@averagejoe1 said
It is also based with the underlying adage ....Some People Work Harder Than Others. So, as capitalism does great things, it is drug down by those who feed off of its system, making it difficult for them to do their work.

Soup kitchens and psychopaths.

@vivify said
Poland and Hungry tightened abortion restrictions. Is that right-wing act because of immigration? Orban has made Christianity part of his politics; is that also due to immigration? What about Italy, where two-thirds of doctors refuse to perform abortions?

https://news.trust.org/item/20220927150419-1cyl9

Far-right doctrine and policies were on the rise in Europe with or without immigration concerns.

Poland and Hungry tightened abortion restrictions. Is that right-wing act because of immigration?

After nearly a decade of legal abortion, Communist Romania made it illegal again (with only a few exceptions) in 1966. They did it in order to boost the birth rate (with dramatic success; the fertility rate doubled in a year). Since this was the policy of a far-left government, it's not apparent that restrictions on abortion are necessarily right-wing. Modern Poland and Hungary are facing the same problem as 1960s Romania did (low birth rate; prospect or reality of population decline) and restrictions on abortion are intended to achieve the same goal: boost the birth rate and arrest the population decline.

Orban has made Christianity part of his politics; is that also due to immigration?

It's more complicated than that, but in a sense yes - it is about immigration. It's about immigration to Western Europe. Orban, having observed that social development, has decided that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits, and doesn't want Hungary to follow Germany, Holland, France etc in becoming a multicultural environment. However, Hungary has a very low fertility rate (below replacement since the late 1970s), and considerable emigration; its total population has been in decline since the 1980s. So if it's going to remain viable without immigration, it will need to boost its birth rate, and one way of doing that is to encourage belief in a pro-natalist religion like Christianity.

What about Italy, where two-thirds of doctors refuse to perform abortions?

Do you think they should be forced to perform abortions against their conscience? In any case, Italian law has given doctors the right to "conscientious objection" ever since abortion was legalised in 1978; this opt-out probably necessary in order for legalisation to happen at all in a country which was then still fairly devoutly Catholic.

Incidentally, Christianity was a normal part of the politics of most mainstream right-of-centre parties in Western Europe in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Italian and German Christian Democrats; the Austrian People's Party). In historically Christian countries where some people still believe and practise, I'm not sure why Christianity shouldn't inform at least some of the political options on offer!

@teinosuke said
Poland and Hungry tightened abortion restrictions. Is that right-wing act because of immigration?

After nearly a decade of legal abortion, Communist Romania made it illegal again (with only a few exceptions) in 1966. They did it in order to boost the birth rate (with dramatic success; the fertility rate doubled in a year). Since this was the policy of a far-left ...[text shortened]... ise, I'm not sure why Christianity shouldn't inform at least some of the political options on offer!

Wow, I guess it must be the evil spirit of right-wingism just taking over.

🙄

@shavixmir said
You seem rather hung up on the whole border control thing.

Sure I’m hung up on it, it triggers the rise of extreme right-wing activists.

@teinosuke said
Communist Romania made it illegal again (with only a few exceptions) in 1966. They did it in order to boost the birth rate (with dramatic success; the fertility rate doubled in a year). Since this was the policy of a far-left government, it's not apparent that restrictions on abortion are necessarily right-wing.

With any policy such as border control, intent is paramount. For example, there's a difference between building a wall on the border to stem the flow of illegal immigration and bolster security, vs. building a wall because you claim Mexicans are drug-peddling rapists. Merely building a wall doesn't make it right-wing, the intent does.

Likewise with abortion: is the motivation declining birth rates or is it religious doctrine? The answer doesn't make restricting abortion any better but it does affect whether doing so is left or right wing.

Do you think they should be forced to perform abortions against their conscience?

Of course. Abortions are a medical procedure and it is a doctor's job to provide one. Furthermore not granting one can be a detrimental health risk to the mother. Women in Italy have died because doctors refused to perform abortions:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/22/italy-death-miscarriage-abortion-doctors-refuse-procedure

Police launch inquiry into death of woman ‘refused’ an abortion by Sicilian doctors

I'm not sure why Christianity shouldn't inform at least some of the political options on offer!

For the same reason Islam or Scientology shouldn't inform political opinions.

@vivify said
With any policy such as border control, intent is paramount. For example, there's a difference between building a wall on the border to stem the flow of illegal immigration and bolster security, vs. building a wall because you claim Mexicans are drug-peddling rapists. Merely building a wall doesn't make it right-wing, the intent does.

Likewise with abortion: is the motiva ...[text shortened]... tions on offer![/b]

For the same reason Islam or Scientology shouldn't inform political opinions.

Great post!

So not Christianity, not abortions and border control with common sense and a dash of morality.

Good call.

@vivify said

Is the motivation declining birth rates or is it religious doctrine? The answer doesn't make restricting abortion any better but it does affect whether doing so is left or right wing.

You see, the trouble with this (and the other example you proffer) is that it shifts the definition of what is "left-wing" and "right-wing" from matters of actual policy (which are concrete and definable) to matters of motivation (which are shady and elusive - politicians lie about their motivation all the time). If "left" and "right", as labels, mean anything, then they ought to entail specific and distinct policy choices.

Moreover, you assume that Orban and those like him are motivated by religion, and adopt conservative attitudes to abortion as a consequence. It's at least possible that the reverse is the case. Many conservatives are in favour of religion not because they believe its dogma is true, but because they think promoting religious belief will achieve desirable social goals. Orban thinks the low birth rate is a problem and therefore wants a) to limit abortion and b) to encourage Christian belief and practice.

For the same reason Islam or Scientology shouldn't inform political opinions.

The implication of this is that religion should be kept out of politics because it's either false or unprovable. The answer of a religious conservative politician might be that (regardless of its truth claims) religion is an important means of generating social capital and a useful means of social control.

As an example, British crime rates through the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries have virtually no correlation with poverty, inequality or the various other material determinants. They do, however, track Sunday School attendance with eerie accuracy. I don't really see why it's illegitimate for a political party to campaign for a more devout society on the basis that it would probably be safer, more orderly, and more law-abiding.

Abortions are a medical procedure and it is a doctor's job to provide one. Furthermore not granting one can be a detrimental health risk to the mother.

It's not actually a doctor's job to provide any medical procedure demanded by a patient. And by the way, it's not just Italy: virtually every country in the developed world allows a physician to refuse to perform an abortion for reasons of conscience. In Europe, there are only five countries that don't permit such an exception (an odd group, actually - progressive Sweden, Finland and Iceland alongside conservative Bulgaria and Turkey).

The case in Sicily that you mention is tragic, but it seems that the doctors acted outside the law: in Italy, "conscientious objection may not be invoked by health professionals if the personal intervention is essential in order to save the life of a woman in imminent danger."

@teinosuke said
Is the motivation declining birth rates or is it religious doctrine? The answer doesn't make restricting abortion any better but it does affect whether doing so is left or right wing.

You see, the trouble with this (and the other example you proffer) is that it shifts the definition of what is "left-wing" and "right-wing" from matters of actual policy (which are ...[text shortened]... if the personal intervention is essential in order to save the life of a woman in imminent danger."

Loosely:

Left Wing: liberal on personal issues, drugs, the homo thing, 5 minute before birth abortions. But when it comes to the economy, look out, iron fist stuff, minimum wage, price controls (ahh but I repeat myself) state ownership of everything including the media. Not shy when it comes to censorship.


Right Wing: Basically the opposite, clamp down on personal issues but tend to be more free market economically.

@teinosuke said
You see, the trouble with this (and the other example you proffer) is that it shifts the definition of what is "left-wing" and "right-wing" from matters of actual policy (which are concrete and definable) to matters of motivation (which are shady and elusive - politicians lie about their motivation all the time).

The nature of political discourse relies on such nuance; that is nothing new. For example: in the U.S., literacy tests were deemed unconstitutional because the Supreme Court found that the intent was to prevent blacks from voting, who received received inferior education due to factors like segregation. It would've been a grave mistake to only judge the outward action of literacy tests, which only appeared reasonable on the surface; yet blacks would have been deliberately prevented from voting.

The examples are countless: gerrymandering is another. Would you argue that the intent behind where the lines between voting districts are drawn should not be examined? Intent behind a policy is indeed important.

As an example, British crime rates through the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries have virtually no correlation with poverty, inequality or the various other material determinants. They do, however, track Sunday School attendance with eerie accuracy.

What you say is not supported by data. Poverty is arguably the single most important factor world-wide for crime rates. This is not debatable. Religion is a non-factor as evidenced by the fact many of the poorest nations, like Muslim countries, are religious. The Ku Klux Klan and many other violently racist factions are Christian.

It's not actually a doctor's job to provide any medical procedure demanded by a patient.

We're not discussing Brazilian butt-lifts. Abortion can mean the difference between life and death for women. If a patient meets the medical guidelines required for a procedure there is no reason to deny women a procedure that could negatively impact the rest of their lives if they don't get it.

@vivify said
The nature of political discourse relies on such nuance; that is nothing new. For example: in the U.S., literacy tests were deemed unconstitutional because the Supreme Court found that the intent was to prevented blacks, who received received inferior education due to factors like segregation, from voting. It would've been a grave mistake to only judge the outward act ...[text shortened]... to deny women a procedure that could negatively impact the rest of their lives if they don't get it.

Doctors are humans, they have rights the same as other humans they should not be forced to perform any medical procedure anywhere, anytime for any reason. It's their choice, end of a story.


'Awwww, wadda about the widdle baby having trouble breathing" Is the usual response here, the appeal to emotion. If I found a a baby that could be saved by vivify selling her house and donating the money, should she be forced to sell her house? Her actions could save a life same as the doctors actions could save a life. Now watch vivfy scurry.

Control freaks, very keen to sacrifice others to their dream feelings.

@vivify said
Fine: *most* of Europe is moving far right.

Better?

Sounds good to me.
I wish it was all.

@vivify said

Intent behind a policy is indeed important.

I never said it wasn't important. I said that it shouldn't be the determinant of whether we consider something "left-wing" or "right-wing".

But I'd also argue that, in the cases you describe, the Supreme Court should have focused on effect rather than intent. Literacy tests were rightly judged unconstitutional, but the reasoning was faulty; the Supreme Court should have argued that they wrong because their effect, regardless of intent, was to prevent blacks from voting. According to the reasoning they applied, literacy tests would have been constitutional even if they prevented blacks from voting, provided that that effect could be shown to be unintentional. Would you think that was OK?

Similarly, gerrymandering is bad, but outcomes just as prejudicial to fair elections could happen accidentally. For instance, in Britain, the electoral map happens to favour the Conservatives: at the last election, Labour needed over 50,000 votes to elect each MP, while the Conservatives needed only 38,000. This was an unintentional result of the fact that the Conservatives tend to represent rural seats with smaller electorates. It was unintentional, but still unfair.

Poverty is arguably the single most important factor world-wide for crime rates. This is not debatable. Religion is a non-factor as evidenced by the fact many of the poorest nations, like Muslim countries, are religious.

The fact that many of the poorest nations are religious is irrelevant. The issue is whether crime rates would be lower or higher if they were less religious. In fact, Muslim countries bear this out - they have very low crime rates on average, despite many of them being relatively poor. Excepting those countries that have tragically fallen into a state of civil war, crime rates are far lower in the still fairly religious Muslim Middle East that in once Christian, but now secularised Latin America. Devout Cairo is a far safer city than more secular Rio.

To elaborate on the British example, eighteenth-century England was a society in a state of near-moral collapse. Crime rates were so high that the death penalty was no deterrent; transportation was invented as a solution. Of course the society was poor and unequal - but so too was it during the Victorian era; yet crime rates had fallen dramatically by the late nineteenth century. The main factor was a dramatic increase in public piety.

Christian belief remained widespread in English society through to the end of the Second World War, and crime rates remained remarkably low, despite the fact that poverty and inequality were still widespread, and that unemployment was high in the interwar period. After 1945, the Labour government launched a programme of social reform, and postwar Britain grew steadily more prosperous and steadily more equal. Unemployment was minimal in the three decades after the war. Yet, starting in the 1950s, crime began to tick upwards, before accelerating dramatically in the 1960s. This rise in crime doesn't correlate with rising poverty or inequality. It does correlate, however, with secularisation.

The Ku Klux Klan and many other violently racist factions are Christian.

Sure. But many of the most racist groups in the world are basically Nietszchean; and after all, Galatians 3:28 makes it pretty clear that there are no racial distinctions in Christ.

Abortion can mean the difference between life and death for women. If a patient meets the medical guidelines required for a procedure there is no reason to deny women a procedure that could negatively impact the rest of their lives if they don't get it.

But many countries that allow a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion for reasons of conscience specifically except circumstances where the life or health of a woman would be at stake. This is the case in Italy, and accordingly, the Sicilian woman's urgent medical need should, according to Italian law, have overridden the doctor's moral objection.

Abortion can mean the difference between life and death for the woman; however, it certainly means death for the unborn child; this being the case, it doesn't surprise me that opinions about its permissibility and morality will continue to be sharply polarised. Laws providing for conscientious objection on the part of a medical practitioner merely recognise this controversy, and the fact that agreement is unlikely ever to be reached.

@vivify said
Poverty is arguably the single most important factor world-wide for crime rates. This is not debatable. Religion is a non-factor as evidenced by the fact many of the poorest nations, like Muslim countries, are religious.

My hypothesis: On average, all other things being equal, there will be less crime in a devout poor country than in a secular poor country. On average, there will be less crime in a devout rich country than in a secular rich country.

@teinosuke said
Abortion can mean the difference between life and death for the woman; however, it certainly means death for the unborn child; this being the case, it doesn't surprise me that opinions about its permissibility and morality will continue to be sharply polarised. Laws providing for conscientious objection on the part of a medical practitioner merely recognise this controversy, and the fact that agreement is unlikely ever to be reached.

Do you support doctors refusing to vaccinate people based on "moral" beliefs not backed by science? Should Catholic doctors be allowed to deny people birth control because of their faith?

This is the foolish rabbit hole of allowing unscientific beliefs like faith dictate medical treatment or politics. It's also one of the many consequences of Europe becoming increasingly right-wing.