Boycott Tesco

Re: Boycott Tesco

james herriot lied — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:51:39 GMT

My apologies, Thomas and Evelyn. It's been a bit of a hectic week, with sick spouse and kids, and I just plain ran out of steam with the debate. I have to admit, I don't seem to have the motivation to jump back in, particularly as all that's left to discuss is a definition of life and its protection; I fear you may have me there as after all this time, I still have no clue what life's about in any case.

I think the thread ended in rather better shape and with more substance than it started.

Re: Boycott Tesco

Thomas Johnson — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:34:14 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Indeed so. On the other hand, if a substantial number of people wish to see the age limit being moved downward, because babies can (with medical aid) survive outside the womb at the earlier age, at least it indicates that "society" still has twinges of conscience about induced abortion, which is something. (Conversely, it's depressing that a number of people wish to see everything kept the same or even relaxed). Also, one might hope for modification in the law to end its misuse to provide abortion on demand.

[/quote]

You are right, I was probably being too cynical, a general societal discussion on the ethics of abortion has to be a good thing.

Re: Boycott Tesco

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:17:18 GMT

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]My views are largely informed by my Christian faith. Being realistic I can't see there being much change in the law other than the upper limit being moved by a couple of weeks, which is largely irrelevant to my views on abortion.[/quote]

Re: Boycott Tesco

Thomas Johnson — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:45:18 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]

Abortion? An unborn baby's body, where does their choice come in to the arguement?

[/quote]

Ah, and there's the nub. The foetus has no voice, so we must advocate on its behalf. This is what happens in generalities, in terms of societal constraints on abortion. 'We're' in a political debate in the UK right now about this, as medical advances are bringing lower age limits of survival ever closer to the upper limits for abortion. This is not a simple matter, however you may feel, Thomas (I'm thinking you're a bloke, and not a Thomasina...)

[/quote]

I am very much aware that this is not a simple matter (and you are correct that I am male), my position is probably best expressed as Evelyn put it (and I am aware that he has not stated exactly what his personal position is):

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Why .... before the age when the conceptus-foetus-baby is independently viable (obviously it's viable, if healthy and normal, right from conception) it's a free choice for the mother, and nobody else's business, whether to kill it (greater freedom than even the law is supposed to allow at present); but the instant it's independently viable (with medical aid?) she's not allowed to kill it?

[/quote]

My views are largely informed by my Christian faith. Being realistic I can't see there being much change in the law other than the upper limit being moved by a couple of weeks, which is largely irrelevant to my views on abortion.

Re: Boycott Tesco

james herriot lied — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:45:48 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

And, as I am always having to say, don't jump to conclusions and assume that you know my opinion.

[/quote]

Quite. That's why I'm asking. The first quote you posted was a reply to Niall, not to you. It's because I wish to know your opinion that I'm asking, clearly. There's probably an interesting - but fruitless - discussion to be had on the subject of voluntary euthanasia in people, but after a weekend on call I lack the motivation to pursue it right now.

My conclusion is that outside of our own species, we share the same views on reproductive function and its manipulation; not so surprising, partly through anthropocentric mechanisms and partly through a certain conditioning that comes with the job. I was just interested to know whether it was otherwise for you.

A little too fried / rushed to give a fair answer to your last question, but I'll ponder it over the course of the day. My general view to this point has been that I have a moderate, tolerant and reasonably enlightened view on abortion in people, but I'm happy to reflect on whether that's true in light of:

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

I'm not sure why that makes my stance arbitrary and yours not. (Not that it's too important: many societal constraints are arbitrary, and not necessarily the worse for it). Why do you feel that before the age when the conceptus-foetus-baby is independently viable (obviously it's viable, if healthy and normal, right from conception) it's a free choice for the mother, and nobody else's business, whether to kill it (greater freedom than even the law is supposed to allow at present); but the instant it's independently viable (with medical aid?) she's not allowed to kill it? Is that a fair summary of your opinion?

[/quote]

My use of the word arbitrary was mistaken; you're correct, of course, that all such distinctions have an element of arbitrariness.

Re: Boycott Tesco

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:23:58 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]But I bet your views on (voluntary) human euthanasia are informed by your viewson - and experience of - animal euthanasia. I know mine are.[/quote]

No, mine are not.

Anyway:

[quote user="james herriot lied"] Are you informed by faith, by a secular anthropocentricity, by economic necessity or does the dilemma not feature heavily on your mind? Or none of the above?[/quote]

Not faith or economic necessity. It doesn't feature heavily on my mind, but then I don't see a dilemma. Maybe it's none of the above. Maybe you'd label it secular anthropocentricity, I don't know.

[quote user="james herriot lied"]You appear to hold the view that there are significant and compelling differences between humans and animals, so that the rules for each are different and mutually exclusive.[/quote]

Well, for the purpose of discussion, let's accept that for now. Yes, the significant difference is that I am a human, species Homo sapiens. Just like every single species in the world, present or extinct, I hold every species but my own as different and their "interests" (not sure a species can have interests literally, but metaphorically anyway) subordinate to to the "interests" of my species. (It's an intriguing thought that probably only Homo sapiens has the spare energy, the spare time and the spare reasoning power to agonise over this. ) I don't hold females of my species as subordinate to males (although they are patently different), nor males subordinate to females.

[quote user="james herriot lied"]But I feel that my stance is less arbitrary than yours. I certainly have that cut-off point, which is based on where the foetus becomes viable, but as I've said, before that point I feel that it's down to the individual to choose. [/quote]

And, as I am always having to say, don't jump to conclusions and assume that you know my opinion.

Re: Boycott Tesco

james herriot lied — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:34:37 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

Possibly in the same way that one's views on human murder inform or fail to inform one's views on animal euthanasia. Which is to say, not at all.

[/quote]

Sorry, forgot to answer this one before. Murder and euthanasia aren't necessarily the same thing, in my opinion, so it's difficult to compare views on each objectively. I certainly don't believe that I murder my patients (at least, not deliberately and not most of the time).

But I bet your views on (voluntary) human euthanasia are informed by your viewson - and experience of - animal euthanasia. I know mine are.

Re: Boycott Tesco

james herriot lied — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:26:05 GMT

Well, that's my point: I appear to have a differing view to yours on human abortion, but I've already stated that I don't either have an issue with the subject in animals - having been a mixed or large animal vet for most of my 'career' (careering from job to job), I couldn't really be otherwise.

But I feel that my stance is less arbitrary than yours. I certainly have that cut-off point, which is based on where the foetus becomes viable, but as I've said, before that point I feel that it's down to the individual to choose. Because of this, I don't differentiate much between species, although my approach to heavily pregnant cats is that whilst it's a job I hate doing, late term foetuses will be PTSd if necessary.

You appear to hold the view that there are significant and compelling differences between humans and animals, so that the rules for each are different and mutually exclusive. You've stated that you think it's an irrelevancy to discuss the two situations in the same context; I was hoping that you'd explain why you feel that way, again in the context of your differing views on abortion. Are you informed by faith, by a secular anthropocentricity, by economic necessity or does the dilemma not feature heavily on your mind? Or none of the above?

Re: Boycott Tesco

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:41:20 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"] I'm interested in how your views on human abortion inform - or fail to inform - your views on animal abortion.[/quote]

They don't . Neither. It's entirely irrelevant. . If you're interested in this one, I'd like to hear why you think it's relevant.

Re: Boycott Tesco

james herriot lied — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 11:48:04 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

Personally, for what it's worth, interesting as the debate is, I'm sure these positions are irreconcilable, they come down purely to faith and opinion.

[/quote]

Yes, of course they do. I would think that that's Evelyn's take on the subject - and mine too. But his opinions on human abortion obviously differ to mine, and I'm interested in whether that differing viewpoint translates at all into his work, and if not then why not.

My stance on human abortion - that it's not necessarily my business outside of a general framework which must be humane but cogniscent of the foetus and its viability - might appear to be a cop-out, a failure to really engage. But I'd fight quite hard for the rights of the mother to be able to choose her own options. A passivity in one direction doesn't mean a failure to join the debate.

Re: Boycott Tesco

Niall Taylor — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:39:12 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]I'm interested in how your views on human abortion inform - or fail to inform - your views on animal abortion.[/quote]

Possibly in the same way that one's views on human murder inform or fail to inform one's views on animal euthanasia. Which is to say, not at all.

Whatever one's views on abortion (and I'm with JHL on this one), comparing the issue to how we treat animals is a non-sequitur. Personally, for what it's worth, interesting as the debate is, I'm sure these positions are irreconcilable, they come down purely to faith and opinion.

Niall

Re: Boycott Tesco

james herriot lied — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 23:03:08 GMT

Oh come now, there's plenty left in this one.

That you object to being lumped in as a Daily Mail reader suggests that there's some reason left in you , although I find it difficult to look at your characterisations of abortion choices and child rehoming without referring back to the rag, based as they seem to be on the small minority of cases, rather than the norm. And I'll even let the 'failed to inform' jibe go past like so much tumbleweed.....

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="james herriot lied"]So what's your position on misalliance jabs, or spaying pregnant cats? Is there some magic cut-off point, where a life is worth more according to species?[/quote]

Certainly. No magic cut-off point. What we do to animals has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's irrelevant.

[/quote]

But I'm interested in this one. Why is it different? I'm not suggesting that I don't think it is, but I'm interested in how your views on human abortion inform - or fail to inform - your views on animal abortion.

Re: Boycott Tesco

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:13:31 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]So what's your position on misalliance jabs, or spaying pregnant cats? Is there some magic cut-off point, where a life is worth more according to species?[/quote]

Certainly. No magic cut-off point. What we do to animals has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's irrelevant.

[quote user="james herriot lied"]'m not suggesting that you don't have a right to an opinion on this, as a mere male, and I'd plead Voltaire on that right of yours. But your right to an influence only extends as far as your ability to lobby your MP or trigger the populist centres of Dave and his chums; after all, if some scrote robs the old lady round the corner, your say as to what should happen to him was defined in law a while back, and you don't have the right to intervene now. Such is democracy.[/quote]

I don't have the right to go round and cut his ears off, no. But if I'm free to think his ears should be cut off, I'm free to say so, and I'm free to campaign for a change in the law, if I so wish. If one has an opinion one is free to express it and one is free to campaign for a change if one wishes a change (I don't particularly. )That is what free speech implies.

[quote user="james herriot lied"] I'm extremely fortunate in that I've never had to make such a decision, which informs my opinion[/quote]

Or, perhaps, fails to inform your opinion?

[quote user="james herriot lied"]I think the phrase 'a society which allows abortion on demand at the mother's whim' owes more to the Daily Mail than to logical debate.[/quote]

Ah-ha. End of discussion, I fear. "Daily Mail" is becoming not unlike "bigot!" or "racist": automatically pejorative, requires no explanation, and ends reasoning.

Whether you like the word "whim" or not, you know perfectly well that the position now is effectively abortion on demand.

I think this discussion has probably come to a natural end, now, anyway.

Re: Boycott Tesco

james herriot lied — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 20:36:53 GMT

I'm not suggesting that you don't have a right to an opinion on this, as a mere male, and I'd plead Voltaire on that right of yours. But your right to an influence only extends as far as your ability to lobby your MP or trigger the populist centres of Dave and his chums; after all, if some scrote robs the old lady round the corner, your say as to what should happen to him was defined in law a while back, and you don't have the right to intervene now. Such is democracy.

I think the phrase 'a society which allows abortion on demand at the mother's whim' owes more to the Daily Mail than to logical debate. Doubtless, that does happen, but just like the wrongful withdrawal of a child from a home environment, it's not the norm. No, it isn't. I'm extremely fortunate in that I've never had to make such a decision, which informs my opinion that I don't have a right to make judgments: a woman's body, a woman's choice.

So what's your position on misalliance jabs, or spaying pregnant cats? Is there some magic cut-off point, where a life is worth more according to species?

Re: Boycott Tesco

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:11:59 GMT

Which neatly demonstrates how Monty Python went right down the drain, after the Holy Grail film.

Anyway:[quote user="james herriot lied"]And I have absolutely no right to impose my views on the matter on anybody else, least of all a pregnant woman. Not my choice to make. I would, though, support women's rights to make their own choices.[/quote]

Women's rights to choose whether or not to kill their babies. Well, hmm, I am male (I can't help it, I was born that way), like around 50% of the population. and I feel I have some say in this. After all, around 50% of the babies whose deaths were are considering are male, no?

[quote user="james herriot lied"]Ah, and there's the nub. The foetus has no voice, so we must advocate on its behalf. This is what happens in generalities, in terms of societal constraints on abortion. 'We're' in a political debate in the UK right now about this, as medical advances are bringing lower age limits of survival ever closer to the upper limits for abortion. This is not a simple matter,[/quote]

All this I agree with. So, there is some magic cut-off point, is there? Before that point, the baby is just a foetus and the mother can kill it if she chooses. After it, he or she is a baby and she can't. Politicians are arguing over when that cut-off point is, or should be. Well, some of them are. Others are arguing over what answer would best please the people they hope will vote them back in. It's all "societal constraints".......

You are right, it's not simple. Human beings are complicated and often not coldly logical. Human societies are even more complicated and less logical. Going back to my original point, I suggest that a society which allows abortion on demand at the mother's whim but shrinks with horror (as it should) from compulsory sterilisation might well be showing what one noted vetsurgeon.org frequenter would label hypocrisy, or what Lenin would label an internal contradiction

Re: Boycott Tesco

james herriot lied — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:05:52 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="james herriot lied"]that a woman has a right to choose whether or not to have sex, but that if that sex results in pregnancy then her right to further choice is over, regardless of previous intention.[/quote]

Er..... yes. That's a harsh, but accurate, way of summing it up.

[/quote]

www.youtube.com/watch

Re: Boycott Tesco

james herriot lied — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:02:45 GMT

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]

Abortion? An unborn baby's body, where does their choice come in to the arguement?

[/quote]

And I have absolutely no right to impose my views on the matter on anybody else, least of all a pregnant woman. Not my choice to make. I would, though, support women's rights to make their own choices.

But you'll all be delighted to know that I've saved the gene pool and prevented further over-population by taking permanent 'measures'. And nobody forced me to, even though I fear my value may be at the lower end of the spectrum.

Re: Boycott Tesco

Thomas Johnson — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:30:47 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

Abortion? A woman's body; a woman's choice. Sterilisation? Go to the start of the paragraph.

[/quote]

Abortion? An unborn baby's body, where does their choice come in to the arguement? Enforced sterilistaion? I find the idea repulsive, and wouldn't want to live in a country that allows it, but part of me wonders if abortion is worse.

Re: Boycott Tesco

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 00:24:00 GMT

It's ok, I didn't spell "whoa" wrong, or even wrongly . I spelled "whoah" correctly.

Er..... yes. That's a harsh, but accurate, way of summing it up.

[quote user="james herriot lied"]But mainly, why is a group of men arguing about the rights of women in the first place?[/quote]

Dunno, squire. Any ladies around are welcome to join in. Vetsurgeon.org ladies are not noted for their reputation as shrinking violets. I suspect that they are waiting till we have flogged each other to a standstill, and then they will pounce.

Re: Boycott Tesco

james herriot lied — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:38:54 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Whoah, whoah. In a free country, a woman indeed has choice; it's her body. And unless she was raped, she made that choice, just before the child was conceived.

[/quote]

Yikes. I find this answer bizarre in the extreme, Evelyn; utterly incomprehensible and without merit: you appear to have spelled 'whoa' wrong. My foundations have crumbled.

And also, are you honestly suggesting that the price of sex is pregnancy? Or that a moment of less-than-clarity should be the basis for a profoundly altered life? Not to mention the implicit contradiction, that a woman has a right to choose whether or not to have sex, but that if that sex results in pregnancy then her right to further choice is over, regardless of previous intention.

But mainly, why is a group of men arguing about the rights of women in the first place? Is it as though we have any right to an input?

Re: Boycott Tesco

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:10:40 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]Baaaaaaah. Humbug. Other half is a teacher and is obviously not allowed to reveal personal details about some of the cases seen at school. But I have a general awareness of some of what goes on. It's unmanned me more than once, what a parent could do to their own child.[/quote]

I believe you completely. Were it not adding yet another strand to this thread I'd tell you what I'd like done to parents like that. I don't recall suggesting that many seized children were not quite correctly seized. I said "seems to be determined sometimes" . Children damaged by abrupt removal without warning from excellent fosterers, because the social workers had heard (from an anonymous phone call) that the foster parents were members of UKIP. Children snatched from their parents and imprisoned for months because of ridiculous suspicions of "satanic rituals". Children incarcerated in a hospital because two idiotic obsessed doctors thought that a single dubious sign was irrefutable proof that they had been regularly sodomised.

[quote user="james herriot lied"]Abortion? A woman's body; a woman's choice.[/quote]

Whoah, whoah. In a free country, a woman indeed has choice; it's her body. And unless she was raped, she made that choice, just before the child was conceived.

Re: Boycott Tesco

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:52:14 GMT

[quote user="Rajat"]And it gets progressively more wrong, deplorable and disgusting as one goes down the list. And the gulf grows exponentially wider between the starting and ending point.[/quote]

Exactly. And you'll agree that this progression is not impossible.

[quote user="Rajat"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]When?[/quote]

Rape being the obvious one. Severely debilitating/likely soon to be fatal diseases in the unborn child diagnosed ante-natally. Exceptional personal circumstances (sorry I know this one is a bit wooly but you can use your imagination)!

[/quote]

Goodish answer, but those "exceptional personal circumstances" are unfortunately open to interpretation........... and have led to our current position of abortion on demand.

[quote user="Rajat"] For me, abortion is sometimes wrong, forced sterilization always is. However, from a strictly moral standpoint, I agree with you partially in that an abortion just for convenience for example is worse than forced sterilization. It doesn't make forced sterilization right though.[/quote]

No, it doesn't. I don't think I said that it did. Maybe "exceptional national circumstances" could make it right? Just speculating.

Re: Boycott Tesco

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:37:43 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]I own a small business-but betwen VAT PAYE and my own tax I have to put £1500 a week by for tax[/quote]

Wynne, come on. You don't pay the VAT, it's outside your accounts, you simply collect it from your clients. You don't pay the PAYE, you simply collect it from your employees. Admittedly you pay the Employment Tax (otherwise known as Employer's National Insurance) but ultimately even that comes from your employees (cos you pay them less).

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]That's a horrendous amount[/quote] Why?

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] so implacably opposed to our over lenient social security system which actually rewards the unskilled for having over large families[/quote]

I've nothing against the unskilled. But I'll agree that the system should not positively encourage large families for anyone.

On the other hand, with people living ever longer, we need lots of young people growing up to pay the taxes that will support the elderly.

Re: Boycott Tesco

Rajat — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:34:36 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Of course it does. Then take it step by step. From just general disapproval, to the virtually irresistible pressure in what you call the conservative/traditional societies, to quasi-legal order by local authority in such society, to tolerance and tacit reinforcement of that by regional authority, to the same by national authority.........[/quote]

And it gets progressively more wrong, deplorable and disgusting as one goes down the list. And the gulf grows exponentially wider between the starting and ending point.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]When?[/quote]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Why not? Which do you think is the greater offence?[/quote]

For me, abortion is sometimes wrong, forced sterilization always is. However, from a strictly moral standpoint, I agree with you partially in that an abortion just for convenience for example is worse than forced sterilization. It doesn't make forced sterilization right though.

Re: Boycott Tesco

james herriot lied — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:28:17 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="james herriot lied"]Taking an at-risk child from an unfit environment is not quite the same as 'official kidnapping', I think.[/quote]

N-no. But what constitutes "at-risk" and what constitutes "unfit environment" seems to be determined sometimes by whatever "society" is obsessed with at that moment, along with rumour and false accusation together with the prejudices and biases of trendy "social workers". And the child is taken into "care" which commonly seems to be anything but care.

[/quote]

Baaaaaaah. Humbug. Other half is a teacher and is obviously not allowed to reveal personal details about some of the cases seen at school. But I have a general awareness of some of what goes on. It's unmanned me more than once, what a parent could do to their own child.

I do remember a few years ago, my mother telling me (she too was a teacher - make of that what you will, Freud) about a child in her class who'd been missing for a couple of months. The child returned with both hands still bandaged and severe facial burns. The parents had been making him light their fags from the gas cooker in the way people usually light their fags, and one day the gas exploded in his face. He wasn't taken out of the home environment.

A friend has recently adopted two little boys, both brothers. Their mother had had seven children, all of whom were removed by the state - with extremely good reason; my friend was contacted by social services recently, as the mother was pregnant with the eighth, so feelers were being put out for suitable homes.

I guess both sides of the debate could feed off these stories respectively. But it's the price of living in a democracy that some people fleece the others, and the others have no choice but to be fleeced. It's a privilege that we shouldn't be in too much of a hurry to give up.

Abortion? A woman's body; a woman's choice. Sterilisation? Go to the start of the paragraph.