Thursday, May 22, 2008

The innate moral superiority of Conservatism

While the Conservative Party looks forward to the hypnotic ecstasy of winning its first by-election victory for a quarter of a century, Cranmer is really rather down and depressed. Black dog days may be rare, but when they come they are weighted with lead. The day seems like a week, and the immutable God appears to have mutated his immanence. And as Cranmer reflects on the fickle ephemeral world of politics, he wonders how many abortions have been performed today. And who cares? Who is still asking? If the media is not interested, the nation goes dormant and politicians move on, like flies, hopping and flitting to the next media-determined issue. And that, today, is to be found in Crewe & Nantwich. Tomorrow it shall be something else.

And yet victory in Crewe seems almost divinely dished out. Analysis of the voting patterns between the parties on the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill establishes empirically that when it comes to the sanctity of human life, the overwhelming majority of Conservatives tend towards biblical orthodoxy and seek to limit evil whether or not they are believers, while most Socialists don’t seem to give a damn. True Conservatives truly seek to conserve the nation’s moral framework (the likes of the odious John Bercow are not truly Conservative), while Socialists seek to erode the foundations with endless sub-clauses, qualifications and concealed amendments.

While there are many who view an merging 'Christian Right' in the UK with disdainful concern, it may be observed that there is more to fear from the Christian Left.

Cranmer is profoundly grateful to his loyal communicant Ultramontane Grumpy Old Catholic for the research he did on this, if only to cheer himself up. He summarises:

• 537 MPs voted out of 636 that were eligible to vote (the remainder of the 646 were 5 Sinn Fein, 1 speaker, 3 deputies and 1 vacant [Crewe and Nantwich])

• The percentage of MPs voting in the 3 main parties were Nu-Lab 87.5%, Con 87.5% and LibDem 73%

• The percentage of Conservatives present who voted to reduce the legal limit for abortion to 22 weeks was 86%, with 14% voting to retain the status quo

• The percentage of New Labour present who voted to reduce the legal limit for abortion to 22 weeks was 20%, with 80% voting to retain the status quo

• The percentage of Liberal Democrats present who voted to reduce the legal limit for abortion to 22 weeks was 37%, with 63% voting to retain the status quo

The figures are stark: what 80 per cent of Conservatives seek to support in the moral realm, 80 per cent of Socialists oppose. This has everything to do with Labour's selection procedure, since Cranmer hears that support for abortion is a prerequisite for being approved as a candidate. The party is engineering society by limiting the conscience of the collective: it is pure Marxism.

ConservativeHome notes further research by the BBC for Radio 4's World at One programme:

• 92% of Conservative MPs backed Iain Duncan Smith's call for fatherhood to be recognised when decisions about fertility treatment are being made. 82% of Labour MPs were opposed to such a recognition.

They posit that ‘if Conservatives win the next general election and if new MPs vote in similar proportion to the way their existing parliamentary parties vote then it is very likely that a tougher regime for abortion will be introduced.’

But ‘likelihood’ is a slippery little sucker. Parties in power tend to have very different agendas to those they profess whilst in opposition.

But such a bleak perspective on the day of a glorious by-election victory is simply a by-product of Cranmer’s black dog.

Pray for him.

28 Comments:

Blogger Oratorian said...

Cranmer, the Black Dog has afflicted many great people and by your noble and tireless activity here against that hateful Bill you have manifested signs of greatness too. Nil desperandum and may God bless you.

22 May 2008 at 07:38  
Blogger Tomrat said...

Your grace,

I will, and be encouraged by the outcome of those who ignore the warnings of Leviticus 18:21 in 1 Kings 11:32-34 - The LORD will leave them to their demon worship but will rest power from them and bring them low and derisive in mens estimations and drag them through the mire, to eventual captivity.

We look at the world in such a temporal manner as to forget that ours is eternal - and that is an encouraging thought.

God bless you.

22 May 2008 at 08:21  
Anonymous tiberswimmer said...

On this issue Your Grace and I are once more in full and happy communion (albeit temporarily). May God bless you.

22 May 2008 at 08:27  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Much as I agree with your points, I feel that it is dangerous to claim that Conservatives have an innate moral superiority. Conservatives, like everyone else are sinners - and when conservatives sin, they usually have the nation rolling with glee. (Somehow, when the left gets caught in flagrante, people just shrug their shoulders)

I think where the Conservatives do score the higher marks, and where it will save them at the end is a willingness to listen to arguments. All parties used to have this but Labour and to a large extent the Liberal Democrats have been hijacked by the libertarian left. Over the past 20 years I have engaged with 2 Tory MPs in my area on this issue. While they not agree with my views completely, they have been unfailingly courteous and written detailed letters setting out their arguments - and have been willing to continue the debate. My current MP, Oliver Letwin, who professes to be an atheist is excellent in this regard.

I just do not understand the labour party and its attitude over abortion. How is it that they wish to die at the barricades to defend 24 weeks when across Europe, even the most liberal country (Sweden) has 18 weeks and France and Germany lower still? And the current saga has not ended yet. When this bill comes to committee there will be calls from the libertarian left to soften the current legislation, so that abortions can be obtained on demand. And they might steamroller these changes through. There have been over 6 millions abortions in this country since 1968 and the rate is running at over 200,000 a year. Just how many will satisfy them? Would they be comfortable if the rate rose to say 250000 a year - or half a million?

Look at those harridans with their face piercings in Parliament Square on Tuesday, waving their placades 'protect our 24 weeks'. With a little thought on their part, they could have concluded that they really need lots of babies to be able to provide for childless gays and lesbians - until such time as the good Lord Winston can find a way of producing artifical sperm from females and ova from males and the good Baroness Deech can develop her special 'deech tank' to incubate the babies.

You kindly directed your communicants to conservative home and I read some of the comments by correspondents who complained about the christian right and drew comparisons with the the christian right in the USA. I do not think that there would be a problem in this country, as long as the Conservatives hold on to the principle of courteous debate and a willingness to be convinced.


God Bless you, your Grace

22 May 2008 at 09:04  
Blogger Jomo said...

The Labour Party is dominated by special interests groups. It is almost impossible to gain a nomination as a parliamentary candidate unless you accept the agenda of these groups. In the 70s and 80s it was CND and other communist front organisations, now its the social libertarians.The connection between the two is of course fairly obvious.

The latter form with the Lib Dems and the secularists in the Tory Party a dominant block in Parliament.There was little significant change in the abortion laws during the last long period of conservative government. Indeed the remorseless rise in the annual number of abortions continued throughout that period.

The campaign to reduce the time limit for abortion is always bogged down in the viability argument. The state has endorsed the concept of the murder of the unborn, even up to term in the case of the disabled.Spending endless hours arguing for 12 or 18 or 22 weeks misses the point.

Perhaps it's time for Christians to return to the sources and accept the need for a more fundamental position on morality and law.

22 May 2008 at 10:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am on the parliamentary list of approved Labour candidates and I've never been asked whether I am pro or anti abortion. Sorry to ruin your theory. You will also note that despite the socialist conspiracy, several Labour whips voted for reducing the limit.

22 May 2008 at 11:23  
Blogger rr25 said...

It would be very interesting if someone was to attempt to apply the Animal Procedures Act (1986)
"(2) Any such vertebrate in its foetal, larval or embryonic form is a protected animal only from the stage of its development when-

(a) in the case of a mammal, bird or reptile, half the gestation or incubation period for the relevant species has elapsed"

On that basis, the limit ought to be 18 weeks.

22 May 2008 at 11:28  
Anonymous juliana said...

All shall be well, Your Grace, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.

22 May 2008 at 12:01  
Anonymous The recusant said...

Cranmer is quite right; direct from Emilie’s List web site:

“Are you aware that at least twenty four constituencies for the 2005 General Election where the Labour MP retired, there were 'All Women Selections'? Yes, all women. Men were not even allowed to stand as a prospective candidate.”

“Any woman member of the Labour Part who is seeking selection as a candidate for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament and Westminster may apply for an EMILY Grant. Applications must fulfil Labour Party criteria; support the programme and values of the Party and be pro-choice" (emphasis United for Life).”

“The majority of the current Labour women MPs were selected by this criteria - women only selections.”

So there you have it, perhaps UGOC could run the percentages on female MPs and there voting preferences.

22 May 2008 at 13:28  
Anonymous Terry said...

We cannot change a single thing about the past, so let's recover with enough sleep, a bit of fun, and some normal human enjoyment. After that, it's back on the case, and the future is up for grabs. Remember the battle is against principalities and powers, and here a demonic ideology - if we keep praying (not just for us, but for the USA as well) things will change/God will change things.

22 May 2008 at 13:33  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

While I was driving home yesterday I listened to some chap on the radio going about how terrible it was that Iceland was considering resuming commercial whaling, and how shocking it was that these “iconic” creatures should be killed.

If we have become concerned about the killing of whales whilst remaining indifferent to the slaughter of unborn children, is it perhaps time to re-calibrate the moral compass?

22 May 2008 at 13:46  
Blogger Jomo said...

anonymous 11.23

Depends on who are the current "useful idiots." The votes tell it all and the influence of the pro-life group in the Labour Party is rather limited is it not?

I presume you have not yet been selected by a constituency as PPC. Either way you have a struggle on your hands so good luck.

In any case I don't think its a conspiracy but more a way of life.
Given the mess the countries in are you really sure you want to join the sinking ship?

22 May 2008 at 14:45  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Recusant suggested that I carry out some further analysis of the female vote.

At present there are 124 female MPs (96 Labour, 9 LibDem and 16 conservative, 3 Other)

Of these 109 turned out on the night (85 Labour, 8 LibDem and 14 Conservative, 2 from the Ulster Parties)

76 Labour women voted to retain the current limit (89.4% of those that were present) while 9 (10.6%) voted to reduce it.

3 Conservative women voted to retain the limit (21.4%) and 11 voted to reduce it (78.6%)

5 LibDem women voted to retain the limit, (62.5%) and 3 voted to reduce it (37.5%)

2 of the 3 women from the minor parties voted to reduce the limit. The third did not vote.

Of the 96 Female Labour MPs, 12 of these are Emily's List alumnae but only 11 were voting that night.

10 of the emilys, like good little girls voted to retain the limit.

But (shock horror!!) one of them voted to reduce the limit. I wonder whether she will be asked to give her grant back.

Perhaps Your Grace might consider sponsoring a charitable fund for fallen emily's listers

22 May 2008 at 16:05  
Anonymous simon9999 said...

Yes, lets ban abortion. I can see no problems with that, well apart from anybody who is rich enough getting an Abortion in another country, while those too poor to get a plane having an abortion by other means.

And you wonder why Christianity is dying in Europe.

2050, the year we celebrate the Death of Chritianity. Mark it in your diary now!

This message brought to you by a Atheist Tory, so no 'Leftie' insults please :)

22 May 2008 at 17:39  
Blogger Alfred the Ordinary said...

Windsor Tripehound said... "If we have become concerned about the killing of whales whilst remaining indifferent to the slaughter of unborn children, is it perhaps time to re-calibrate the moral compass?"

Its being recalibrate before our very eyes. Daily Mail 21st May 2008 "European Court agrees to hear chimp's plea for human rights"

When chimps rights are discussed by the European Court, and the rights of unborn children are almost naught, you know the end must be close.

22 May 2008 at 18:05  
Anonymous Jenny said...

It's incredible to me. Just incredible. What a terrible week. Yesterday, I felt much like His Grace does today. I have recovered, I am pleased to say, and pray that His Grace does too.

I find so many aspects of this debate to be unhelpful - so much is based on statistics. To me, the sole matter for consideration is the balance between the mother's 'rights' and that of the unborn child - that doesn't come down to what week it might be viable to live outside of her (what matter that?), how abortion is performed (no matter how undignified) at whatever stage nor how many/few women might be 'disadvantaged' by this week or that week being proposed. The balance is just wrong!

I watched some of the Parliamentary debate, which was a bit like watching a crash in slow motion, and some of the women arguing for the status quo really did us all a disservice. The attitude seems to be, so what that (say) 1000 babies are subject to a painful and undignified death without being given a chance of life, we need to retain 24 weeks not 22 because 1000 women might be 'forced' (forced?) to continue a pregnancy 'against their will'. Indeed? So why are they pregnant?

I just want to know why those 1000 women (or however many it was) have to be catered for - and I note no-one suggested that anyone who was 25 weeks pregnant was being 'forced' in any way to carry on her pregnancy and no-one asserted that these women were having illegal abortions so why 24 should be such a magic number beats me - but the babies do not? I realise that some women might enter shock and take time to make a decision, but if they have to do it in 12 weeks, they will! Needs must, when the Devil drives (literally).

Not that I'm advocating 12 weeks or any other time period - I'd prefer nil, thanks. But I'll take what I can get, and if at 12 weeks it's not painful to the foetus and is less undignified, so much the better.

22 May 2008 at 19:16  
Anonymous The recusant said...

simon9999
Many have forecast the downfall of Christianity, or actively sought its abolition, each time its the prophet who has faded away, unless you think you know something they didn’t. Be that as it may I’ll not hold my breath for 2050. Now as to the nonsense of ‘those too poor to get a plane’, are you kidding, even an Atheist Tory should have a passing acquaintance with economics and the welfare state. Spain, Greece and Portugal are full of these poor young things on a week’s binge courtesy of some budget airline getting themselves into the condition that our NHS has to pick up the bill for. Either that or look at any town centre on a Friday night, no shortage cash for the barman each week, the overwhelming poverty of the young today is spiritual not financial, believe me I know of what I speak.

UGOC,
Very interesting analysis, the Tory party should target strong candidates expressly against every socialist Madame deFrage. The LibDem vote surprised me a little even for such small numbers, I would have thought they would have all been at the 24 week barricade.

Tony has it right, get some R&R and regroup for the next time, Ann Widdecombe gets a lot of stick but she was marvellous in the debate in the house, we need more like her.

22 May 2008 at 19:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The list of shame

The Tory MPs who voted against the 22 week reduction. Do they deserve your votes?

Tony Baldry
John Baron
John Bercow
Paul Beresford
Crispin Blunt
David Curry
Stephen Dorrell
James Duddridge
Philip Dunne
Edward Garnier
Robert Key
Julie Kirkbride
Greg Knight
Jacqui Lait
Ian Liddell-Grainger
Andrew Mackay
John Maples
Anne McIntosh
Patrick Mercer
George Osborne
John Penrose
David Tredinnick
Andrew Tyrie
Peter Viggers
Theresa Villiers
Bill Wiggin
George Young

22 May 2008 at 20:55  
Anonymous Jenny said...

Anybody got the stats for those poor French girls who are, naturally, flocking over here to get their abortions after 12 weeks?

22 May 2008 at 21:22  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

your grace
sorry to hear about your black day , you need to recoup your strength as you have made somthing visible that was in darkness.

despite its displeasure , you have reminded us all about conciensce , somthing we thought our libertarian freedoms no lomger needed .

i thank you for thank your grace .

22 May 2008 at 21:46  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Jenny

You asked about stats for french girls coming over here and getting abortions. A good question.

There is a large quantity of statistics on the dhs web site.

See
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_075697

It reports that that in 2006 there were 7436 abortions in E&W carried out on non residents, of which precisely 41 came from France and 18 from Germany.

It would be quite interesting to extend this to find out just how much abortion tourism goes on. You would think for example that there would be lots of girls coming over from Poland, but there were just 10 in 2006.

These numbers are a poke in the eye for the pro choice brigade. but they have never let facts ruin a good argument before, have they?

22 May 2008 at 22:57  
Anonymous Fenelon said...

I trust that His Grace will soon have recovered his equilibrium. The vigorous campaign he has fought against this Bill would in itself be tiring. To sit and watch MPs vote for hybrids and against fathers is extremely dispiriting. The realisation that the House of Commons as presently constituted refuses to countenance even a modest reduction in the time limit on abortions is indeed profoundly depressing.

23 May 2008 at 00:01  
Anonymous Asian Colonial subject said...

Simon9999

"Another century and there will not be a Bible on earth!" --Voltaire (1694-1778)

Looks like you're not the first to predict Christianity's downfall, sorry, been there, done that, and proven wrong.

23 May 2008 at 02:05  
Blogger Johnny Norfolk said...

This is another reason why Labour lost the crewe by election and will go on to loose the general election. Its taken a very long time but the people of Britain have finally woken up to what 11 years of Labour has led to. So cheer up. The hour of greatest toil is the one just before the goal is reached.

23 May 2008 at 06:58  
Blogger Jomo said...

Simon9999

If Christianity goes it won't be the atheists who end up in charge in 2050.

I hope you are not around to celebrate the "End of a Nation"

23 May 2008 at 09:18  
Anonymous Jenny said...

UGOC

Thank you for your informative and speedy response.

This does prove my suspicions entirely. It's a pity that we have to argue on statistics rather than morals, but perhaps what we need is a site where we can gather all these things together (rather than clogging up His Grace's blog) and thus help with future debates. I did think of some other things we'd need to know to repudiate the idiotic claims being made by the 'pro-choice' lobby, such as how many suicides take place in this and other countries that are attributed to not having access to an abortion, and how many illegal abortions take place in this country after this magic 24-week cut-off date.

23 May 2008 at 10:38  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Your Grace, I am thinking of you.

23 May 2008 at 15:29  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Jenny says that it is a pity that we have to argue on statistics rather than morals. I agree.

However, I am afraid that with the moral compass off its axis, statistics is an argument that might - just might, convince the utilitarians.

It's instructive to read the life of Thomas Clarkson, hardly known today, but who provided the ammunition for William Wilberforce in the fight against the slave trade. One of Clarkson's big arguing points was the recorded high death rate in British sailors involved in the trade. And he said (I can't recall the exact quote) that bad morality is also bad economics.

The LIFE Charity of which I am a member produces studies from time to time, which have shown, for example

a) women having an abortion have a higher tendency to breast cancer. (This study has been ignored, but one can imagine that in a different context e.g smoking or any other activity, it would have been headline news)

b) Dr Michael Jarmulowicz,some years ago now, produced interesting research based on published medical statistics that showed that before the abortion act, significant numbers of women were not dying from back street abortionists, as is often claimed.

There are other studies around, but pro life charities suffer from a lack of funds to devote to these issues.

And such studies current tend to get ignored by the rest of the medical community. While people of science are swayed by emotion just as anyone else, eventually the weight of evidence will pile up. Just how long did it take to establish a link between smoking and lung cancer?

One of the claims bandied about by the pro abortionists this week is a claim that liberalised abortion leads to reduction in urban crime, with the potential 'low life' taken out before they have a chance to grow up. So I guess someone will have to answer this outrageous claim, before it becomes the received wisdom.

Following up Jenny's original question, I agree that there is a need for a study of just how prevalent is abortion tourism. a lot will depend on the availability of national statistics in EU member states.

24 May 2008 at 10:53  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older