Originally Posted by Smidgey:
I should hope that there is a free vote on every issue. Who is to decide what is an issue of conscience?

I would think raising taxes is an issue of conscience too.

Other than this, I agree with everything you write Rjt.

Well we have a party system and people whilst elected as individuals mainly stand on a party ticket so I would say there has to be some form of party organsiation otherwise no government would ver get its beusiness through.

However there has always been matters that have been above party politics. For example when Shadow Health Minister Ann Widecombe made claer to Mr Hague that her religous beleifs meant that she could never if secretary of state for health sanction sign orders which would open abortion clinics, Hague responed quite wisely and said of course she should not have to and that such a responsbility could be given to a junior minister.

This is in contrast to labour attitude to Civil Partnerships and gay adoption which was forced through on the payroll vote.

What you are advocating however ruins the risk of anarchy.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by tito:
I don't think there should be a vote at all. The scientist must be free from petty and false ethics, the artist must be free from the censor and the strong must not be held back by the weak; regardless of how luddites vote.

We are talking about experimentation on the non-living. Irrational beings which cannot hold an opinion, and which cannot respect the rights of the living. If something is incapable of mutual respect for rights, then it is unable to possess rights of its own.

We are talking about inhuman parasites like this
Image

We can sacrifice infinite amounts, providing we have the consent of their owners, to cure one living man and it would be far more moral than the repulsive priests who denounce it.

Would you extend this to people with severe learning disablities, I spent 4 years caring for 5 men with severe mental handicaps, there behaviour was irrational, they had no regards or understanding for what there rights were and had no mutual respect for each others rights. Would you experiment on them.
[Rep]

Anybody else seen Alien Resurrection? :-)

So "the company" really was the labour government....
[Rep]

Originally Posted by tito:
I don't think there should be a vote at all. The scientist must be free from petty and false ethics, the artist must be free from the censor and the strong must not be held back by the weak; regardless of how luddites vote.

We are talking about experimentation on the non-living. Irrational beings which cannot hold an opinion, and which cannot respect the rights of the living. If something is incapable of mutual respect for rights, then it is unable to possess rights of its own.

We are talking about inhuman parasites like this
Image.

You were an 'inhuman parasite' once. Good job they didn't experiment on you really isn't it.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by rjt:
Well we have a party system and people whilst elected as individuals mainly stand on a party ticket so I would say there has to be some form of party organsiation otherwise no government would ver get its beusiness through.

However there has always been matters that have been above party politics. For example when Shadow Health Minister Ann Widecombe made claer to Mr Hague that her religous beleifs meant that she could never if secretary of state for health sanction sign orders which would open abortion clinics, Hague responed quite wisely and said of course she should not have to and that such a responsbility could be given to a junior minister.

This is in contrast to labour attitude to Civil Partnerships and gay adoption which was forced through on the payroll vote.

What you are advocating however ruins the risk of anarchy.

Why is it alright for religious people to have exemptions, yet it is not alright for people who think it is morally wrong to steal to also have exemptions? I am seeing a lot of bias in your above post Rjt.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
You were an 'inhuman parasite' once. Good job they didn't experiment on you really isn't it.

I know I was, and it is by the benevolence of another that I was allowed to become human. Though if I wasn't, it wouldn't make any difference, because I would never have any mental capacity.

Originally Posted by :
Would you extend this to people with severe learning disablities, I spent 4 years caring for 5 men with severe mental handicaps, there behaviour was irrational, they had no regards or understanding for what there rights were and had no mutual respect for each others rights. Would you experiment on them.

No, the mentally disabled are an exception. They are an exception because they have some human mental capacity (With your experience, I'm sure you are aware that there are many degrees of mental abnormality). They are living, but they are not man. Much like children.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
Why is it alright for religious people to have exemptions, yet it is not alright for people who think it is morally wrong to steal to also have exemptions? I am seeing a lot of bias in your above post Rjt.

Taxation is not stealing. I agree taxes and the welfare state need to be kept to a minumem but I think you will find there is widespread support in the country for properly funded public services.

It is the duty of any government to care for people.

What you are putting forward lacks any sense of reality.
[Rep]

BBC NEWS | Northern Ireland | Paisley presses Brown on embryos

Outgoing NI First Minister makes plain his view that this bill should not be used as a backdoor route to introduce the abomination of abortion into Northern Ireland.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by rjt:
Taxation is not stealing. I agree taxes and the welfare state need to be kept to a minumem but I think you will find there is widespread support in the country for properly funded public services.

Taking money from someone without their permission is theft, no amount of sophistry will change that.

Furthermore, you as a Christian should know that might does not make right.

However, this completely misses the point. I don't think that an embryo is a person, you don't think that taxation is stealing. However, you are happy to give those who have an opinion on the personhood of embryos a free vote, but not those who have an opinion on the morality of taxation.

Again - the bias is so obvious. Your Christian mindset has made you have such a strong political bias in favour of your personal religion, you have shown this here and you have shown it when you back the establishment of the church, especially when evidence from other states shows that a disestablished church is better at helping the needy.

Originally Posted by :
It is the duty of any government to care for people.

No it isn't. It is the duty of individuals to do so, since a government only exists because individuals do. How can a legal fiction possibly care for anyone? Furthermore, it should never be obligatory.

Originally Posted by :
What you are putting forward lacks any sense of reality.

This is your opinion of libertarianism, it is also my opinion of many of your beliefs. This adds nothing to the discussion.
[Rep]

No party who stated they wanted to end the welfare state would be electable in this country so in my view your views lack any sense of reality.

Taxation is not money stolen from you, it provides essentiall services such as health and education without which your quality of life would be severly affected, thousands of people simply cannot afford private health and education ,how would you make such a thing affordable, a couple in there 80s I know through church have to pay a massive ammount in for private health care each month but the man of 84 could not have an operation recently because of the cost, the NHS provided it and he has a new lease of life. Would you have denyed that man the chance to have this?

What about those who cannot care for themselves, the disabled, the impoverished, the elderly?

Your suggestions would turn this country into a new Zimbabwe.
[Rep]