discussing capital punishment (see eg http://www.roman-catholic.com/Roman/Articles/CapitalPunishment.htm)

I suppose the Catholic church was at least logically consistent in opposing contraception and the morning-after pill as well as the right of women to choose whether to be mothers thereby insisting on maintaining a link between sex and procreation.

The wonder, I suppose, is all those abuse scandals associated with the celibate clergy of the Church, running that slave-labour camp in Ireland and the historic practice of transporting orphaned and abandoned children from Britain to Australia for work opportunities in the outback.

Hi all,
We’ve put together a comprehensive guide to the Eastleigh by-election a must for all political nerds and junkies or even those with a passing interest – complete with charts, graphs, facts and figures and a bang up-to-date analysis of the state of the respective parties.
Follow the link:
http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2013/02/by-election-special-eastleigh/

Richard Carey: Attacking someone for “thinking differently on issues” is the *opposite* of an ad hominem attack.

Duncan Stott: “Only the Liberal Democrats can keep her out.”
Well, so what? It won’t make a whole lot of practical difference, really, given they’ll both be in the coalition regardless and both be required by their party whips to vote the same way almost all the time…

@ 25 Richard

OK, it’s more like an implied false dichotomy. There isn’t some budget that we use for both immigration and schools and nothing else. I’m not saying she’s out of order, it’s just glib.

Worth noting I said both sides of the abortion debate, which roughly map to left and right, are guilty of this kind of pointless semantic incitement. I admit I’ve seen it more often among pro-choicers, but that’s because I know more of them.

@ 26 Robin

How you feel about a woman’s right to choose is irrelevant to the fact that’s it’s a blatant double standard to hold “pro-life” to a ridiculous level of pedantry that we wouldn’t do with other words (unless you go around telling people that “homophobia” means “fear of the same”), but spare “pro-choice” the same treatment. They both carry the unspoken rider “…in the case of abortion, with certain caveats”.

I’m no fan of the death penalty, but taking innocence into account isn’t a fudge, unless you think it doesn’t matter whether people are guilty when we jail them. To be honest, those “fudging” it are trying to deal with an unreasonable attack, but lack the clarity to identify it for what it is, and hence make the mistake of accepting the attacker’s terms.

@ Robin,

what rubbish you spout. People who agree with the death penalty do not call for executing people randomly. They are specific; only those guilty of terrible crimes. There is absolutely no comparison to abortion, and no contradiction between being in favour of the former and against the latter. No doubt some people are against both. Some people are in favour of both – e.g. Bill Maher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk8z5ISnaLs

@Chaise #30:

How you feel about a woman’s right to choose is irrelevant to the fact that’s it’s a blatant double standard to hold “pro-life” to a ridiculous level of pedantry that we wouldn’t do with other words (unless you go around telling people that “homophobia” means “fear of the same”), but spare “pro-choice” the same treatment. They both carry the unspoken rider “…in the case of abortion, with certain caveats”.

I don’t think we’re getting anywhere; but the reason I apply the same standard of consistency (I reject the double standard allegation) to both the pro-life and pro-choice sides is because they both appeal to what they see as general principles. The pro-choicers argue that what goes on in a woman’s body is for her to determine. The pro-lifers appeal to the universal principle that human life is uniquely sacrosanct.

Neither states that the general principle upon which they stand is limited to abortion. There is no such rider as you suggest.

The difference between them is that while the pro-choice principle is generally consistently applied, pro-lifers also often also hold the view that when it comes to crime and punishment, human life is not sacrosanct; that society has the right to kill. The conservative Christianpro-lifers will also consider suicide a sin; because it is sinful to throw away what God has given you. To borrow from one website:

“Life belongs to God. It is never our place to take our own life or someone else’s life.”

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-dml/dml-y038.html

Does “never” mean “never”? Try this passage from the same website:

I believe that one can plausibly argue that the pro-life position on abortion is consistent with capital punishment. Pro-life advocates, for the most part, do not argue that killing is never justified, for many believe that there are legitimate instances in which killing is justified, such as in the cases of self-defense and capital punishment, both of which do not entail the killing of an innocent human life.

Abortion does entail such killing. Hence, the pro-life advocate who believes in capital punishment is saying, “It is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being, but the capital offender is not innocent. Therefore, capital punishment is morally justified.” Although I have not made up my own mind on the issue of capital punishment, I do not believe it is logically inconsistent with the pro-life position.

http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life007.html?zoom_highlight=capital+punishment

Whether you call it a fudge, or special pleading, either human life is uniquely sacrosanct or it is not. Either life belongs to God, and it is never our place to take human life, or it is not. As for “innocent” human life – judge not, lest you be judged. The conservative Christian (at least) pro-life attitude does not – in my view – consistently apply its claimed principle across abortion, suicide and capital punishment.

She’s the Tea Party candidate and she’s going to lose.

@ 33 Robin

Firstly, we’re getting nowhere because you’ve decided to “reject” my entire argument without saying a word to argue against it. Don’t complain we’re not making progress when you’re deliberately standing in its way.

Secondly, the rest of your post is based on the claim that pro-lifers think life is sacrosanct. There’s no such thing as the One True Pro-Life Position on this, but I’m under the impression that they think killing z/e/fs is murder. That’s not the same thing. And the specific ones you’re complaining about bloody obviously don’t think it’s sacrosanct. I’d also remind you that many pro-choicers talk as if the woman’s choice were sacrosanct, but would deny it to her after X weeks.

Yes, if a pro-life individual says that life is sacrosanct then supports the death penalty, they’re misrepresenting their position. But that doesn’t make being pro-life and pro-death-penalty hypocritical, nor is it an excuse to frame the conversation in terms of childish point-scoring right out of the damn gate, based on a double-standard that you “reject” but can’t explain why.

Robin, you’re smart and well-informed. It’s annoying to see you take the “excitable teenager who’s just discovered politics” role in this debate.

@Chaise #35:

Firstly, we’re getting nowhere because you’ve decided to “reject” my entire argument without saying a word to argue against it. Don’t complain we’re not making progress when you’re deliberately standing in its way.

We’re talking past one another. You have accused me of a double standard because I don’t apply the same standard of scrutiny to the “pro-choice” term as the “pro-life” claim; I am saying I do. The general principle – that a woman has the choice over what goes on inside her body – is not contradicted by their rejection of the idea that you should be allowed the choice to beat people up (as you put it). Nor is it invalidated by acceptance that at some point during the pregnancy and prior to birth there become two bodies involved, and that may override the woman’s right to choose.

The pro-life position that human life is sacrosanct is contradicted by advocacy for the death penalty.

As for whether there is a “One True Pro-Life” position; my impression, which I am happy to be argued out of by evidence, is that the pro-lifers are dominated by conservative Christian groups, amongst whom there is indeed a single position – it is the one I have evidenced.

That position is one that purports to be a fundamental principle of general application. The arguments about the dangers to the woman’s life of carrying the child to term, as against (in the case of abortion of a non-viable foetus) the very few days of life outside the womb that that child will experience, are dismissed. They are dismissed not on utilitarian grounds, but on grounds of principle; utilitarian arguments have no place in the debate. Yet the arguments for capital punishment are utilitarian.

The rate of wrongful conviction of capital offences in he US is such that anyone who truly believes in the sanctity of innocent human life would campaign against it, not for it – since someone wrongfully convicted of capital crime is in possession of an “innocent human life”, and there is a very good chance that any individual victim of capital punishmnent was wrongfully convicted.

It is of course true that both camps have to some extent sought to frame the issue by their choice of terms for themselves. I just think that the pro-lifers have been more outrageous than the pro-choicers in their choice. I came into the thread because someone complained that “anti-choice” was slanted and ideological, and pointed out that “pro-life” was also s&i; as indeed is “pro-abortion”, routinely used by pro-life groups.

@ Robin

“The general principle – that a woman has the choice over what goes on inside her body – is not contradicted by their rejection of the idea that you should be allowed the choice to beat people up (as you put it). Nor is it invalidated by acceptance that at some point during the pregnancy and prior to birth there become two bodies involved, and that may override the woman’s right to choose.”

Yes. I know. The double standard is that you’re prepared to accept that “pro-choice” is shorthand for something longer, but not that the same is true of “pro-life”. Basically your side is allowed to add the silent rider “…in reference to abortion, with certain caveats”, but your enemies are not. Can you not see the problem with this, or how it makes the already puerile tactic of pushing semantics over content even worse?

“The pro-life position that human life is sacrosanct is contradicted by advocacy for the death penalty.”

That’s not the pro-life position, although some pro-lifers will believe it, some will be pro-life because of it, and some will claim to believe it but hypocritically support the death penalty. But I’m not going to let you redefine “pro-life” to mean “believe in life being sacrosanct”, because we all know it means “opposed to abortion”. So stop trying. The pro-life position of opposition to abortion is not contradicted by support for the death penalty. You could take that position purely for scriptural reasons, for example.

“As for whether there is a “One True Pro-Life” position; my impression, which I am happy to be argued out of by evidence, is that the pro-lifers are dominated by conservative Christian groups, amongst whom there is indeed a single position – it is the one I have evidenced.”

‘Evidenced’? How so? The fact that you have an ‘impression’ is not evidence. Frankly I think either of us would struggle to prove the truth on this, it sounds like a survey that’s never been taken.

But even if >50% of pro-lifers BOTH claim that life is sacrosanct and support the death penalty, that doesn’t undermine the basic pro-life position, nor make the word wrong. Because they, like you, are allowed to add the unspoken rider “…in the case of abortion, with caveats”.

“That position is one that purports to be a fundamental principle of general application. The arguments about the dangers to the woman’s life of carrying the child to term, as against (in the case of abortion of a non-viable foetus) the very few days of life outside the womb that that child will experience, are dismissed. They are dismissed not on utilitarian grounds, but on grounds of principle; utilitarian arguments have no place in the debate. Yet the arguments for capital punishment are utilitarian.”

The majority of pro-lifers I’ve spoken to are in favour of allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest, and more-serious-than-usual risk to the mother’s life. So utilitarian/pragmatic arguments evidently are allowed into the debate. It’s just that you and they use different priors when assigning value to the foetus’s existence.

“The rate of wrongful conviction of capital offences in he US is such that anyone who truly believes in the sanctity of innocent human life would campaign against it…”

Agreed.

“It is of course true that both camps have to some extent sought to frame the issue by their choice of terms for themselves. I just think that the pro-lifers have been more outrageous than the pro-choicers in their choice. I came into the thread because someone complained that “anti-choice” was slanted and ideological, and pointed out that “pro-life” was also s&i; as indeed is “pro-abortion”, routinely used by pro-life groups.”

‘Pro-abortion’ is as bad as ‘anti-choice’. ‘Pro-life’ is on equal footing with ‘pro-choice’, and I’m fine with both. Not because they’re especially precise (they’re not), but because they aren’t terms deliberately used to antagonise the other side. Basically it would be nice to see this debate rise above the level of the playground.

@Chaise #37:

The double standard is that you’re prepared to accept that “pro-choice” is shorthand for something longer, but not that the same is true of “pro-life”. Basically your side is allowed to add the silent rider “…in reference to abortion, with certain caveats”, but your enemies are not. Can you not see the problem with this, or how it makes the already puerile tactic of pushing semantics over content even worse?

Which misrepresents my position. “Pro-choice” works out as “pro a woman’s right to choose what goes on inside her body”; “pro-life” as “pro the sanctity of (innocent) human life”. Are either of those unfair summaries of the expanded definitions of the simple terms?

What you are still forgetting is that I came in because someone complained that “anti-choice” was slanted and ideological. This aspect of the whole debate is all about the semantics – how each side describes their own and their opponents’ positions.

Claiming to be pro-life implies that your opponents are anti-life. Which is more accurate; describing the pro-lifers as anti-choice, or describing the pro-choicers as anti-life? That was why I suggested that “pro-life” was also slanted and ideological.

But even if >50% of pro-lifers BOTH claim that life is sacrosanct and support the death penalty, that doesn’t undermine the basic pro-life position

I entirely agree.

nor make the word wrong.

In the mouths of those so using it – I disagree.

But I’m not going to let you redefine “pro-life” to mean “believe in life being sacrosanct”, because we all know it means “opposed to abortion”.

Then we’ll have to disagree. I’ll continue to watch pro-lifers oppose abortions on the application of the general principle that all human life – from the moment of conception – is sacrosanct (religiously or otherwise), leading to the Savita Halappanavar position, and you’ll watch them opposing abortion on…what ground?

The SPUC is clear:

http://www.spuc.org.uk/education/abortion/briefing

They would have stood by and allowed her to die:

http://www.spuc.org.uk/news/releases/2012/november14

The pro-life position of opposition to abortion is not contradicted by support for the death penalty. You could take that position purely for scriptural reasons, for example

When you hear me arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is the time to bring that one out…

“As for whether there is a “One True Pro-Life” position; my impression, which I am happy to be argued out of by evidence, is that the pro-lifers are dominated by conservative Christian groups, amongst whom there is indeed a single position – it is the one I have evidenced.”

‘Evidenced’? How so? The fact that you have an ‘impression’ is not evidence.

No; but I have evidenced the fact that the position appears on at least one prominent conservative Christian website.

The SPUC is the major pro-life organisation in the UK; it holds prayer vigils against the evils of abortion – and also opposes assisted suicide and same-sex marriage. I would suggest that calling it both conservative and Christian is hardly unfair.

“Which misrepresents my position. “Pro-choice” works out as “pro a woman’s right to choose what goes on inside her body”; “pro-life” as “pro the sanctity of (innocent) human life”. Are either of those unfair summaries of the expanded definitions of the simple terms?”

Yep, because you’re still slipping sanctity in there. Try “Pro the right to life of the unborn child”. That might be trumped by other things, such as the mother’s life.

“This aspect of the whole debate is all about the semantics”

I’m not criticising you for debating semantics. That would be rather hypocritical of me. I’m calling you out for using semantics to throw cheap insults around, making you just another aggressive, ideological warrior getting in the way of a sensible debate on abortion.

“Claiming to be pro-life implies that your opponents are anti-life. Which is more accurate; describing the pro-lifers as anti-choice, or describing the pro-choicers as anti-life?”

About the same. With a gun to my head I’d say “anti-life” is slightly less reasonable.

“That was why I suggested that “pro-life” was also slanted and ideological.”

Not saying otherwise.

“In the mouths of those so using it – I disagree.”

The mouths of your ephemeral crowd of “most pro-lifers” who conveniently say stupid things (as reported by you) that make it easy for you to set up Platonic dialogues, you mean?

“Then we’ll have to disagree.”

That’s a nice way of saying “I’m going to continue to drag down the debate by equivocating between ‘against abortion’ and ‘opposed to killing under any circumstances’.”

” I’ll continue to watch pro-lifers oppose abortions on the application of the general principle that all human life – from the moment of conception – is sacrosanct (religiously or otherwise), leading to the Savita Halappanavar position, and you’ll watch them opposing abortion on…what ground?”

Whatever grounds the individuals in question actually have – not the grounds held by the chap standing next to them that are so much easier to attack. I imagine I’ll see many of them opposing abortion on the grounds that life is precious and that the unborn have the right to it. You can stay in the corner slinging your mud if you insist.

[All the SPUC stuff]

Could you direct me to the part of the page about how life is sacred and killing is never justified under any circumstances? It’s a lot of text.

@ Robin

Just checked back in, and I apologise for being arsey in that last post. I stand by the actual content, but not the tone – was feeling a bit fraught when I wrote it. I tend to get snarky in protracted arguments, and I shouldn’t.