Why I want Obama to win

Who would you rather won the US Presidential elections?  As a Conservative, I naturally felt I ought to want McCain to win.  And yet, I can't really find much reason why.

Conservatives like me who favour small government, the free market and decentralised power have often found ourselves willing on the likes of a Bush snr or a John Major.  We do so hoping that they'll be radical and break with the Big Government-knows-best consensus of the political establishment.  In the end, they only seem to gain office by accomodating themselves to the same old State centralism.

No. Until the US Republicans re-discover States Rights, the spirit of 1776 and much else besides, this UK Conservative is going to be cheering on Obama.

Does Obama believe in small government?  As with McCain, I really don't know.  But I do know that last week he became the first Presidential candidate since Nixon to refuse public money to fund his campaign.   

Instead of relying on State handouts, Obama's campaign will be funded by millions of people each giving small on-line donations.  In the primaries alone, the $133 million spent came via 1.5 million web donors. That's less than $100 each. 

Sounds pretty Edmund Burke.com to me.   

But, perhaps you disagree?  Maybe its heresy to not support a Big Government, high tax and spend, Establishment Republican, just because he's... um... a Republican?

Comments

[IRJMilne]

The problem with Obama, so far as we are concerned, is his foreign policy.

[Cal Hope]

Also, John McCain has urged the Tories to remain in the EPP grouping in the EU toy parliament, so it's Obama by default anyway! (Douglas - great speech at the Foreign Press Association last month.)

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

That is impressive Douglas Carswell. That because McCain is not sufficiently far-right, you decide to chose sides with the political re-incarnation of Walter Monale.
Mr Obama is actually to the left of Ted Kennedy, according to National Journal. And yet you support him.

[Duncan]

Douglas- how do your libertarian instincts chime with Obama's firm commitment to pursue protectionist anti-free trade economic policies?

In truth neither candidate fits entirely with the British Conservative model. Some of Senator McCain's hawkish comments on foreigh policy would make all but the most ardent neo-conservative recoil in horror whereas Senator Obama has the most left-wing voting record of anyone in the Senate.

A better bet for US President would be if an independent non-party figure like Mayor Bloomberg were to stand.

[comstock]

I wish Obama was left wing, Bucks Tory. But I don't think he will be, anymore than Bill Clinton was left wing.

Nonetheless, a black president less than half a century after 'I have a dream' is one heck of an achievement, and should be welcolmed.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

The re-incarnation of Jimmah Carter would not be good for the US. I can't believe I am reading Tory politicians falling for Obamaitis. The man is a neo-marxist, inexperienced and pretty much a dolt on foreign policy.

Who cares what colour the man is? He is a rubbish candidate that will do as much harm to the US as Carter did the in 70s. Just because looks to be heading for 70s style stagflation, strikes and malaise doesn't mean the US has to as well.

Yes, the whole public funding thing is disgraceful but the current situation is making it look daft. I think that Obama's money might be coming under more scrutiny soon. I think the whole "little guy" funding thing is being over-played a bit.

Et tu Douglas? I expected better...

[John Reeks]

Obama is no neo-Marxist. If you actually look at his policies, posted on his website, most British conservatives will find that they instinctively support most of them - possibly with the only exception being on Iraq. He is by far the most impressive of the two candidates.

[Anonymous Eurocrat]

Douglas, I would recommend that you look at McCain's record on earmarks and other pork-barrelling money before you judge him as a big government conservative. He is one of the very few in Congress who neither sponsors nor co-sponsors earmarks. He inherited Barry Goldwater's seat in the Senate, and while that does not make him an automatic successor to his philosophy, there are many similarities between the two.

One word about McCain and the EPP. I am not a fan of the EPP, and I would urge David Cameron to leave it immediately. But McCain's support of it is perhaps a generational thing, deriving from the Cold War thinking when he was a Navy liaison officer in Congress and when Christian Democrats in Europe were regarded (rightly or wrongly) as key allies. I don't think his support for the EPP is anything more than skin deep, and I think he is flexible enough to be reasoned with. It is not a good reason for opposing him in a race in which he is by far and away the best candidate.

[Anonymous Eurocrat]

Oh, I almost forgot. Obama's declining of federal funds is nothing to do with his opposition to them. It's because it would restrict the amount of money he can spend.

[BobBarr2008.com]

Libertarian Conservatives like Douglas Carswell should be backing Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's candidate for President. Bob Barr is a former Republican Congressman who has been appalled by Bush's assault on civil liberties and abandonment of fiscal conservatism.

[Alex Swanson]

Maybe its heresy to not support a Big Government, high tax and spend, Establishment Republican, just because he's .. um ... a Republican?

And the Conservative Party under current leadership, you think, isn't Big Government, high tax and spend, Establishment ?

[Douglas Carswell MP]

Thanks for that, Alex. No, I do not think that the Conservative party today is "Big Government, high tax and spend, Establishment". In fact, it's refreshingly localist.

Many of the ideas that first appeared here www.Direct-democracy.co.uk now appear here, www.Conservatives.com

[Allan McKinley]

Since none of the commentators on here (as far as I know) vote in the US elections, is this really important. I think the major thing is that whoever wins the United Kingdom has nothing to lose; more parochially, neither leader is inimical to sensible right-wing government in an allied country. Obama's free trade credentials are a questionmark, but he is hardly a raving socialist (my guess is to the right of Gordon Brown if we want to use the 'on the other hand' model of politics).

Perhaps more revealing is the tribalism of some commentators here, who seem to equate republican with right wing, regardless of the fact that the right/left thing never worked well on American politics. If you want to be associated with the 'conservatives' in America (gun ownership, abortion control, influence of religion on legislation - great ideas) fine, but for me this seems reactionary and dangerous - and the 'liberals' seem more attractive.

[Tim Montgomerie]

I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier when another Conservative endorsed Barack Obama.

In terms of being big government, McCain is certainly more of a small govt conservative than David Cameron - supporting retention of George W Bush's tax cuts and a new stimulus package for current circumstances. McCain has also been a consistent critic of pork-barreled politics, opposing the notorious congressional earmarks for example.

[Alex Swanson]

No, I do not think that the Conservative party today is "Big Government, high tax and spend, Establishment"

Big Government: talking about localism is fine, but in practice, running his own party, Cameron has moved towards de-localising candidate selection . . . if he doesn't trust the judgement of his own activists, who is he likely to trust?

Tax and spend: Is George Osborne really envisaging spending less %GDP than a McCain presidency would?

Establishment: Cameron talks big about a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty, but in power would not revoke it even if the British people wanted him to. And don't even get me started on the right to bear arms, where McCain is sounder than almost any UK politician.

I can see you and I are going to have to agree to differ.

[Alex Swanson]

If you want to be associated with the 'conservatives' in America (gun ownership, abortion control, influence of religion on legislation - great ideas) fine, but for me this seems reactionary and dangerous

* All the evidence shows that civilian gun ownership is not dangerous, and may even reduce crime.

* How is it "dangerous" to be against killing unborn children?

* I am not a Christian, and certainly do not agree with the American Christian Right, but on the other hand, at least they're honest; many politicians here claim their views are based on reason and evidence when the reality is that they're based on blind ideology.

[Allan McKinley]

Alex,
As I said to me this seems reactionary and dangerous:

How is gun ownership safer, since if no-one has guns, no-one gets killed by them? Statistics say different things, but no-one can die from a non-existant weapon.

It is dangerous to be against killing 'unborn children' because it assumes we can tell the parent what to do with their body and life. And if a child is unborn, it is no child - it is a foetus.

Religion is blind ideology, it is just less flexible and easier to force people to adhere. I am an ideologue, but any part of my views can be changed (contrary to my normal tone of posting...) by a good argument. Can the same be said of say Pat Robertson?

This is a long way from the theme of the original post though...

[Tim Montgomerie]

Even the BBC's Justin Webb recently defended America's gun culture:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7359513.stm

[Alexander King]

Bang on the money, Douglas. Great to see a Conservative MP speaking his mind!

Those who tar Obama as some sort of Communist (there is one poster on here who persists with this tiresome nonsense) should take note that he is a devotee of the Friedmanite Chicago School. Obama and his advisors have great faith in the power of the market. Naomi Klein has recently been slating Obama for this.

Also, head over to the Atlantic for an interesting video debate involving Andrew Sullivan about whether McCain takes too much of a simplistic, binary world view a la George W. Bush.

I think Obama will make a tremendous President.

[Richard Calhoun]

Obama believes in protectionism in trade, how can any right thinking Tory support such a candidate?

He has no policy in Iraq or Afghanistan and quite frankly it may be popular to criticise Bush but I believe it will be seen in the fullness of time to have taken the right decisions

[Alexander King]

Richard, the protectionism malarkey was just pandering to the base. Obama's team told the Canadians not to worry about it.

[Richard Calhoun]

Obama and his advisors have great faith in the power of the market.
Posted by: Alexander King | June 23, 2008 at 13:49

Why is he and they advocating protectionist policies then?

[Richard Calhoun]

Oh yeah!

Don't worry Canadians you are part of our North American empire!

What about the rest of the World, there are only 20M canadians

[Allan McKinley]

To be fair it does not speak highly of a potential leader if he panders to the base on one hand and says something different to the Canadians on the other. Someone has been misled, and I am not sure I'd be happy to support someone who sets out to do this...

[Alex Swanson]

How is gun ownership safer, since if no-one has guns, no-one gets killed by them? Statistics say different things, but no-one can die from a non-existant weapon.

Statistics say that restricting civilian ownership of firearms does not improve public safety. No statistics exist to show otherwise. Really true.
Jon Murphy, Deputy Chief constable, ACPO Serious ands Organised Crime Coordinator:
"My professional judgement . . . is that the handgun ban was a well intentioned piece of legislation that probably had an effect in the short term but society has moved on." IE It didn't work.

Firearms technology is decades old, and it is now possible to manufacture even automatic weapons in a home workshop. All experience shows that removing weapons from the law-abiding just doesn't affect criminals.

It is dangerous to be against killing 'unborn children' because it assumes we can tell the parent what to do with their body and life. And if a child is unborn, it is no child - it is a foetus.

People like you remind me of 19th century apologists for slavery, who said that blacks didn't deserve human rights because they weren't really human.

We define human life as based on heartbeats and brain activity; even if someone is in a coma and requires 100% hospital care, if the brain works we recognise them as alive and having all the rights that go with that, including the right not to be killed.

If you have sex, then you are taking the chance that you will thereby create a life for which you will be responsible. To do that, and then trun round months later and say "Well, I didn't want that responsibility after all" is not on, any more than it would be acceptable to kill the child once born (as the Romans often did, on exactly the "it's not human" argument).

[Alexander King]

Richard and Allan, don't be so utterly naive. What do you think John McCain has been doing for the past three months if not pandering to the base?!

Supporting tax cuts he originally opposed? Backpedalling on immigration? Backpedalling on oil drilling?

The guy has been host to more flip flops than Newquay beach.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

Andrew Ian Dodge said, "The man is....pretty much a dolt on foreign policy."

Andrew, are you sure you're not referring to the current President?

[Allan McKinley]

Alex,
Never been compared to an apologist for slavery before; it's a new experience for me. On the other hand, the apologists for slavery drew an artificial distinction on the grounds of colour - I don't. A baby may have a beating heart and brain activity, but until it is born it is parasitic (in a technical sense) on the mother and therefore not an independent being, regardless of statistical possibility of survival. And I object to the idea that responsibility for one's actions can only be taken before an action, which is your view with sex. Whilst that might be ideal, it is still ideal if someone who has unintended consequences from a choice has the option of deciding not to suffer from them.

As to guns - if they are so easy to make and obtain, why are our streets not flooded with them? More to the point, what is the point of a handgun except to kill or otherwise damage another human (the dangerous wild animals of Britain, such as the stoat and bluetit are not really that much of a threat...)? You would allow everyone to carry around a device (or perhaps to keep at home a portable device) designed for the purpose of killing? You leave the choice of whether to kill or not in the hands of individuals - and not all of them adults, as children will find the guns. What moral right do we have to state that it is for us the allow our fellow subjects (I would not wish to have a gun in my house) to kill others, perhaps on a deranged whim. Statistics be damned (and could I point out America has a much higher rate of gun murders than Britain, and also a much higher rate of gun suicides and accidents - there are arguments both ways); this is an issue of whether we can allow people easy access to the means to kill others easily and at a distance.

[Allan McKinley]

Alexander,
I apply my earlier comments to McCain also then. Both are displaying exactly the sort of behaviour that makes me worry about most lizards, sorry, I mean politicians. If they must change their spots, they should at least explain why they have done so. Have either of them?

[American Republican]

I am seriously appalled by the number of Conservative Party members of Parliaments, party leaders and even the new mayor of London who have come out and publicly supported Barack Obama's candidacy.

For starters, this is interference by foreign politicians into US affairs. I don't mind cheerleading, but I do mind the couple MPs who actually came over to help Obama and Hillary Clinton's campaign in the primary states when the Tory leadership is struggling to rebuild relationships with US Republicans and the White House.

But the worst thing? The argument by Mr Carsewell is absurd. Obama isn't taking state money for his campaign because he is greedy and already has a lot of money on his own. It's not because he thinks government should be small. The ignorance some of these MPs in supporting Obama and Clinton show is unbelievable.

[American Republican]

One more thing: McCain supports the EPP because he is chairman of the International Republican Institute, which depends on a lot of the continental parties for support in its efforts for training and democracy-building in eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and elsewhere.

[Alex Swanson]

A baby may have a beating heart and brain activity, but until it is born it is parasitic (in a technical sense) on the mother

It is also dependent on the mother after birth. Many adults are dependent on care, either temporarily or permanently. This fact doesn't ever remove their human rights.

it is still ideal if someone who has unintended consequences from a choice has the option of deciding not to suffer from them.

Not if it involves killing another human being.

I could go through your arguments about guns in detail, but the bottom line is this: you have no right to restrict someone else's lifestyle unless you can demonstrate a serious risk to society. Which you can't - your own statement "statistics be damned" is a admission of that. As for the idea that guns are designed to kill: so are javelins and fencing swords. No-one suggests banning them.

One point:
America has a much higher rate of gun murders which happen mostly in the states with tough gun laws - did you know that?

It is really ironic that you defend killing babies but you propose banning guns to stop innocent people being killed even though it wouldn't! But actually it's not contradictory: in both cases you are selfishly putting yourself and your own wants above others' rights.

[Alexander King]

Great post, Alex. I find it incomprehensible that some people in the 21st century are still incapable of realising that abortion equates to murder.

The people of the 22nd century will look back at these times and be aghast at our selfishness.

Allan McKinley strikes me as more of a Fabian than a conservative.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

Exactly why does anybody care about McCain's views on the EPP?

Even if McCains is elected American President, he does not get a say in what the British people or the Conservative party wants to do about the EPP.

[Allan McKinley]

Alex,
If it is selfish to stop people shooting one another then so be it. I personally tend to interpret as selfish reserving the right to use fatal violence to yourself. At least the death penalty (which presumably you will be unsurprised to know that I oppose) would require eleven other people to agree...

And ask yourself - why do the American states with the highest rates of gun crime have the toughest gun laws? Perhaps the legislators are aware of the dangers of guns - far more than fencing swords (these are blunt incidentally - fencers perfer not to kill each other). Javelins would be as leathal as guns, were they not impossible to conceal (unless you have very long trousers?) and one shot weapons - hardly ideal for the career criminal or the defender of a house. I suspect that walking the street with one might attract police attention in a way a handgun might not?

And as I keep stating, foetuses are not babies. A baby can survive with a surrogate mother without any medical help; a foetus cannot. We clearly draw different definitions here, but in my selfish way I shall offer you this deal - I won't interfere in your right to choose not to have an abortion and you don't interfere in my right to have one (I'm allowing for some very interesting advances in medical technology here obviously...). Selfish I know, but letting people make their own choices is just something I feel I have the right to do.

[Alexander King]

"A baby can survive with a surrogate mother without any medical help; a foetus cannot".

So presumably you think that anyone in a coma or on life support could be bumped off, no questions asked?

After all, they too would not survive without medical help.

[Sam Tarran]

It's great you have such concern for the people of the United States, Mr Carswell. It's rather endearing, actually.

The problem is that it doesn't really matter to us how small the US Government is. The only thing that should matter to us is how it acts in the world. We have no interest in the domestic policy of the USA, just its foreign policy. And at the moment, Obama, who has been a fervent opponent of the invasion of Iraq from the beginning and is still an ardent withdrawalist, holds views not concurrant with British foreign policy. His noises towards protectionism should also be worrying you, too. That' one less market for British farmers.

So please return to reality. As much as the Americans may love you for being so concerned about their taz dollars, you're a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and a member of Her Majesty's Official Opposition. Maybe it would do you some good to start concerning yourself more with the British national interest.

[Yet Another Anon]

But I do know that last week he became the first Presidential candidate since Nixon to refuse public money to fund his campaign.
He didn't do that out of any principle, rather that accepting public money for the campaign also means accepting limits on all donations and controls on how they can be spent, so in fact by rejecting public money he is getting more money than he would be doing otherwise and with less regulation.

[Yet Another Anon]

Barack Obama has a long wish list of expanding welfare and healthcare and all kinds of things, these things don't come cheap. John McCain on the other hand is committed to restraining spending.

[Sammy Finn]

All this talk of McCain's support for the EPP is so pathetic compared to Barack Obama's strong support for the EU/UN.

[Alexander King]

The beauty of an Obama presidency is that our so-called NATO allies would find it so much harder to refuse an Obama request for help in Afghanistan than they would a McCain request.

One Obama adviser is quoted in Newsweek this week as saying: "Europe will no longer be able to hide behind its dislike of George Bush".

It seems that Obama would be surprisingly robust in his dealings with the Europeans - surely we should all welcome that?

[Allan McKinley]

Alexander,
Perhaps the fact that they were born should hint to you that such people are not foetuses, but instead they are people. I support the right to die (it is not for me to tell another to live in pain), but it is not germane here.
The issue that pro-lifers (a silly label, as it makes me anti-life!) offer is artificial, claiming that signs of life = independent life. My argument is simple - it is a matter for the parent who is supporting the baby inside them as to whether they wish to. You can then make your case that it is wrong to terminate the pregnancy ('kill the baby') to the parents - but they should have the choice, not you.

[Alexander King]

Sorry, Allan, but I'm afraid the logical inconsistency of your argument is clear for all to see.

[Sue Doughty]

Obama is part British, that much is good. But I hear he votes like a leftie where he lives. But what is what they call leftie in relation to the centralising hyperpowered state we know as leftism here?
I am glad I don't have a vote for either of them - but I know America will not elect what they see as a black man any more than they might elect a woman to the White House.
Nice try. Lost cause

[Allan McKinley]

Alexander,
A cutting putdown, if you had shown where the logical inconsistency is. My logic is clear - the choice is up to the individual adult involved, not someone who for whatever reasons disapproves (oddly approving people rarely interfere). This applies so long as another living person is not harmed by the choice - and it is my opinion that an unborn baby is not a living person. As to guns, I oppose these because they allow an individual to make choices for others that may harm them - and unlike foetuses, these are living people.

So my logic is that choice over your own actions is up to the individual, so long as it does not harm another. I personally do not believe an unborn child is a living child (it has not yet been born) so therefore the choice belongs to the parent, who if they do not feel able to nuture the child should not have to bring it into the world. Thus my logic allows for supporting abortion. Inconsistent - I leave it for others to judge, but I see nothing inconsistent with this.

[Paul Marks]

John McCain has done some bad things - the worst being McCain-Feingold (although that is nothing that Obama is going to fix).

On the war in Iraq opinion is divided - but at least McCain opposed the mistaken tatics of President Bush and was the first (and for a long time virtually the only) politician to call for a surge in troops and for the troops to take the risk of living close with the population (rather than hiding in bases comming out only for search and destroy operations).

Whether it was a good idea to into Iraq in 2003 is debatable (I say it was a bad idea) - but now the task is to win the war.

John McCain will mean victory - Senator Obama will mean defeat. With all the knock effects that will have in Afghanistan and everywhere else (as the "will of God" will have been shown to be with the radical "Islamists" - both Sunni and Shia).

To turn to other matters:

John McCain has taken a strong line against government spending.

Not only is he virtually the only Senator to always oppose "earmarks" (for many years) he also opposed the ethenol subsidy (even in the Iowa Caucus) and the government "insurance" scam (even in the Florida Primary) and John McCain also opposed the 305 billion Dollar farm bill (and, unlike Bush, he was serious in his opposition).

John McCain also opposed George Walker Bush's "no-child-left-behind" farce and the Medicare extention.

And on taxes Senator McCain supports keeping down the Capital Gains Tax and the income tax - and going for an optional flat tax.

Senator Obama is the opposite of John McCain on ALL of these tax and spend issues. For example, even though he has only been in the Senate for a less than one term Senator Obama has already made a name for himself as an earmarker - including a nice earmark for his wife (via the hospital in whose management the lady is involved).

"Is Senator Obama in favour of limited government - I do not know".

So you are unaware of his voting record (at either State or Federal level) and of his involvement in radical left politics all his adult life.

Unaware that he was brought to Chicago (he is NOT from Chicago) from Harvard as a radical - to join up with the standard organizations.

You most likely do not know of the history of the left groups (the groups that Obama went to Chicago to join and has worked in ever since) that have chosen to base themselves in Chicago - of the Saul Alinsky and Nicholas Van Hoffman tradition (building on the work of radicals before them).

Bill Ayers and the rest of the gang (the next generation after Saul Alinsky) most likely also mean nothing to you.

O.K. ignorance is not a crime.

However, as you clearly know nothing about Senator Obama why write an article about him?

[Alexander King]

Allan McKinley: "A cutting putdown, if you had shown where the logical inconsistency is. My logic is clear - the choice is up to the individual adult involved, not someone who for whatever reasons disapproves (oddly approving people rarely interfere). This applies so long as another living person is not harmed by the choice - and it is my opinion that an unborn baby is not a living person".

The logical inconsistency is that you imply an unborn baby is not a person because it needs medical assistance to stay alive. But the same is true of someone in coma, so your standard of what constitutes a "person" is clearly fallacious.

You seem to fall back on the discredited notion that a baby is not a person merely because it has not yet been born. This is a little like me putting a tent over you and claiming you are not a person because I can't see you. Just because you cannot see and interact with the child does not mean that it is not a person.

We learn more and more every year about just how developed babies are in the womb - the pain they feel, the emotions they display. It is obscene to suggest than an unborn child is not a living person.

[Paul Marks]

John McCain is not a big spending, establishment Republican.

He is not a big spending (he is favour of holding back the entitlement programs, not inventing new ones) and he is the least "establishment" Republican in the Senate.

And Senator Obama is not influenced by Edmund Burke - his main influence is the German philospher Karl Marx (both through his education and via community activist work and liberation theology - for example 20 years at the liberation theology Holy Trinty Church).

The main advantage Senator Obama has is that he is black - if he were not black a first term Senator would not even be in the race (let alone have defeated Senator Clinton for the nomination). Also it means that any attack upon him can be called "racist" (and thus denounced as "hate speech") and that white people can feel good about themselves by voting for him (without asking themselves what policies they are voting for).

If Senator Durbin were running (the more experienced but less extreme Sentator from Illinois) the debate would be about policy - and Durbin would have no chance whatever (although, I repeat, he actually less extreme than Sentator Obama).

With Speaker Pelosi in charge in the House (the lady has proved that moderate "blue dog" Democrats always give in under pressure) and people like Senator Durbin in charge in the Senate (behind that cardboard cutout Harry Reid), a President Obama has a good chance to put his ideas into practice.

Do you understand now Mr Carswell?

[Allan McKinley]

Alexander,
Simple logic here. A baby may or may not be alive after birth. It is not therefore definetly a person.
Me under a tent however, or a comatose person, is definetly alive because before the tent/coma we were born. Why this idea is discredited I don't know - quite why the fact babies feel and react means they are fully alive when we cannot guarentee that fact is beyond me.
Bluntly, it may be obscene. But the same argument has been applied to many things over time - women voting; racial equality - so perhaps it is a bit poor. Alexander - you clearly believe strongly and I respect that (and I doubt I will persuade you otherwise) but bluntly you are trying to control other's rights to make their own decisions about their lives. I cannot agree and I can ask simply what business is it of yours what someone else does with a potential life they are carrying? If it is purely the argument that an unborn child is alive, then remember perfectly intelligent people can dispute that as I do (whether I am perfectly intelligent being a totally unrelated issue here...). Since I cannot accept your logic, nor you mine, shall we leave this topic after your reply?

[Alexander King]

Allan,

Your logic continues to degenerate.

You write: "A baby may or may not be alive after birth. It is not therefore definetly a person".

This is baffling. I may not be alive tomorrow but it does not mean I am not a person today. A baby is alive while it is in the womb - that is what matters. To kill an unborn child on the basis that it may not be alive after birth and is therefore not a person is a grotesque parody of logic.

You write: "Quite why the fact babies feel and react means they are fully alive when we cannot guarentee that fact is beyond me".

What more would an unborn child have to do to prove that it is living? Recite Shakespeare? Do you seriously claim that a non-person is capable of smiling and feeling pain?

You write: "Bluntly you are trying to control other's rights to make their own decisions about their lives".

What "rights"? The right to kill another person? We do not allow the murder of born persons in this country - is that, too, an infringement of rights?

Yes, perfectly intelligent people can dispute whether an unborn child is alive but this is not a question of intelligence. It is a question of moral clarity. You cannot see the wood for the trees.