I think Thomas is, in part, expressing a Rawlsian notion which holds that basic liberties cannot be legitimately exchanged for (or their loss/reduction compensated for) by means of conferring social or economic benefits.

Beyind that he’s arguing from a classic contractarian notion of liberalism - ‘we the people… truths self-evident… all men are created equal’ - under which rights and liberties are derived from the premise that we are all notionally equal as human beings.

Its a respectable enough position to start from but not without its complications - one has to find ways to reconcile universalist notions of rights and liberties with the reality that rights are, in actuality, attached to members of a particular polity, which is where we move from notions of ‘universal equality’ to ones of ‘equal citizenship’ which are a bit easier to work with conceptually.

In that sense what Thomas is say, perfectly reasonably, is the argument for extending access to IVF is not about providing freedom of choice but about providing for choices to made under conditions of equality where such choices are possibility.

The technology makes it possible for a lesbian couple to choose to have a child without the involvement of a father, hence their right to exercise that choice should be equal to that of anyone else who has the same possibility of choice, and its that which makes the idea of having rights in this situation meaningful.

Conversely one cannot talk - rationally - having the right to be a fish because as humans we lack the ability to develop gills and all the other stuff that goes with fishiness.

And then you want more liberalism and less socialism. I’m not sure what version of liberalism you’re following, but restricting the rights of homosexual mothers who want kids through IVF, just because the moral police doesn’t like it, isn’t liberalism.

Using IVF doesn’t favour one over another because its also used (overwhelmingly) by heterosexual families. I really don’t know where you’re going with this. Its going round in circles.

But, what the hell are you on about.

I’d never support a situation where rights and liberties accrue, and could or could be accumulated, elsewise we could trade them away and exchange a life in slavery for a bowl of gruel in a bout of necessity.
Surely rights are the product of equality and the basis by which we can express our individual abilities safely and under the protection of the law, not the other way round - that’s the difference between liberalism and illiberalism!

I cannot be alone, Christ I hope I cannot be alone, in having no idea whatsoever about what you are on about. Try simple, then I’d understand……

In short methods and aims, relevance and practicality.

I like this site and I don’t want LC to start losing its rigour and slacken off by inviting self-describing socialists to come and change it: more liberalism, less conspiracy -please.

-

Douglas,
when I’m in my local pub we usually talk about football, and what people say about serious issues is either veiled by a sheen of insecurity and humour or is of little consequence as most punters are disinterested, disillusioned and disenfranchised by politics, anyway people don’t finally make up their minds on who to vote for until stumbling into the polling station.
I’d never support a situation where rights and liberties accrue, and could or could be accumulated, elsewise we could trade them away and exchange a life in slavery for a bowl of gruel in a bout of necessity.
Surely rights are the product of equality and the basis by which we can express our individual abilities safely and under the protection of the law, not the other way round - that’s the difference between liberalism and illiberalism!

-

When it comes to would-be lesbian mothers it isn’t the state that is stopping them from having kids together, but biology.
This doesn’t, however, translate to a moral view of how we use technology (such as IVF treatment) to unequally favour some over others (ie homosexual partners against heterosexual partners) as some religious ideologues would insist.
The principle that matters more here is equality, not freedom of choice, especially since the supposed couple in question have exercised their freedom of choice to override their reproductive biology in the first place, whether in hope or expectation that economic factors may reconcile the difference or not at all (from a behaviourist viewpoint).
As pointed out above there are alternative options that this couple have the opportunity to explore (communal parenting, but also surragacy, adoption and fostering) which I think should precede IVF or envisioned scientific advances into artificial reproduction techniques on the priority list for the state and taxpayer, especially when public money can be better spent on healthcare, schools or police.
Should the cost reduce and success rate of these procedures rise to a level where it isn’t a factor then there is no issue, as it wasn’t when there wasn’t a possibility - it is only now as we are poised on a burgeoning threshold that this has become a discussion point at all.
My personal view is that this is a matter for private individuals, who should bear the reality of all the factors in consideration prior to taking their decisions - if the state can’t interfere in anybody’s choice of personal relationship, why should there be a call for all relationships to conform to any politicised norm whether from right or left?

(breathes deeply)

Not all religious people are on the right and I personally know some highly religious people who are involved in research the moralising right would castigate for their scientific activities.
It is the hijacking of debates, such as that over abortion by right-wingers, that have skewed opinion into creating the false alliances you implicate - this is exactly the same tactic as employed by the left-wing extremists re STWC, which I criticised above for creating resistance to what otherwise would be seen as worthy aims.
Under the current prevailing climate of these false alliances it is easy to forget the reality that many faithful churchgoers were the instigators of the original liberalisation of the law on abortion as a result of seeing and dealing with the harm the as-then law resulted in (a case of doctoring trumping doctrine).
The act of abortion is traumatic for any woman who undergoes it, as is the violence of war wherever it is experienced, but while we might prefer to avoid either both are the effect of failing to plan for unforeseen consequences ahead.
Though this failure is regretable in either situation reality requires that it must be dealt with to prevent any potential worsening, so by any political or ideological analysis your stance must pass the tests of relevance and practicality.

As the evidence points to at least a million dead in Iraq, it ought to be a matter of more than a little concern that genuine public outrage at the war was subverted. The folk that did that are thieves and liars. This is not really about politics, it is about humanity. The failure of the STW campaign to stick together is an utter disgrace.

I consider anyone, whatsoever, that rose to public prominence on the back of that campaign to be, at the very least opportunistic. They rose on the back of public sentiment and, instead of meeting it, they polarised it. That has got to be wrong.

The three of us have probably different views on many things. What we had in common was that early march. Bright dawn shit. And subsequent betrayal.

Could you please explain this sentence for the hard of thinking, i.e., me:

Sexuality doesn’t matter in the case of would-be lesbian mothers as much as reproductive ability, and as neither depends on the other why make a distinction.

OK, I can see that sexuality doesn’t matter, as it would presumeably have to be a medical procedure, but do recall we are talking about two women who want to do this.

I can also see that reproductive ability would be kind of important too.

But, what I don’t get is why neither depends on the other. Without the will, there would be no need for an end, would there?

It would seem to me that if two women want to get together and have a baby - is this technically possible? - then I see no reason whatsoever why the State should stop them.

Anyway, to quote someone else, my head hit the desk, with this:

As I’m of the view that rights reflect ability, or inability, rather than some imposed normative view I argue that wasting our time expensively counterbalancing the injustice of a false question actually diminishes equality rather than enhances it.

Does that go down a bundle in your local pub? If I read it right - and frankly I doubt it - you think that rights accrue to those with ability and that equality is a chimera? See, I can do it too, although I’d bow to the Master.

Anyway, see the bit about STW? That was lucid and right on the money.

And we have IVF treatment to offer them that ability. Why offer it to mothers in heterosexual families and not those not?

Power is a consequence of success, not a pre-requisite. What matters are the policies and these are what any judgement will be made on, not the time spent in office.

Agreed, but power should not come, in theory, without success. I assumed that success (in something) is a starting point. But it doesn’t contradict my point.

The STW coalition was built from these early demonstrations, it didn’t exist to build them in the first place - in other words STW destroyed any possibility that the coalition of opinion would hold

Well, its easier said in hindsight. I also marchec initially, and now I don’t. So we’re in the same boat.

The “people” are anti-abortionists, religious right etc who seek to limit the choice available to other women based on their own vision of what a moral society should look like.

Sexuality doesn’t matter in the case of would-be lesbian mothers as much as reproductive ability, and as neither depends on the other why make a distinction. As I’m of the view that rights reflect ability, or inability, rather than some imposed normative view I argue that wasting our time expensively counterbalancing the injustice of a false question actually diminishes equality rather than enhances it.

If you’re in politics solely or primarily for the power then you are setting yourself up for a fall and deserve to fail. Power is a consequence of success, not a pre-requisite. What matters are the policies and these are what any judgement will be made on, not the time spent in office.

Stop the War Coalition was a bandwagon created by those on the far left to attach itself to widespread public sentiment and thereby capitalise on it by popularising left-wing causes by association. I walked on a number of early anti-Iraq war marches and spoke with many of the different groups, lots were making political stands, not principled stands, the result of which was diminishing influence and infighting. Even some of the LibDem activists there saw this as a tactic that held appeal (though this caused an argument with those saw this as a danger, so I removed myself quickly). The STW coalition was built from these early demonstrations, it didn’t exist to build them in the first place - in other words STW destroyed any possibility that the coalition of opinion would hold, and therefore it destroyed exactly what it stated were its aims. STW was retrogressive in its actions, whatever it said, and like all the empty promises given by any illiberal leftie, is exemplified by the gulf in the distance between word and deed.

I refer you to comment 34. Who are the people to which you refer, if not religious people (and by your lack of specificity, it can only be infered generally)?

On the bitch thread some didn’t like the use of the word bitch and we argued our case for it. I can’t see any of the people on that thread who had a problem with ‘bitch’ using the term ‘jesus freak’ on this one.

I’ll let people know when I’m offended by a term and I don’t expect anyone to ‘come to my aid’ over it, I’m quite capable of standing up for myself and my own views. As an atheist I am not offended over the term ‘jesus freak’ (although it is not something I would use myself) and I don’t see that Paul needed someone to come to his aid. I’m not some kind of anti-offensive emergency service.

I do, but in this context it is the govt trying to restrict the rights of lesbians. In that context, their sexuality matters.

Your example of the SWP and George Galloway typifies the fractiousness and incoherence of illiberalism, highlighting the flaw of Marxism and its false perceptions of equality and diversity.

That makes little sense. OF course the SWP types wanted power. Who in politics is involved just for the jokes and long hours?

Pre-election coalitions succeed where the issues are raised above partisan interests, failure comes when the coalition is taken over by entryists with the inevitable subsequent exposure of links between it and it’s parent

This was always the case anyway - STWC was always a loose coalition spearheaded by the far left. But it was initially a useful vehicle for all those who opposed it. Some people made their point and never came back. Others were frustrated their voice was never heard. And some just didnt like the SWP and Respect. Blaming it just on entryism is silly.

So Sunny’s close-minded and generalised implication of religious people as a whole as antiabortionists and antiegalitarian

Have never done that. Please read more carefully what I write.

46. I’m more than happy to accept that I’m wrong in placing you in the argument when you weren’t, though the issue of the lack of parity on such a subject is still present. I don’t see them running to Paul’s aid over this issue as they so fervently did on an issue perceived to be about sexism. That is the problem in the end. :)

On the subject of homosexual reproduction, you are quite confused over how gay social identity combines and overlaps with gay sexual identity, as Unity starts to point out, so instead of labeling such women ‘lesbians’ try dealing with them as women.

-

KateBelgrave,
the question of rights is a long story of counterbalancing artificially created injustices (usually by those in the process of gaining power), while the history of building coalitions to fighting those injustices has continually developed fractures when new injustices are created in place of the old instead of removing the artifice that is the locus of all injustice: at some point all legacies of oppression must lose their weight, or equality and any hope of maintaining equality is lost.

Your example of the SWP and George Galloway typifies the fractiousness and incoherence of illiberalism, highlighting the flaw of Marxism and its false perceptions of equality and diversity.
For them the issue wasn’t the war (for they weren’t the only ones against it), the issue was power.

Coalition building can only ever be centred on gaining influence, never power, as the necessities of power overwhelm the substance of the real issues of equality.
Blair managed this temporarily in fits and starts, but he could never sustain the practice (if he ever really wanted to) for long once he held office (and his big tent blew away as a result), while the Brownite doctrine of undermining, negating and crushing all opposition has gained sway.

Pre-election coalitions succeed where the issues are raised above partisan interests, failure comes when the coalition is taken over by entryists with the inevitable subsequent exposure of links between it and it’s parent - look at how many people marched against the invasion of Iraq (more than a million), but how many could the ‘Stop the War Coalition’ finally muster as different and emergent sectarian forces fought for control over it and to turn it into a rallying cause - 3,000 was the last figure I heard when the numbers were still counted.

It is easy to see that religions have survived as popular social movements because when push comes to shove they recognise they are and must remain open institutions centred around private belief - though I’m sure specific cases of exceptions can and will always be identified.
So Sunny’s close-minded and generalised implication of religious people as a whole as antiabortionists and antiegalitarian, and your blinkered view of the whole of Islam as sexist (by your terms) both fall wide of the mark.

‘Given the recent discussion over more ambiguous terms such as “bitch” by the feminist lobby here, I find it somewhat hypocritical at the ease in which they are happy to use more directly correlated insults against religious belief’

and you were wrong. I was not involved in the ‘bitch’ discussion and as I pointed out in an earlier comment on this thread, I would not expect others to tone down their language when discussing my interests and beliefs. People can call me what they like, and they do. I don’t expect them to respect my beliefs - only my right to hold those beliefs. You are wrong to say I am hypocritical in that respect.

I make my point again - cabinet ministers who decide that the rest of us should wear their faith and put up with the consequences of that deserve a harsh response. They are bullies and I respond to them as such.

And I will continue to do so. I have no intention whatsoever of toning my language down on the topic of God in government and abortion. I am amazed that some LCrs think that the views of a passionate atheist should be nipped in the bud.

How rude.