It is rare that I find myself in agreement with the majority of Twitterettes and Twitterinos, so was not unsurprised that I found myself on the wrong side of the herd view, what did surprise me was the ratio.
In a very unscientific analysis of the hashtag, I found only one other poster that agreed with me.
The subject of course is Nadine #Dorries and her proposed amendments in reference to abortion.
Now I understand that many people dislike Dorries so even taking this into account, (That people will say the sky is pink if she says it is blue) I am surprised by the opposition on a couple of parts of what she says.
Opinion One, that any organisation that benefits financially from a particular outcome, should not be classed as independent, when it comes to whether that outcome is taken or not.
That is common sense, isn’t it?
Someone tried comparing it to the RSPCA somehow, saying that ‘Stopes’ having a vested interest in abortion is the same as the RSPCA having a vested interest in cruelty.
That is a bit of a strange comparison on a couple of fronts.
Firstly, the RSPCA would make more money by NOT treating animals; just sending them away, would be easier than operating etc.
Secondly, it is suggesting that the choice between abortion or not abortion is similar in context to animal suffering or non-suffering.
There is an automatic assumption that the only people allowed to give advice will be religious fundamentalists though Ms Dorries has said “This won’t be offered by any religion-affiliated groups, but by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy”1
So unless the BACP have suddenly become religious zealots, I am a bit unsure what the cause of this ‘Straw-man’ nonsense is.
As an atheist and anti-theist I have no enthusiasm for practical decisions to be made in relation to mythological belief, but this is not the only alternative so it is misleading for it to be framed in such an either/or way.
Her second opinion which has upset people, but has been less (a little less) vilified is her opinion that the upper timescale limit of 6 lunar months should be reduced to 5. i.e. 24 weeks to 20.
This apparently makes her ‘evil’.
When I asked why this would be the case I am often ignored.
Her is my research on the subject, and please keep in mind I have no axe to grind, I am pro-choice, I have no moral objection to the idea of pregnancy termination.
According to meta-analysis cited by SpensersHope.org, up to 70% of pre-mature births at 24 weeks can survive; published articles in medical journals put this figure more conservatively at 39%-50%.
These figures alone are quit worrying, now consider that these are where pre-mature birth is caused for a whole range of different reasons, a lot of them to do with the health of the mother and/or baby which would increase the chance of mortality, and you can imagine the levels of survival from babies about to be aborted at a much higher level.
I am all for personal freedoms, I am a libertarian and consider personal liberty paramount but with one very big exception. The acts of a person should never take away someone else’s freedom or life and it is quite evident that life is indeed being taken away in some of these late term pregnancies.
Again, I feel I need to stress that I am NOT an anti-abortionist, but for me what happens to fetuses is abortion, what happens to babies is murder and when something is alive in its own right, it is a baby not a fetus.
Let the vitriol attacks begin
Wednesday, 31 August 2011
Monday, 15 August 2011
The beauty of Liberty ('People' vs 'people')
Growing up I heard a lot of Liberty. Maybe it was the was the fact that every movie in the world was made in America during the 80s. They seem to be into their Liberty.
However in the UK, more specifically England, it was a foreign concept.
Growing up I was confronted by two arguments, the left or the right and for many years I was confused by my supposedly paradoxical views. I wanted tough and robust law and order...but the legalisation of recreational drugs, I am against anti-discrimination law but for freedom from/of religion, for some may say draconian law and order but against execution.
Where does that put me?
A few years ago, I realised I was a libertarian.
I called my family and friends to come round, I sat them down and told them. My mother was upset and asked if it was a phase I was going through, my friends couldn't quite look me in the eye....but i had done it. I was out.
I had discovered a term that fitted most if not all of my opinions and view, except the few irrational ones that lingered from years of being English.
I believed in the personal freedom of people, not People mind, people. This is very important as People have become a faceless group which try to override the rights of people. Straight away, of course limitations are abound but only the limitations accepted by every civilisation and culture known to man, they are 'the golden rule'.
You do nothing by force or by fraud. You have the right to live your life how you wish, as long as does not stop others living their lives. If you require someone else's involvement to fulfill your wishes, that person must partake voluntarily.
Some people may say this is selfish and you may agree, this is the herd mentality from the age of picking fleas off each other speaking though.
Let's think of two scenarios, picked due to their shock factor, it involves a millionaire and the state demanding a 50% tax rate and a desert island with ten men and only one woman.
The state says to the millionaire, share your money, its not right to keep it to yourself. Think of others, you're selfish. The many not the few.
The men say to the woman, share your body, its not right to keep it to yourself. Think of others, you're selfish. The many not the few.
In both scenarios the individual caving in to or being forced into the demands of the many might be advantageous to the many, but does it make it right?
There are people that will argue that these two scenarios are miles apart from each other...they will need to, morally.
There is a difference, you know what it is? People covet the money now, not the body of a woman..because they are in abundance but you take away the opposite sex bar one and I predict the same people that agree with scenario one, will start to agree with scenario two. They will dress it up as 'greater good' decision as with all their other nonsense, perhaps it is a duty to rebuild the population and the extinction of the species is too high a risk to not rape?
Let's make it very clear, there is NEVER a good enough reason to infringe upon the liberty of someone who is not first doing it to someone else...NEVER.
For those that argue against personal possessions, these are just an extension of the self, a living embodiment of your past labour, or the labour of someone who wished you to have it. To take it away against your will is to rob you of your past's work, the same as if the very time spent acquiring them was taken.
Each person exists in three states, Past, Present and Future. Your Past is your experience and possessions and fruits of your labour, your Present is your liberty, in mind and body and your Future is your potential.
Everywhere you turn the state will be leeching off of you in the name of the greater good. For example..taxes..Whether it is eating into the inheritance a relative may leave you, which is their labour's fruit to give, your present by crippling taxes that can in some cases mean that half your working life you are working all proceeds to go to the state and your future by penalising savings and the plans you may make for your death.
In employment law...a business owner, that is the person that OWNS the business is not allowed to use their own judgement in who they should hire, or what the job is worth even if the worker is in full agreement.
There are whole hosts of other examples which I won't bleat on about, but it is something very troubling.
There is nothing that can't be regulated by the simple rule, nothing by force or fraud.
If two parties voluntarily agree something, it is obviously mutually beneficial and therefore no business of any mediator or third party.
If one party is offering something not acceptable to the second party, a third party is not to be brought in to force the first party to comply with the others requirements.
This is Liberty. It remains as of the moment a foreign concept, but next time you hear people complaining about HAVING to do something, consider that they may have chosen to do it if they had free will.
However in the UK, more specifically England, it was a foreign concept.
Growing up I was confronted by two arguments, the left or the right and for many years I was confused by my supposedly paradoxical views. I wanted tough and robust law and order...but the legalisation of recreational drugs, I am against anti-discrimination law but for freedom from/of religion, for some may say draconian law and order but against execution.
Where does that put me?
A few years ago, I realised I was a libertarian.
I called my family and friends to come round, I sat them down and told them. My mother was upset and asked if it was a phase I was going through, my friends couldn't quite look me in the eye....but i had done it. I was out.
I had discovered a term that fitted most if not all of my opinions and view, except the few irrational ones that lingered from years of being English.
I believed in the personal freedom of people, not People mind, people. This is very important as People have become a faceless group which try to override the rights of people. Straight away, of course limitations are abound but only the limitations accepted by every civilisation and culture known to man, they are 'the golden rule'.
You do nothing by force or by fraud. You have the right to live your life how you wish, as long as does not stop others living their lives. If you require someone else's involvement to fulfill your wishes, that person must partake voluntarily.
Some people may say this is selfish and you may agree, this is the herd mentality from the age of picking fleas off each other speaking though.
Let's think of two scenarios, picked due to their shock factor, it involves a millionaire and the state demanding a 50% tax rate and a desert island with ten men and only one woman.
The state says to the millionaire, share your money, its not right to keep it to yourself. Think of others, you're selfish. The many not the few.
The men say to the woman, share your body, its not right to keep it to yourself. Think of others, you're selfish. The many not the few.
In both scenarios the individual caving in to or being forced into the demands of the many might be advantageous to the many, but does it make it right?
There are people that will argue that these two scenarios are miles apart from each other...they will need to, morally.
There is a difference, you know what it is? People covet the money now, not the body of a woman..because they are in abundance but you take away the opposite sex bar one and I predict the same people that agree with scenario one, will start to agree with scenario two. They will dress it up as 'greater good' decision as with all their other nonsense, perhaps it is a duty to rebuild the population and the extinction of the species is too high a risk to not rape?
Let's make it very clear, there is NEVER a good enough reason to infringe upon the liberty of someone who is not first doing it to someone else...NEVER.
For those that argue against personal possessions, these are just an extension of the self, a living embodiment of your past labour, or the labour of someone who wished you to have it. To take it away against your will is to rob you of your past's work, the same as if the very time spent acquiring them was taken.
Each person exists in three states, Past, Present and Future. Your Past is your experience and possessions and fruits of your labour, your Present is your liberty, in mind and body and your Future is your potential.
Everywhere you turn the state will be leeching off of you in the name of the greater good. For example..taxes..Whether it is eating into the inheritance a relative may leave you, which is their labour's fruit to give, your present by crippling taxes that can in some cases mean that half your working life you are working all proceeds to go to the state and your future by penalising savings and the plans you may make for your death.
In employment law...a business owner, that is the person that OWNS the business is not allowed to use their own judgement in who they should hire, or what the job is worth even if the worker is in full agreement.
There are whole hosts of other examples which I won't bleat on about, but it is something very troubling.
There is nothing that can't be regulated by the simple rule, nothing by force or fraud.
If two parties voluntarily agree something, it is obviously mutually beneficial and therefore no business of any mediator or third party.
If one party is offering something not acceptable to the second party, a third party is not to be brought in to force the first party to comply with the others requirements.
This is Liberty. It remains as of the moment a foreign concept, but next time you hear people complaining about HAVING to do something, consider that they may have chosen to do it if they had free will.
Friday, 12 August 2011
NO-ONE needs to feel connected!
After the London Riots in the early August, a lot of 'reasons' surfaced in the next few days to try to explain the actions of the rioters. They varied from the expected, they are feral little s**ts, the unbelievable, they were protesting against police brutality on the black population and the down right silly, their EMA was cut so they HAD to steal the TV.
A lot has been made out about how the youth often feel a disconnect from society, this is why they can attack police and smash up private property. Predictably this has led to the apologists coming back with an attack on the more wealthy part of 'society' as 'just as bad' in their disconnect from society.
In the blog from Peter Oborne which I have linked above, he infuriatingly seems to think that it is the obligation of wealthy people, many of who dragged their businesses up to be what they are today, to pay for everyone else. Apparently moving your business, note the 'YOUR' business, should be looked down on.
He targets Philip Green in this way.
Yes he is providing services and products which due even to their existence lowers the price of the competitors products, benefitting consumers and all the other benefits and innovation that come with the scramble and pressure to make things better quality/ cost wise.
Yes, he may be providing employment for thousands upon thousands of people, allowing them to pay tax, feed their families, keep their choice of shops in business etc
But "Sir Philip’s businesses could never survive but for Britain’s famous social and political stability, our transport system to shift his goods and our schools to educate his workers.
Yet Sir Philip, seems to have little intention of paying for much of this."
What an absolute bastard! What do you mean he won't pay for everyone's schooling, our public transport and government?! How dare he even think of employing people and providing competitive goods.
This is a terrible argument. It suggests he gets free use of government, the public transport network and free slave labour. This is simply not true. The business rates he pays are astronomical. Their is a minimum he has to pay his staff and everytime he uses the transport network, he pays for it...by tax on the road, tax on the vehicle, tax of the diesel, tolls on the road....he pays.
Earlier in his blog we are treated to a scene at a dinner party when the hostess speaks ill of the type of people who smashed up the capital. Again what a bitch!
How dare she consider herself better than those smashing the capital up or those actually in a negative to the state by taking far more than they have any intention of giving back.
She is JUST as bad as those causing the deaths of people trying to defend they homes, or those burning down family business' that have survived a century or the people who destroyed people's homes and their entire lives.
We have to accept that being connected with society is not an obligation. If someone wishes to reap no benefits of society and wishes to not benefit society, that should be up to them, yet even the folk above, vilified beyond reason, still contribute hugely.
The thugs that tore through the streets, homes and lives of so many in the last days are disconnected from society, as is their right, but we are still feeding them, homing them and allowing them to live these disconnected lives.
The point is however, society is meant to be mutually benefitial. That is the whole point and each person has the right to decide whether the deal is fair or not and leave if they arrive at the conclusion that it is the latter.
Anyone even attempting to draw comparisons between them is inaccurately portraying where true blame lies.
So before you start chanting that 'they're just as bad as each other' ask yourself honestly, which group would you prefer as a neighbour.
A lot has been made out about how the youth often feel a disconnect from society, this is why they can attack police and smash up private property. Predictably this has led to the apologists coming back with an attack on the more wealthy part of 'society' as 'just as bad' in their disconnect from society.
In the blog from Peter Oborne which I have linked above, he infuriatingly seems to think that it is the obligation of wealthy people, many of who dragged their businesses up to be what they are today, to pay for everyone else. Apparently moving your business, note the 'YOUR' business, should be looked down on.
He targets Philip Green in this way.
Yes he is providing services and products which due even to their existence lowers the price of the competitors products, benefitting consumers and all the other benefits and innovation that come with the scramble and pressure to make things better quality/ cost wise.
Yes, he may be providing employment for thousands upon thousands of people, allowing them to pay tax, feed their families, keep their choice of shops in business etc
But "Sir Philip’s businesses could never survive but for Britain’s famous social and political stability, our transport system to shift his goods and our schools to educate his workers.
Yet Sir Philip, seems to have little intention of paying for much of this."
What an absolute bastard! What do you mean he won't pay for everyone's schooling, our public transport and government?! How dare he even think of employing people and providing competitive goods.
This is a terrible argument. It suggests he gets free use of government, the public transport network and free slave labour. This is simply not true. The business rates he pays are astronomical. Their is a minimum he has to pay his staff and everytime he uses the transport network, he pays for it...by tax on the road, tax on the vehicle, tax of the diesel, tolls on the road....he pays.
Earlier in his blog we are treated to a scene at a dinner party when the hostess speaks ill of the type of people who smashed up the capital. Again what a bitch!
How dare she consider herself better than those smashing the capital up or those actually in a negative to the state by taking far more than they have any intention of giving back.
She is JUST as bad as those causing the deaths of people trying to defend they homes, or those burning down family business' that have survived a century or the people who destroyed people's homes and their entire lives.
We have to accept that being connected with society is not an obligation. If someone wishes to reap no benefits of society and wishes to not benefit society, that should be up to them, yet even the folk above, vilified beyond reason, still contribute hugely.
The thugs that tore through the streets, homes and lives of so many in the last days are disconnected from society, as is their right, but we are still feeding them, homing them and allowing them to live these disconnected lives.
The point is however, society is meant to be mutually benefitial. That is the whole point and each person has the right to decide whether the deal is fair or not and leave if they arrive at the conclusion that it is the latter.
Anyone even attempting to draw comparisons between them is inaccurately portraying where true blame lies.
So before you start chanting that 'they're just as bad as each other' ask yourself honestly, which group would you prefer as a neighbour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)