Saturday, July 11, 2009

One good reason Christians should vote Conservative

There are many, of course. But the abortion issue is not going to go away until the practice be abolished altogether, and every move towards reducing the present 24-week limit is an incremental step in the right direction.

And it is reported that David Cameron will permit a new attempt to do this if the Conservative Party forms the next government.

There were 195,000 abortions carried out in England and Wales in 2008. Despite the valiant efforts of inter alia Nadine Dorries, Parliament recently voted to retain the 24-week limit, but the desire for reform is stronger within the Conservative Party than it is within Labour (and certainly the Liberal Democrats). When the issue was debated – the first such debate in 18 years – some 60 per cent of Conservative MPs backed a 20-week limit. And 40 Conservative MPs – an encouraging 20 per cent of the Parliamentary Party – voted for 12 weeks. David Cameron himself supported a move to 20 weeks.

The 1967 Abortion Act is outdated. In terms of legal infanticide, it is as offensive now as it was then, especially in the provision of late abortion for unspecified disability. But science has progressed, and babies born at 24 weeks and earlier can now survive. The case for reform is irrefutable. The right to life has to precede the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And only a Conservative government is going to address the issue.

Cranmer is sure that Caritas in Veritate will influence David Cameron far more than it will President Obama.

66 Comments:

Blogger John Doe said...

Not so sure agter reading this:

Cameron 'sacrificed RC
adoption for gay vote'
.

11 July 2009 at 13:04  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

However unsatisfactory the Conservatives are on moral & ethical matters, the Liberals are worse, and Labour invariably far worse still: this must be the most godless Government on record.

11 July 2009 at 13:12  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Yes, the abortion laws need a major overhaul but Cameron still won't be getting my vote on this one issue because there's more at stake here. The only way he's going to get my vote is if the Irish vote no a second time forcing Cameron's hand over a referendum. Of course, him doing a 180 over carbon trading and sequestration might just change my mind too...

11 July 2009 at 13:35  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

In the end you have to vote for the candidate rather than a party, and I am glad that I am not in the constituency of David Cameron.

However, whoever the leader, the conservatives at least allow a free conscience vote on these moral issues.

Last October, His Grace showed a picture of NuLab Harridans shepherding Labour MPs through the 'correct' lobby at the last 'free' vote on abortion issues. So unless I was a constituent of people like Jim Dobbin or Frank Field, I would not trust my vote with a Labour candidate.

The Libs are not much better. I recall that David Alton was an embarrassment to them, but they solved it when his seat became untenable due to boundary changes and he went to the Lords.

By the way Gnostic, there is a good article in this week's Spectator, with Prof Ian Plimmer an Australian Geologist trashing Anthropogenic Global Warming. Here's one guy who won't be getting an Honour from Prince Charles

11 July 2009 at 16:54  
Anonymous Uncle F said...

Its quiet in here today.

11 July 2009 at 19:04  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Uncle F,

It is good to have reflective days of relative stillness.

11 July 2009 at 19:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace, I am very sorry to have to say this. I fear, however, that you are rather naive if you think David Cameron -- a man for whom conservative values is simply a catch phrase -- is going to do anything to reduce access to abortions. It is just not going to happen. We can lament that abortion is a daily tragedy throughout our countries, but our leaders lack the moral courage to take on the establishment, most of which long ago surrendered to the pro-Coice crowd.

11 July 2009 at 19:24  
Anonymous Voyager said...

REFERENDUM.

11 July 2009 at 19:49  
Anonymous diall said...

Perhaps it being a quiet day will allow his Grace to discuss this related article, that appeared some months ago, which I thought he might have commented on then.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7926694.stm

Since his Grace's position appears so absolute, could he unambigously state that he wouldn't have allowed an abortion in this instance.

I can unabigously say that I would, just so there is no doubt about my position.

11 July 2009 at 19:49  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr/Miss/Mrs/Miss Diall,

There is nothing absolute. It is simply that abortion as a second-line contraception is an offence against God. There are instances when it may be justified, and this has always been the position of the Church of England.

His Grace thought the actions of the Brazilian archbishop in the instance to which you refer were perverse. To excommunicate the mother of the victim, the doctors (and presumably the victim herself), while leaving incommunicate the rapist stepfather, was a gross injustice and profoundly immoral.

Abortion is an undoubted evil. But uncompassionate excommunication is worse for it is denial of grace, forgiveness, reconciliation with God.

The mother and doctors were trying to express the spirit of compassion; the Archbishop was intent on sticking to the letter of the law.

In an ideal world, the victim would have accepted and loved the child, the mother forgiven her husband, and the doctors refused to abort.

But the Lord promises not to test us beyond that we can endure.

11 July 2009 at 20:18  
Anonymous eeyore said...

A well-known editor once said to me, "I'd sacrifice every chimp on earth to save one human baby." I thought this was rather a striking reductio ad absurdum. Has Your Grace a view?

11 July 2009 at 20:37  
Blogger John Woolman said...

Perhaps the Church of England should adopt Canon 1398 of the Catholic Code of Canon law: “Qui abortum procurat, effectu secuto, in excommunicationem latae sententiae incurrit”. My understanding is that this does not necessarily imply that reconciliation with the Church could not take place in due course.

Of course the hair splitting difficulty with modern technology is to decide where contraception finishes and abortion starts.

11 July 2009 at 20:43  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr eeyore,

Yes, of course His Grace has a view.

It is rather like asking him to choose between Beethoven and Mozart.

There is no need.

11 July 2009 at 20:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How dare you assume all Christians share the same view on the issue of a women's reproductive rights? In fact most Christians in the UK are pro-choice. Check the polling before you import mad cristianist ideas from the US!

11 July 2009 at 21:28  
Anonymous Philip said...

Wrong, Anonymous. Most voters want a tightening of the abortion law, at least a reduction in the time limit. While merely wanting a reduction in the time limit might not mean one is "Pro-life", you cannot say most voters (certainly not "Christians") wanting a tightening of the abortion law does not seem "Pro-choice" to me. Most can see the real humanness of a baby in the womb - particularly following the recent images.

11 July 2009 at 21:41  
Blogger OldSouth said...

'There were 195,000 abortions carried out in England and Wales in 2008.'

Please don't think I'm preaching at you from across the pond, as my country is a far worse offender in this tragedy.

What strikes me when these figures are quoted is the tragedy of lost opportunity: Amongst those 195,000 who were never allowed to see the light of day, what are the odds we would have seen another Vaughan-Williams, or Churchill, or Watson and Crick team, or Tiger Woods?

Solzhenitsyn raged at the loss of generations of literature, sciences and arts in the Soviet Gulags.

What are we doing to ourselves?

11 July 2009 at 21:41  
Anonymous Philip said...

(Re-posting this to make more sense! Apologies!)
Wrong, Anonymous. Most voters want a tightening of the abortion law, at least a reduction in the time limit. While merely wanting a reduction in the time limit might not mean one is "Pro-life", most voters (certainly not "Christians") wanting a tightening of the abortion law doesn’t seem "Pro-choice" to me. Most can see the real humanness of a baby in the womb - particularly following the recent images.

11 July 2009 at 21:45  
Anonymous Philip said...

Of course a reduction in the time limit to 20 weeks would be a welcome 1st step in the right direction. I thought most abortions happen well before 20 weeks, but as at least it would save at least some lives. Better to tighten the law to address the reasons for abortion – i.e. ‘social abortions’ which is when the child is disposed of merely because it’s life is inconvenient.

On Cranmer’s point that this might be one reason for Christians to vote Conservative. Indeed this is so. But as others have pointed out, David Cameron has been content to alienate Christian and many other voters who'd hold to traditional values, by instead seeking the gay vote (0.8% of the population, cp to RCs being 8%) through siding with Labour against the RC adoption agencies, by supporting promotion of homosexuality to children, and supporting 'gay marriage'... hence, "de-motivated" is a description of how one can feel towards Cameron's Conservatives. The message getting to Christians now, increasingly, is that none of the main parties supports Christian values, supporting instead anti-Christian legislation.

11 July 2009 at 22:08  
Blogger Malcolm Redfellow said...

Simple question.

You say: the abortion issue is not going to go away until the practice be abolished altogether.

Historically, medically, physiologically, back-streetedly, how might that be achieved?

11 July 2009 at 22:22  
Blogger John Doe said...

I think i have mentioned this before, but here goes again, one must keep one's knickers about one's self a bit more often than not; physically because there will be consequences, both excommunicatingly and back-streetedly, which could cause bad things medically and psychologically, which has been proven....historically.

Whoops did i say that!

11 July 2009 at 22:42  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Malcolm Redfellow

Cast your mind back to the late 18th Century.

His Grace, had he had access to the internet at that time might have said:

'the slavery issue is not going to go away until the practice be abolished altogether'

And wise men might have laughed him to scorn since at that time everyone from the Royal Family down to the meanest peasant thought that slavery was a good thing.

But it came to pass

11 July 2009 at 22:51  
Blogger John Doe said...

Well said Grumpy One.

It will not change until the heart changes. In the mean time there will be causalities of war. A war between good and evil. The Bishop mentioned in the above case had a difficult choice, one made out of compassion.

real education is the answer. As yet we have not seen the likes. there are good reasons why turning women into rampant bitch dogs on heat became a sin....we have forgotten our primitive lessons here and are having to re-learn the consequences.

In the mean time, how many abortions has the said Bishop prevented through psychological contraception in such a ...how shall i say this?......sexually active part of the world.

11 July 2009 at 22:57  
Anonymous judith said...

Old South: and perhaps we were spared another Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot?

11 July 2009 at 22:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm pleased to see that you don't hold a grudge against the party which axed your parliamentary candidacy then, Hilton?

11 July 2009 at 23:13  
Blogger rallentanda said...

Please confirm that your choice between B and M was unreservedly Mozart,Your Grace.

11 July 2009 at 23:14  
Blogger Malcolm Redfellow said...

John Doe @ 22.57: Clearly, you are not much into genealogy. Your subsequent comment [rampant bitch dogs on heat] sums up a virulent strain of gynophobia, even if it does evidence problems in sexing canis lupus familiaris.

ultramontane grumpy old catholic @ 22.51: Is that an absolute, categorical, ex cathedra assertion that slavery has been abolished ... and eliminated? Even in our own fair realm?

11 July 2009 at 23:23  
Anonymous Laird said...

With reference to His Grace's post I beg to differ.
In an ideal world there would be no rape .
The Catholic Archbishop's action may be considered to be perverse and cruel but he was adhering to the teachings of the RC Church which are absolutes.
Excommunication from a church like this sounds like a merciful release.

11 July 2009 at 23:48  
Anonymous not a machine said...

It is funny your grace in my youth i was pro choice , adopting the idea mainly on ecnomic burden or knowing the child may have a difficult life .The idea of sparing the misery of the child was always at the forefront of my mind more so in disabilty issues.

but as I have matured I now see that it is a sin , in respect that not so much that it is pre meditated murder of an innocent , but that in many cases , particulary in teenager preganices , that another sin goes before it , namely sex without consequence.

I did not see the complete understanding of how sexual liberation would need the additional sin of a guilt free consequence of an abortion should conception occure, to go hand in hand.

having children is a serious matter , perhaps the ultimate responsibility , i see now how we have managed to downgrade the beauty of the christian understanding of the family .

We have do as you please, take what you fancy , escape the consequences , as being the logical progress of the civilised soceity. Yet still the beauty of the gods understanding eludes the modern social constructs .

I can see now where it goes wrong , in that you cannot have your cake and eat it . consequence free.


Your grace may be pleased to learn that the facist socialist state is in fine health , for it has annouced it is to strip the bishops of voting rights in the lords (set they can still sit) is this the new "Rownam Williams position" all dressed up but no where to go perhaps !

12 July 2009 at 00:09  
Anonymous Reality matters said...

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16


Bottom line, if you don't like abortion don't have one.

You can believe what you like, stop forcing your bronze age desert superstitions on everyone else.

This country is in a big enough state without this sarah palin type bullshit.

12 July 2009 at 00:47  
Blogger Think This said...

Its this sort of social conservatism that I truly despise. The right for women to have an abortion is a fundamental tenant of individual liberty - the belife at the heart of the Conservative party. To remove such an important and historic move in womens rights would be abhorrent. Should there be a lowering of the 24 week limit? Perhaps, but it should never be the case that women are denied such a fundamental right. To do so would be a giant leap backwards.

12 July 2009 at 01:11  
Anonymous not a machine said...

re think this : I can see where you are comming from , In christain thinking , the point of conception is the point of life .Therefore to deliberatly extinguish that life is a form of murder and a sin .

Do you see now , it is because we are not accepting the consequnces of sex , that we kill what has been made .

if it helps i have trouble with the rape scenarios , but most abortions are not due to rape !!

12 July 2009 at 01:26  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

The Catholic Archbishop's action may be considered to be perverse and cruel but he was adhering to the teachings of the RC Church which are absolutes.

Laird, please contact urgently Archbishop Rino Fisichella and warn him he is making a terrible mistake. There may still be time for him to rectify it. Thank you.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000587.shtml

Unfortunately I don’t have Mons. Fisichella’s e-mail address but you can try sending him a fax at the Lateran University:
+39 06 69886508

12 July 2009 at 02:21  
Anonymous eeyore said...

Your Grace is most handsome and obliging, as always. Chimps v babies is, for now, a mere reductio ad absurdum. But as the population of Africa is forecast to rise to 600m within a living lifetime it shall be very soon not absurd, but a most acute and painful reality, to choose between chimps and babies. Then what shall we say of Your Grace's easy, comforting and therefore unsatisfactory moral absolutes?

The question may be put yet more starkly: Is a chimp made in its Maker's image, Your Grace? If not, is the creature not justified when it rebukes God for odious favouritism among the varied children of His creation?

"Am I not a Chimp like thee?/
And art thou not a Man like me?"
(with apologies to Wm Blake)

Incidentally, in Your Grace's amusing but obscurely relevant analogy, is Beethoven the chimpanzee, or Mozart?

12 July 2009 at 09:00  
Blogger John Doe said...

Think This

"Making drugs legal would also see them become more accepted, making their 'underground' and 'cool' factor much less potent. This would help cut down on use. We do have to accept that some people might also try drugs as a result of them being legal, but overall I think we would see no real net movement."

A comment from your blog. Because you are only 18, I am going to take it easy on you, because when I was 18 the outlook for any hope for my future was far more hopeless than the reality.

All I will say is this. Take that pathetic hat off, sit up straight and and get a grip of yourself quickly.

12 July 2009 at 09:03  
Blogger Gnostic said...

UGOC

I've read Plimer's book. It scares the Alarmists to the point of raining down ad hominem attacks like a monsoon. Perish the thought that a geologist should dare to comment on climate. I mean, he's only a scientist, hardly the intellectual or moral equivalent of Saint Al of Gore. I mean forget for a moment that what we know about climate in the remote past comes from the fossil and mineral record...

I think the book should be required reading for the idiots in government. Maybe then they won't sign us up to useless schemes that cost us the Earth (sic) without asking questions or actually checking that the alarmism BS is based on computer models which Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS has publicly admitted are incapable of predicting the future accurately. Well I never!

Computer models are the equivalent of technological fortunetelling, they are not empirical science (hard, falsifiable evidence). Empirical science says that the recent warming phase is natural. It's happened many times before and it will happen again. That's what climate does.

The Medieval Warm period was several degrees warmer than it is today, wasn't driven by CO2 and didn't cause the earth to go crispy critter. Atmospheric CO2 has been ten times higher than it is now yet life on earth was abundant (still no crispy critters) and the Earth was plunged into a few deadly serious ice ages. How come? Because CO2 does not drive global warming.

Meanwhile we entered a cooling phase almost nine years ago. The Arctic ice is back to it's 30 year average (it grows and shrinks in a natural cycle) and the Antarctic still isn't melting. Polar bears still aren't dying. The seas still aren't rising catastrophically. Not that you need to know about that of course. It's probably down to AGW anyway but the alarmists haven't come up with a model that can tell them how...

As far as controlling global temperature to within 2C is concerned (cf G8) can you say King Cnut? I reckon they're all a bunch of King Cnuts. Being as they have such precise control of climate maybe they can turn their talents to bunging up volcanoes (emitters of billions of tons of CO2 which is still NOT a pollutant), taking the wind out of hurricanes, supergluing those old tectonic plates together to stop them shaking us all silly (too late, I fear) and telling Jolly Old Sol to behave and keep those mass coronal ejections to himself.

None of this really matters of course since AGW is a political agenda and not a scientific one. How else are they going to tax the air we breathe?

Here's some interesting facts about CO2. It's written so that ordinary people with a very basic knowledge of science can understand it.

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics_handbook_2-1.pdf

12 July 2009 at 09:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apart from the tattered old women's lib vs right of the foetus arguments, I reckon the abortion question is a key to unlock many of our present troubles.
If any society gets rid of some quarter million of its potential members every year, like we do, then there is going to be a gap.
So why hasn't anyone seen that our immigration is directly linked to abortion?
Multiculturalism is all very well, but I think our present society is about to morph into something completely different. Maybe, say, Sri Lanka? Nepal?Kingston, Jamaica? The balkans?
And abortion has a large part to play in all this.

12 July 2009 at 09:31  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Gnostic

It's the new C of G - the Church of Green, and Gore is its Profit - sorry Prophet.

I listened with disbelief when someone from the Royal Society on the Today programme a couple of years back said that since man made global warming was a fact, there was now no need to question it(!) Yet the whole root of scientific progress is to question and re-question everything.

As you say, mathematical models are valuable, when used in context, but it gets very dangerous if people start extrapolating them. Literally going out on a limb...

Now Prince Charles is talking about so many months to doomsday (< 5 yrs?). I hope I am still around to laugh in his face.

Year ago, a Beyond the Fringe sketch had the quartet as a group of doomsday forecasters sitting on a mountain top, counting down 3-2-1- 'Now is the end; perish the world' Then when nothing happens they say. 'Well? See you tomorrow? Same time?'

Interesting that all this baloney started to gain momentum after the fall of communism and the marxists started looking for another philosphy to ruin us all.

12 July 2009 at 10:14  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Malcolm Redfellow

Or ex catheter from grumpy old ones? - not yet me thankfully.

I was thinking about the two parliamentary bills in 1807 and 1834 first to abolish the slave trade and then to abolish slavery in the British Empire.

12 July 2009 at 10:20  
Anonymous len said...

To kill a life is to " play God"and as serious an affront as it is against the life itself, it is a more serious one against the God who is the Creator.That is why it is the ultimate, the ultimate decline in our culture.It is the ultimate evidence of the wretchedness of our culture.It is the ultimate proof of how deep our atheism runs, we kill life that God creates.We have usurped the sovereign throne and we are now God, and we will determine who lives and who dies.This is spilling over, my friends, into euthanasia which is coming, you better know, like a hurricane to wash away our whole old population because we are God now and we`ll decide. This kind of atheism will bring the wrath of God.
(From a Biblical View on Abortion by John F Macarthur)

12 July 2009 at 10:28  
Anonymous Maturecheese said...

This subject is a matter of individual conscience and not for the state to dictate. The church can also give guidance on abortion but again should not dictate as it is down to the individual to deal with the decision they make. Discussions on abortion should involve the spiritual effects on the individual but also common sense science and not false scaremongering.

The criteria for an abortion should not perhaps be as lax as it is today and the 24 week limit is obscenely high. Anyone who decides to initiate an abortion will live with their decision for the rest of their lives and bearing this in mind, people do not need the right wing Christian media ratcheting up guilt and sorrow that they would inevitably feel anyway.

The best way to try to deal with the rise in abortions is to try to reign in the sex obsessed society we now live in. Start clamping down on the media, advertisers, pop videos etc and promote respect between genders and for marriage(heterosexual that is, as promoting homosexuality adds to the decadence). Attacking abortion directly won't work as it will go underground, so attack the causes instead, irresponsible sex. The Church of England has failed miserably in this endeavour to date and needs to grow a backbone if it is going to succeed.

12 July 2009 at 10:50  
Anonymous Laird said...

Hank Petram
Are you saying that the RC church
approves some abortions in mitigating circumstances?Yes or No?

12 July 2009 at 12:56  
Anonymous Brian E. said...

I just wish that the authorities would just enforce the current law on abortion.
When it was introduced, it was primarily to allow abortion when the woman's health would be seriously threatened by continuing with the pregnancy, or if the child was likely to be seriously deformed.
As with most laws, this has been abused. Health was surreptitiously extended to include "mental health", and deformation to include things like a hair lip. No one can tell me in all honesty that British women have become so weak, mentally or physically, since the introduction of legal abortion as to justify the huge numbers of abortions taking place.

This "stretching" of laws is not only happening with abortion, but with many other things. Homosexual activity was permitted between consenting adults in private - now, if one complains about what is happening in the local park, one is accused of being homophobic.

It is for the same reasons that I vigorously oppose any change in the laws regarding suicide. I can visualise that which is introduced as a compassionate measure (as was abortion) being steadily extended until elderly patients are encouraged or even force to agree to their deaths.

12 July 2009 at 15:42  
Anonymous judith said...

Len, don't doctors 'play God' every time they save someone from dying?

12 July 2009 at 17:00  
Anonymous no nonny said...

My computer news today shows that the same debate is extremely active in Spain. I interpret the reporters (from a major news agency) as assuming that 'liberalization' is the ideal - -- they state that Catholicism is resisting the abortion and [queer] marriage programmes that the government is pushing through. Very few churches are full on Sundays, however....

Oh, and 'Britain, France, and Germany already have such legislation in place'....

Well, well. So we're not the only ones. Vis a vis Your Graces' earlier post: Caritas in Veritate? Certainly not allowing subsidiarity for the electorate...

12 July 2009 at 18:03  
Anonymous Beatrice said...

Re Judith: "Len, don't doctors 'play God' every time they save someone from dying?" I couldn't agree more - although they do have their Hippocratic oaths and malpractice suits to consider.

I would remain singularly ungrateful that they saved mine during my last surgery - but I also must accept that as God's will. They couldn't have done it against His will, so I can only pray that He will let me see why He wants me to stick around.

12 July 2009 at 18:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

Your Grace,
If there really are Christians who approve of abortion, and I do not know any, perhaps they would give some thoughts to God's words to Jeremiah in chapter one.

" 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee,"

Hardly what God would say if a foetus was not an infant from the moment of conception. I am amazed that God knew me before the creation of the Earth.

12 July 2009 at 18:51  
Blogger English Viking said...

Does Your Grace have a problem with arguments presented in the light of scripture, or with the more Christian policies of political parties other than his own? Whichever, it would be nice to be allowed to comment and let others evaluate the validity of my statements, instead of being moderated.

12 July 2009 at 19:16  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr English Viking,

His Grace has no idea of what you are talking about.

If you wish to debate, please do so.

If you wish to hyper-link to a series of external sites of dubious quality and questionable provenance or throw spurious insults and give gratuitous offence, His Grace deletes as he pleases.

Simples.

12 July 2009 at 20:06  
Anonymous len said...

Judith,
There is a discernible difference between attempting to save a life and deliberately taking one.
Also one of the most famous sayings in medical history is Ambroise Pare`s " I dressed him, and God healed him"

12 July 2009 at 21:19  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Think This: "a fundamental right". How can abortion be a "fundamental right" for the mother (can I call her a mother?) if that means the child has no "fundamental right" to life itself? There are TWO people to consider: the child and the mother. You are excluding one of them.

12 July 2009 at 23:28  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

I have never hyper-linked to external sites. I have, however, posted a (in my opinion) well informed and truthful comment on abortion and the policies of political parties in the UK. It has been 'moderated'. I assume that 'moderation' is an Orwellian word which means deleted for running contrary o popular opinion.

13 July 2009 at 02:00  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

Are you saying that the RC church approves some abortions in mitigating circumstances? Yes or No?

No, Laird, what makes you think that? The Catholic Church, as far as I am aware, never approves of abortions. Nevertheless, Archbishop Cardoso got severely jumped on by his superiors in Rome, didn't he? What do you think he did to incur the wrath of the Vatican?

13 July 2009 at 02:20  
Anonymous Laird said...

Hank Petram
The discussion topic is abortion.
To the great embarrassment of the RC Church Archbishop Cardoso through his actions has brought to the attention of the world that the Catholic Church does not approve of abortion even in the case of a 9 year old child who has been raped. Enough said.

13 July 2009 at 03:55  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

What about the fathers? Why do they disappear from the picture: as if they had no responsibilities or rights in the matter?

As most of the arguments here stand, all burdens of choice -
of partner, self-control, contraception/ conception, and abortion itself - lie with the female.

And if the males behave as if reproduction concerns only females: then females are left holding the infants, and probably little else - certainly not the financial, emotional, and social wherewithal for well-being of the children.

As I see it, then, there are at least 2 potentially inhuman animals to consider; and baby makes 3. Government doesn't belong in the equation.

Unless, of course, said government has exploited the mantra 'sex sells' and also permitted market forces and the media to apply it massively. Unless said government promotes homosexuality - which involves no responsibilities like reproduction and family. This could fall under the label 'liberalism.'

The effect of such a policy would be to encourage irresponsibility
and immorality in both male and female. This debasement of the society could be furthered by encouraging secularism. Governors could, as well, apply such methodology in order to deconstruct societies, and to
facilitate the imposition of power by foreign governments.

How should societies respond?

13 July 2009 at 05:13  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

What about the fathers? Why do they disappear from the picture: as if they had no responsibilities or rights in the matter?

As most of the arguments here stand, all burdens of choice -
of partner, self-control, contraception/ conception, and abortion itself - lie with the female.

And if the males behave as if reproduction concerns only females: then females are left holding the infants, and probably little else - certainly not the financial, emotional, and social wherewithal for well-being of the children.

As I see it, then, there are at least 2 potentially inhuman animals to consider; and baby makes 3. Government doesn't belong in the equation.

Unless, of course, said government has exploited the mantra 'sex sells' and also permitted market forces and the media to apply it massively. Unless said government promotes homosexuality - which involves no responsibilities like reproduction and family. This could fall under the label 'liberalism.'

The effect of such a policy would be to encourage irresponsibility
and immorality in both male and female. This debasement of the society could be furthered by encouraging secularism. Governors could, as well, apply such methodology in order to deconstruct societies, and to
facilitate the imposition of power by foreign governments.

How should societies respond?

13 July 2009 at 05:14  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

Oh dear - didn't mean to post twice, and can't remove the extra. Sorry.

13 July 2009 at 05:38  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

Oh dear - didn't mean to post twice, and can't remove the extra. Sorry.

13 July 2009 at 05:39  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr English Viking,

There is no record of His Grace having 'moderated' any of your comments (it still records its former presence in the thread '...deleted by the blog administrator'), and he has no recollection of having done so.

13 July 2009 at 08:02  
Blogger Bubbles said...

Most conservatives I know just ignore the abortion issue. They just want to make sure that gays can't get married. Personally, I am concerned about the killing of unborn babies. The majority of abortions are out of convenience, to avoid responsibility. I especially think that notifying the parents of minors should be required. They can't even get a piercing or tattoo without consent, and the fact that they would be allowing their babies to die is a bigger issue. It's a form of eugenics, according to the Georgia guidestone the government wants to limit our population to only 500 million. Just ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she recently admitted it.

13 July 2009 at 11:57  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

It must floating around in cyber-space. I most humbly apologise for insinuating that you have been deleting certain comments.

13 July 2009 at 14:52  
Anonymous Jaz said...

"This must be the most godless Government on record." You say that like it is a bad thing. The more godless the better. Make-believe friends are fine for 5yos, not for adults and certainly not for governments.

13 July 2009 at 16:10  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

Laird, there is more to Christian charity than not causing embarrassment. Cardoso’s doctrinaire reaction added to the suffering of “Carmen” and her mother, when he might have done something to alleviate that suffering. In other words, he behaved like an officious little jobsworth. That, I believe, was what got him into trouble with his bosses, and rightly so.

13 July 2009 at 17:49  
Anonymous len said...

Jaz,
The more Godless the better?
If you reject the God of heaven you get by default the god of this age, hence all the death, disorder, and chaos of this present age, if this things please you , carry on!

13 July 2009 at 23:17  
Anonymous Jaz said...

"If you reject the God of heaven you get by default the god of this age". Er, no. You don't get anything. If you reject an imaginary friend you don't get another one in its place.

14 July 2009 at 15:06  
Anonymous len said...

Jaz. there`s none so blind as those who will not see!

The very best you could say is I don`t know.Unless you know everything that exists in the universe including things seen and unseen.( which I very much doubt!)

14 July 2009 at 17:37  
Anonymous Laird said...

Hank the Catholic Church does not
approve of abortion not even in the case of the rape of a nine year old child.Archbishop Cardoso cannot give approval for any abortion to take place.His reaction was extreme in officially excommunicating everyone involved but nevertheless his Church's teaching does not equate with Christian charity or even common decency in my opinion.

15 July 2009 at 11:19  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older