Just one of the differences having a Tory government would make

Tankist Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:22:14 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Today the Tories attacked lesbians and abortion rights. They were soundly beaten.



A majority of 71 against the attempt to cut the upper time limit on abortion was a tribute to the hard work of pro-choice MPs (not all in the Labour Party) and a slap in the face for those (not all Tories) who sought to reduce women's rights further.

But make no mistake - pro-choice and pro-equality campaigners won today and won big - because we have a Labour majority in the Commons.

If the Tories get back to power all bets will be off.



tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Just one of the differences having a Tory government would make | 30 comments (30 topical)

Re: Just one of the differences (#1)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:31:38 PM GMT

Thank goodness.

Dotty Dorries and her fundamentalist friends have been defeated.

Reason and science beats religion once more.

Incidentally Alex, why has your thread about last night's Dispatches concerning Christian fundamentalism been removed?


Re: Just one of the differences (#2)

by RedRooster on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:31:52 PM GMT

The facebook group breaks down how the parties voted:

1. Permit the licensing of human/animal admixed embryos
Con: against (54%)
Lab: for (78%)
LDem: for (73%)

2. Permit the creation of true hybrids
Con: against (80%)
Lab: for (77%)
LDem: for (53%)

3. Permit genetically engineered hybrids
Con: against (62%)
Lab: for (78%)
LDem: for (63%)

4. Permit embryo sex selection to prevent the wider range of diseases
Con: against (76%)
Lab: for (91%)
LDem: for (68%)

5. Permit genetic testing to select saviour siblings
Con: against (57%)
Lab: for (81%)
LDem: for (78%)

6. Permit saviour siblings in the wider range of cases
Con: against (77%)
Lab: for (81%)
LDem: for (59%)

AVERAGE VOTES CAST IN FAVOUR OF RESEARCH
Con: against (68%)
Lab: for (81%)
LDem: for (66%)

All this makes me wonder... should Labour now look to take up the baton for secular Britain?  All those letter stuffing fundamentalists are now clearly going to back the Tories, and I worry that people who don't want this country to turn into the deep south aren't going to be equally active until it's too late. 


Re: Just one of the differences (#3)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:35:31 PM GMT

Shows we're more socially liberal than the Liberal Democrats!


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences (#4)

by BF on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:54:59 PM GMT

Out of interest...how did Boris Johnson vote on both the time limit and the 'need for a father' vote?


Unease (#5)

by AngryVoter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:57:35 AM GMT

What about the rumours banding around that the Whips office was out collecting the "yes" votes? I think I am a little uneasy at human-animal embryos, it's cutting the definition of humanity and society far too thinly in my opinion.


Re: Unease (#6)

by CitizenAndreas on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:22:28 AM GMT

You mean the rumours that were soundly dismissed as being untrue?


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#7)

by jljb2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:29:44 AM GMT

I do worry about all of this: I have no problems with the hybrid embryos etc, but I'm very worried about the saviour siblings and abortion clauses. I heard Chris McCafferty MP saying that it was ludicrous for women to receive compulsory counselling before an abortion - I think that's an utterly heartless and inhuman approach. For me, the key is not reducing the limit (though I would support that), but making sure abortions are fully considered - both for the welfare of parents and child. Medical professionals must challenge those who seek abortions, to ensure that they understand what they are doing - including the chances of survival at each stage in pregnancy. A cooling-off period is also a must - we have to signal that abortion is undesirable: at present, it seems to be portrayed as morally neutral. I don't think anyone, pro-choice or pro-life, really thinks a foetus is the same as a tumour or an organ - there is 'something' different, whatever you think that is, which means we should treat it with respect. Above all, we must invest in contraceptive advice and family planning, targetting those most vulnerable to unwanted pregnancy. The fact is, of course, that most of us were unwanted pregnancies - but we came to be loved. It's easy to say that when they're in poverty or poor housing, it's not fair to impose a baby on a woman. True, but we should be punishing not the child, but those who perpetuate poverty and inequality - to do otherwise is the mark of an uncivilised society.


Re: Just one of the differences... (#8)

by jljb2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:39:58 AM GMT

Oh, and on the 'need for a father figure', I think this was utterly wrong. Lesbian parenting should be permitted not on kneejerk 'equality' grounds, but based on empirical evidence of no harm to children. At present, the balance of evidence lies in favour of children of lesbians - although most children in these studies were born into heterosexual families, which later divorced. However, most lesbian parents do claim to provide male role models for their children: there is clear evidence that males bring something different to the child, in terms of physical, rough-and-tumble play, which is itself strongly associated with popularity in school and positive adjustment. No one is saying, least of all me, that lesbians shouldn't raise children - but there is a clear need for male role models, and I don't see how that is illiberal: indeed, the child's freedom is increased no end, and I'm sure the vast majority of lesbians would provide a father figure. I think this is a case of middle-class heterosexual liberals patronising lesbians with silly faux-egalitarianism.
 
I do think, however, that we should disallow gay adoption for the moment - the empirical evidence for gays is not yet sufficient, and when children are concerned, we should always be cautious.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#9)

by matt1986 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:31:03 PM GMT

I don't think we should signal abortion is undesirable or attempt to stand in the way of women who want to have an abortion. As I understand it, it's already hard enough to have an abortion as it is, and women invariably spend a very long time considering what to do. It's not as if they take the decision lightly and therefore need reminding of what exactly they are doing.

I think there probably is a need for male role models, but I don't think it's a consideration that needs to be bourn in mind at all here. Children will inevitably have male teachers etc. and come into contact with male role models during their early years.

And I don't know what's wrong with adoption if it's alright for lesbians to have their own children. I don't know much about these things, but I'm pretty sure there's no compelling evidence suggesting gay people shouldn't adopt. If it's stability that's important, for instance, homosexual couples tend to stay together longer than heterosexual couples. And if we should be concerned about the children involved, I'd much rather them be with two loving gay parents than waiting, in limbo, for a heterosexual couple to come along; there are so many children out there in need of adoption, and hardly any couples willing and able to adopt them.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#10)

by jljb2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:54:02 PM GMT

I was referring to gay males, rather than lesbians - we just have to be cautious while the empirical evidence is lacking: I agree, there are no intuitive grounds for thinking it'd be worse, but you never know in psychology.


As for role models - yes, they may have them elsewhere, but it's clearly preferable to ensure (as we can here, unlike with single parents) that a role model is named - just like a godfather. No one loses, and the kid gains, so what's the problem? I fear that this decision was more to do with PC than common sense.


As Clare Curtis-Thomas, Labour MP for Crosby said yesterday: "Obtaining an abortion today is incredibly easy. I know this, having recently accompanied my friend to an NHS-sponsored clinic. Consultations at the hairdressers I think have taken longer than the amount of time it took to make a decision to have an abortion."
That is tragic. It seems that the original consideration for abortion - that the woman's mental/physical health would be impaired by continued pregnancy - has been lost, and it's become a matter of convenience. These foetuses, all else being constant, would become children. I would not wish to ban abortion, but it must be something that we as a society find morally wrong - a necessary evil in certain (more stringent) situations - and make every effort to ensure that it is not neccessary.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#11)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:28:51 PM GMT

I do think, however, that we should disallow gay adoption for the moment - the empirical evidence for gays is not yet sufficient, and when children are concerned, we should always be cautious.

Disgusting to hear this from a supposed Labour member.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#12)

by jljb2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:39:33 PM GMT

Could you explain why? It is fact that there is not a great deal of empirical evidence for gay male parenthood - and that has to be the basis of our decisions here, since children's welfare is at stake. If you can provide me with a strong set of longitudinal studies showing no ill-effects (as there is for lesbians) I would be delighted to retract my comment.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#28)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:01:52 PM GMT

There are empirical studies showing children with ginger hair get picked on in school and suffer a lower quality of life. Should we ban ginger people from breeding?

You're a misguided homophobe siding with the Tories. Believe me, if the party ever moved away from supporting gay people and believing in EQUALITY (including the equal right to have children) and moved in your direction of social conservatism, I would rip up my membership card in a shot.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#13)

by AngryVoter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:12:58 PM GMT

He's right NorthernMonkey, there's just been no research into the matter as to wether it could damage the child in some kind of psycological way, or even if the child would then be more open to bullying as a result of having two dads or two mums, a more cautious approach should be adopted on the sake of the children, not of the parents.

Should the evidence and studies point to it being ok, then I'd definately be in favour of it, but ensure that there are some exceptions such as Church-Based adoption agencies, on religious grounds.

Eventually the Church comes around either way, it's just not always best to force their hand so hard over such issues, it sparks off the whole "Seperation of Church and State" argument which peels open the massive tin of worms and then we get stuck into theological debates verbatim. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#14)

by jkitleft on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:24:30 PM GMT

If homosexuality was a choice, wouldn't the stereotypical image of a mincing, camp man be far, far more common?

The fact is, that there are gay people in humanity, and other species of animals. There have been gays throughout history. There are in fact, just as many, if not more, cases of homosexuality in countries where it is banned, as it becomes harder to suppress sexuality. There have been gay people, during different cultures etc. and there can be no proof that gay parents would raise children in any major way differently than hetrosexual parents would.

Some say that gay parents would somehow raise their kids to be homosexual. If this was the case, homosexuality wouldn't exist. This is because surely hetrosexual parents wouldn't have homosexual children if the first condition was true.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#15)

by AngryVoter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:45:58 PM GMT

"Some say that gay parents would somehow raise their kids to be homosexual."

 
Some have said this and having several gay friends I disagree entirely. What would concern me is the less tolerant aspects of society that may pick on the child should they find out they have two dads etc. The child at home may not suffer psychologically, but at school things may be different. The "Standard" is still Mummy, Daddy and Child in literature etc. It's "The majority" or "The norm" as some would wrongly classify it.

The Child may then wonder what is wrong with his family should that "pressure" become apparent, this may even be reenforced by bullying etc. and therein lies my concern. It is still the concern of the mental health of the child from a society wherin Hetrosexuality is mainstream, rather than a tolerance and acceptance for Homosexuality.

There's a worrying black hole of study that should really be carried out before we make any rash decisions, regardless of policy or idealogical leanings.

 

Another problem may be the Gay Rights Cause which has been rapidly accelerated during the last decade and a lot of society needs to catch up, people are tolerant in this country, so long as it's indoors and out of the way. Both myself and my gay friends do tire of having every program stuffed to the gills with gay people though. Even as recently as last weeks Doctor Who episode.

Largely because they always discuss it, rather than about their careers or what they acheive. [Cases in point: John Barrowman, Graham Norton, Scissor Sister's lead singer Jake Shears who also says he's sick of it in TV interviews etc.]

"There are in fact, just as many, if not more, cases of homosexuality in countries where it is banned, as it becomes harder to suppress sexuality."

Again, I agree with you, one of the most stupid comments of last year was President Ahmedinajad of Iran on "60 Minutes" saying that Homosexuality was specifically a "Western Phenomenon, and there are no homosexuals in Iran." 

Mind, when I sit and think about it, the higher cases may be attributed to some people rebelling against a repressive society in any form as a result of the claustraphobia. "It's so wrong and illegal but feels so right." you know? Similar in the way in which we have a lot of under 16's having sex simply because that's the legal age and doing it before then you're "beating the system".


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#16)

by matt1986 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:20:07 PM GMT

We should definately look at the evidence before making decisions, but I think the onus is on opponents of equal rights for male homosexual couples to show that them bringing up children has such bad effects. So far, they havn't done that, and there don't appear to be any.

Contrary to what AngryVoter says - "there's just been no research into the matter as to wether it could damage the child in some kind of psycological way, or even if the child would then be more open to bullying as a result of having two dads or two mums" - there's been some research considering these possibilities. There's a good article that summarises various studies' findings, at http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;109/2/341.pdf, which seems to echo everything else I can find on the net. It says:

"Stereotypes and laws that maintain discriminatory

practices are based on the assumption that lesbian

mothers and gay fathers are different from heterosexual

parents in ways that are important to their

children’s well-being. Empirical evidence reveals in
contrast that gay fathers have substantial evidence of

nurturance and investment in their paternal role and

no differences from heterosexual fathers in providing

appropriate recreation, encouraging autonomy, or dealing with general problems of parenting."


It then considers potential bullying:

"Prevalent heterosexism and stigmatization might

lead to teasing and embarrassment for children

about their parent’s sexual orientation or their family
constellation and restrict their ability to form and

maintain friendships...Nevertheless, children
seem to cope rather well with the challenge of

understanding and describing their families to peers

and teachers."


Kids get teased about everything and anything, and it hardly ever goes on to affect them later in life. And if we want to change what 'the norm' is, we've got to start from somewhere. Kids potentially getting teased just isn't a good enough reason to hold out giving equal rights to homosexual couples. And like I said before, even if in an ideal world children would have a male and female parent, there are many children out there waiting to be adopted and I think, if we're trying to improve children's lives in the here and now, it can be in their interests to let a loving homosexual couple care for them.

Incidentally, there should be no exceptions on religious grounds. If it brings up the debate about the separation of church and state, let's have it, and then let's begin the separation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#17)

by matt1986 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:22:32 PM GMT

Shit. I'm sorry about the way that message came out. I just pasted it straight on.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#18)

by AngryVoter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:34:14 PM GMT

Well, I stand partially corrected then. I do remember there being quite a few raised eyebrows and snipes from parents and kids about a homosexual couple at my comprehensive though. So, who knows?

 

I'd still say I was correct about society catching up though, regardless of the study into the overal child's well being. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#19)

by matt1986 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:49:37 PM GMT

Yes, I think you're right. Sometimes there's nothing you can do about wider attitudes in society and just have to wait for them to change.

I suppose it's a chicken-and-egg-type question: do you wait for society to change first before you attempt to legislate for equality, or change the law to ensure equality first before waiting for society to catch up? I think we probably agree about what the end result should be but just disagree about how to get there, and I personally just favour the second option - pushing forward what may be unpopular legislation and then waiting for attitudes to change, even if there may be some slight problems in the short run.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#20)

by AngryVoter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:56:37 PM GMT

Well, this is why personally Conservatism appeals to me. It's slow and steady changes allowing society to take a breath and work towards that end goal, rather than "ohwe'redoingthisrightnow". Which, I'll be honest, has alarmed me at times over the years, but then society adapts itself into the new mould and eventually shrugs and moves on.

I beleive the term is "Culture Shock". 

 

Hey! How about that, a Labour and a Tory had a conversation and debate on here without resorting to sniping tactics, who'd have thought? 


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#21)

by matt1986 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:11:49 PM GMT

Yes, I suppose it's just a question of whether you think attitudes might take too long to change, if they change at all that is, if government just sits back. And then, even if you end up with progress in the long run, whether it's worth the wait and whether or not we can try and make a difference to people's lives today.

We've gone a bit off topic here (suppose it doesn't matter anyway). 

And yes, it's always good to end on some kind of compromise or something, and to try and get there without being rude.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#25)

by jkitleft on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:59:18 PM GMT

The only problem is, sometimes you need to have radical change, to help change attitudes. 20 years ago, the Sun, and other right-wing papers ranted about homosexuals during the debate on Section 28 (which Boris still didn't know what it was until recently). People were concerned about socialising with gays, because of AIDS. Only 4 years ago, the Daily Star was ranting about 'peverted filth' in soap operas (gay kisses, which is ironic considering the Daily Star publishes far more inapporopriate material, targeted for hetrosexual audiences). Labour has introduced civil partnerships, allowed gays in the military, gay adoption, and abolished Section 28. Now, the Tories wouldn't dare proposing reversing these rights.

In Northern Ireland, radical change is needed to help fight sectarianism. The young, are perhaps the most sectarian in Northern Ireland, perhaps as they cannot remember the horrors of thousands dead in the British Isles because of the Troubles. But there is still segregation. The only way we can tackle sectarianism is through forced integration of schools.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#29)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:06:45 PM GMT

Exactly. We shouldn't move at a snail's pace if we know something is right.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#30)

by matt1986 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:30:31 PM GMT

I agree entirely.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#22)

by jljb2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:27:07 AM GMT

Interesting - I hope more evidence for gays is forthcoming soon. It's interesting though that in this paper's research findings, all the findings on emotional and social development in fact relate to lesbians, yet the authors generalise in their conclusions to both lesbians and gays - though they do concede that the samples are small and unrepresentative, with young children. Interesting nonetheless - I know there are studies ongoing at the minute, so the sooner we know more the better; the problem is of course that we want some strong longitudinal evidence from children raised exclusively by gays - whilst this is a growing group, it's still very small.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#23)

by Al on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:11:22 PM GMT

Kids will always get picked on and while you wouldn't want to under emphasise the effect this could have on a kid, I don't think it would be productive to legislate on the basis that a kid could be bullied by it at school. Kids will be bullied about anything which makes them different, from disabilities, the wrong clothes or gay parents.

As for studies, I suppose I'd lean towards the argument where until studies show gay men can't raise kids, I'd say they can raise kids.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#24)

by jljb2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:31:58 PM GMT

Yes, on reflection I think that may be true. However, on a general level, knee-jerk ideological responses should never be maintained in the face of contrary empirical evidence - so if further studies show lesbian parenting to damage kids, we must act on that. I think it unlikely, personally, that any profound ill-effects will be found - but perhaps it is better to be safe than sorry...I'm not sure...


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#26)

by AngryVoter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:24:48 PM GMT

Well, we're then into the territory of the rights of the child versus rights of the parents.

Personally, and I think most here would agree with me, I'd come down on the rights and well being of the child well ahead of the rights and well being of the parents.

Should evidence be found that definitively states one way or another that it's either "normal" or detrimental to the child's well being then so be it. That should become the general trend and law.


[ Parent ]

Re: Just one of the differences... (#27)

by treborc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:30:14 AM GMT

It's ok for Lesbians but not gays, hows that for being two faced.


[ Parent ]

Just one of the differences having a Tory government would make | 30 comments (30 topical)