Wednesday, February 17, 2010

I've never voted Labour before...

98 Comments:

Blogger D. Singh said...

Well at least Cranmer, Cameron will allow us a free vote. Unlike those whipped socialists.

Nay. National Socialists.

17 February 2010 at 20:43  
Anonymous oiznop said...

Brilliant. Of all the spoofs, this is by far the most disturbing - because it's true. At least DC has given us an assurance of a free vote.

17 February 2010 at 20:50  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Wow! Your Grace, hard hitting or what!

'Whipped socialists', Mr Singh, sounds too good for them.

17 February 2010 at 20:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

You - yes YOU - Cranmer - have provoked me. I was not angry before.

Anyone, anyone who believes in God cannot vote for this socialist government.

We can't do it. We just can't.

17 February 2010 at 20:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

It was him. That Liberal-demotwat; that thing, David Steel whose own father was a church minister - who steered the 1967 Abortion Act - that ensuerd 200,000 British children every year would be killed in the womb - for social reasons: Nazis.

17 February 2010 at 21:09  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

I may be mistaken, but as far as I am aware, abortion, like capital punishment and other central 'moral' issues is always subject to a free vote in parliament.

In effect, this means that on these matters the electorate is disenfranchised, because no parliamentary candidate has put forth a manifesto which makes promises about them.

Whilst they clearly are not party-political matters, equally clearly the electorate ought to be represented in respect of them.

I therefore suggest that on every matter that is the subject of a free vote, there should be a binding referendum.

17 February 2010 at 21:10  
Blogger D. Singh said...

That is how the Liberal-Democrats with the Socialist ensured that Great Britain and Northern Ireland's populations would be exterminated to make way for - Nazism.

So this is what Blair meant when he said 'we must destroy the forces of conservatism' - by severing the transmission of British values from the living, to the unborn who should have been connected with those who have passed.

17 February 2010 at 21:15  
Blogger Augustine of Canterbury said...

This really isn't an appropriate subject for party politics ....

17 February 2010 at 21:19  
Blogger D. Singh said...

It is political parties that have decided the issue: the Socialist and the Liberal-Democrat.

It is those parties that have no moral authority to speak even about the abolition of slavery.

17 February 2010 at 21:24  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Augustine of Canterbury said...
'This really isn't an appropriate subject for party politics ....'

That's why I wrote:
'Whilst they clearly are not party-political matters, equally clearly the electorate ought to be represented in respect of them.'

17 February 2010 at 21:28  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

❛I’ve never voted Conservative before and never will because I was aborted at 20 weeks and have no rights.❜

17 February 2010 at 21:52  
Blogger greenalien said...

Dead fetus jokes? Really?

17 February 2010 at 22:12  
Blogger greenalien said...

Let me rephrase that: "Dead fetus jokes to advance party agenda? Really?"

17 February 2010 at 22:16  
Blogger John.D said...

As deep as my hatred runs for Tory lies and arrogance, I really do like this one Cranmer, it has the sting of a demon coming back to bite on the ass. Well done! I do like it when these things metamorphose into entities of retribution.

17 February 2010 at 22:46  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

Your Grace,



http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/index.htm

17 February 2010 at 22:49  
Blogger Si Hollett said...

Or you could have "I was legally aborted at 30 weeks because I was found to be blind". New Labour - hating discrimination against 'disabled' people, unless it's in the womb...

17 February 2010 at 22:56  
Blogger PaulineG said...

In 1990, under the first Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, the abortion time limit was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks for most abortions but for unborn children with "serious" (?) disabilities the time limit was waived entirely and abortion became legal right up to birth.

When the relevant complex series of amendments were voted on some MPs, my own then Conservative MP included, did not appreciate the implications. I well recall meeting him between then and the final votes to discuss this. He was adamant at first that I was mistaken. He was utterly dismissive.

It took a briefing note from John Finnis, Professor of Law and Legal Philosophy at Oxford University, to convince him and he then, shaken, assured me that "this House" would not let the Bill pass without this being righted.

In the event it was passed, with the Government party MPs on a two line whip. The Government was, of course, Conservative.

I am as critical of this Labour Government on 'life' issues as His Grace. But it is an illusion to believe that the Conservatives have no record to defend on this.

No mainstream party truly defends the unborn child.

For shame.

17 February 2010 at 23:13  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

Waht a powerful image, Your Grace. Thank you for this.

17 February 2010 at 23:42  
Anonymous Happyness Stan said...

D. Singh said...

Nay. National Socialists.

17 February 2010 20:43

Nothing at all national about these particular colour of socialists, although they are most surely Fascist in all senses of the word.

Come to think about it there was also nothing over national about German national socialism, other then the name.

National Socialism is yet another example of how names are used to cause social division and mass confusion, while hiding real intention. For example we currently have

A Conservative Party that is neither conservative nor interested in conserving anything important.

A Liberal Democrat Party that is not in the slightest liberal, and is committed to the effective removal of British and European democracy.

A New Labour Party, that is not either new, or working in the interests of labour. While having nothing in common with any type of party I have ever been to.

A British Nationalist Party, that is wholly ENGLISH, and radically divisive of anything that could even be even loosely described as national.

A United Kingdom Independence Party, that has rapidly morphed into an ex Conservative voters answers to the BNP. (see above)

A Green Party, which is certainly GREEN, but not at all in the sense intended. ( extremely stupid, working for, set up by, and gaining most of its finance from, its members own worst possible enemy )

None of the above are working for the interests of even the people who vote for them, never mind those that have no intention of doing so.

What is worse they never have, and have no intention of doing so in the future. What is even worse then that, even if they did, and the establishment noticed the fact, they would be swiftly subverted or effectively assassinated.

One could say that this country has been taken over by Fascists and Fascism. One could, if indeed this had not actually taken place a very long time ago.

This country is a CORPORATION, a BANKING CORPORATION to be more precise. Therefore almost totally owned and ultimately completely and absolutely controlled by corporatists, and therefore corporatism. Better known as FASCISM.

The only difference between now and a long time ago, is that the gloves, and the mask are now being slowly removed to reveal the true nature of THE BEAST.

18 February 2010 at 01:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A very powerful poster indeed. It reminds us what is at sake when we vote in May. The womb has become the most dangerous place in Britain. Unborn babies are the most weak, vulnerable and abused people in our land. Vote on May Sixth for change!

18 February 2010 at 01:03  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace is perhaps sensing the wind has changed , all aboard the civic society.

being as synod is meeting I have an idea , beingas most twons and cities have a large church , invariably not full , why not have 6 times a year where all CofE churches in town , come together for a service and communion .

hope your grace pulls through his mental gynamnastics .

18 February 2010 at 02:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

All we need now are the feminazis, atheists, assorted Marxists, facsists and social Darwinists to turn up.

18 February 2010 at 07:34  
Anonymous Ces said...

A question;


What if the child was to become homosexual or later become a transexual?

18 February 2010 at 08:23  
Anonymous Tony B said...

I could be mistaken, but I don't think abortion was illegal under the Tories.

But then of course, everything the current government does is utterly criminal, even though 75% of it's policies are merely a continuation of Thatcher's.

18 February 2010 at 08:31  
Blogger Gnostic said...

When are we going to see the poster exhibiting the stillborn intellects of all our thieving, lying scumbag politicians?

18 February 2010 at 08:49  
Anonymous Ces said...

Tony B,

Indeed.. :( Politicians and Religious Leaders have proved to us over time that they cannot be trusted.

E.g., expenses scandal and child abuse to name a few.

A sad world for us.

18 February 2010 at 09:00  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Ces, I trust the Archbishop of Canterbury. But broadly speaking you're correct.

The point I make above is another reason why our politics is broken, to continue an earlier theme on this blog. A policy is condemned as outrageous by the Tories, but was a great idea when they originally implemented it, and will be a great idea again when they get into power and implement it themselves.

We've seen the Tories praise what Thatcher did for this country, whilst simultaneously condemning the same policies they praise her for, and blaming them on Gordon Brown. Of course, many of the electorate will be young enough to be unaware of this hypocrisy.

18 February 2010 at 10:30  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Lord Above! The biggest threat to mankind is Mankind ie population. Yet at every opportunity those with any influence to do something about the situation, rail against it. Obviously abortion is an unpleasant procedure and 24 weeks is unacceptable. I think the cut off should be half that, but never the less there should be an option for women to terminate their pregnancy if there are circumstances that warrant it. That is my view and may God forgive me for it.

As I was saying though, proper immigration controls, low birthrate incentives and any other measures that could be used to control population are shunned by the powers that could implement such things.

18 February 2010 at 10:38  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Excellent your Grace.

Compare that alongside the picture you posted some months ago showing Harriet Harman, Barbara Follet and the rest of the coven whipping cowed Labour MPs into the lobbies to vote against reducing the legal abortion limit from 24 to 22 weeks (i.e. by 2 weeks!!!).

The are some Labour prolifers, very brave people, who get continually marginalised, and excoriated by the rest of that party. And there are a few decent good MPs like Jim Dobbin, Frank Field.

The rest of them can go to perdition as far as I'm concerned.

18 February 2010 at 10:54  
Anonymous Ces said...

Maturecheese said...
"Lord Above! The biggest threat to mankind is Mankind ie population. Yet at every opportunity those with any influence to do something about the situation, rail against it. Obviously abortion is an unpleasant procedure and 24 weeks is unacceptable. I think the cut off should be half that, but never the less there should be an option for women to terminate their pregnancy if there are circumstances that warrant it. That is my view and may God forgive me for it.

As I was saying though, proper immigration controls, low birthrate incentives and any other measures that could be used to control population are shunned by the powers that could implement such things."

Fully agree. Down to a nutshell.

18 February 2010 at 10:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I never got a chance to vote because I was stillborn at 28 weeks, why did God allow that?
Jobrag

18 February 2010 at 10:57  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

Your Grace,

In the womb a soul should be safe and at peace...cherished,protected!

And yet there are those that do great evil to the unborn..with drugs that first kill,and then surgical tools that dismember...cruel,evil,murder.. is there anything more sinful?

18 February 2010 at 11:03  
Anonymous Ces said...

"In the womb a soul should be safe and at peace"
The world is not a safe place either - bringing a child unprepared into this life would be ridiculous.

In the Haiti earthquake - pregnant mothers, children,
disabled men - vulnerable were killed/left worse off/targetted by the earthquake.

It makes no difference who you are or what you believe in, you are at the mercy of nature.

18 February 2010 at 11:18  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

Your Grace,

Abortion is the deliberate killing of the weakest and most defenseless among us ie MURDER.

What motivates an abortionist?/MURDERER

What must they think as they slash and tear a baby apart or plunge a knife into its neck? “A Woman’s Right To Choose”.

Many say "It’s a free country,how could
anyone possibly be against it?"

But there is a problem with that, which nobody seems to notice, and that problem is that when a woman learns that she is pregnant there is another person in existence.

Doesn’t that person have the same right to choose?

Are we going to say that just a certain privileged class of person has this right to choose to live or die – and for other people?

That doesn’t sound fair. That’s not freedom of choice – that’s TYRANNY.

Certainly the other person is not old enough to vote in an election, but doesn’t that person have the same right to be protected by society as other children are protected?

"But wait, they say it isn’t really a person, it’s a fetus."

A child is a child whether it’s inside or outside the mother, whether it’s one pound or ten pounds. Size doesn’t determine humanity.

And just think about it – does it make any sense at all to say a baby inside its mother isn’t human, but the minute it pokes its head out it is?

Today, abortion supporters say that "it is better for babies to be aborted than to grow up in a home where they are unwanted."

Who are they to decide if a life is meaningless?

Do they think that THEY! are God?

Just because an unborn baby is unwanted today does not mean that they are destined to be unwanted for the rest of their life.

Ask a doctor some very specific questions:

At what point is it possible to hear a baby’s heartbeat?

When can you first measure brainwaves?

How soon does a baby start to look like a person?

6 days after implantation in the uterus the person has developed so rapidly that their heart, brain, spinal column, and nervous system are almost complete;

after 8 days the person’s heart has started to beat.

Although still very small, this individual has taken control of the pregnancy to try to assure it’s survival and the mother probably doesn’t even know she is pregnant yet.

A child is a human being irregardless of how small or how young, whether inside or outside the mother; and therefore has the right to choose to live.

Since young children are unable to express their desire to live, at least until they learn to talk; it is reasonably certain that, like most of the population, they would prefer to LIVE rather than be KILLED; and should be protected by law and adult population until they become a legal adult at 18.

If as Christians we really seek Gods love then surely we must love and protect the unborn by law and faith.

18 February 2010 at 11:28  
Anonymous Ces said...

They are much safer in God's hands in God's kingdom than living among us on our hellish earth.

There is more to life than living - it is just our body. Our life and soul and where it ends up is far more important than being alive.

18 February 2010 at 11:38  
Blogger greenalien said...

It's a complicated issue, but I absolutely abhor such black/white thinking as is demonstrated by this picture and commentators. First dead fetuses are being joked about to prop up a party campaign based on all pervasive negativity, then suddenly it's the greatest moral issue Britain is facing that should not be taken lightly under any circumstances as we're talking about life soon to be.

It's a complicated issue, and I don't feel qualified to pronounce moral judgement, but simultaneously nor do I think anyone else is qualified to make moral judgements on behalf of the mother, much less the state.

The mother is the one carrying the child in her womb, she is the one from who the life will be born, she is the one carrying the burden of pregnancy. It is her body. Therefore, she should be the ultimate moral authority in regards to what she is carrying inside her. She is the one, who will judge her own position the best. Cranmer himself has said that all people are equally gifted to tell evil from good, why should then state tell people what is good and what is wrong?

But I suppose that the same people who rally against welfare state as an unnecessary nanny to the voters would rather have the state act as a religious policeman making sure that their dogmas are followed.

18 February 2010 at 11:38  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, when I think of what Labour have done to this country, I do weep with shame. And all in the name of "equality". How perverse.

18 February 2010 at 11:39  
Blogger Scott said...

You and our posters have showwn themselves to be complete zealots and unable to debate this difficult issue. I am sickened and disspointed by your grotesque satire.

18 February 2010 at 12:17  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

Scott, it is the socialists who are zealots. Rather than legislation being about preventing the highly dangerous 'back -street' abortion clinics, it has become a matter of feminist zeal about a 'womans right' and a left wing answer to birth control.

18 February 2010 at 12:24  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

The Lord Archbishop is very quite today- no twitter activity or blog post. Is his Grace OK?

18 February 2010 at 12:26  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"The mother is the one carrying the child in her womb... Therefore she should be the ultimate moral authority in regards to what she is carrying inside her."
No "therefore" about it. You might as well say (but perhaps you do say?) the mother has the ultimate moral authority over her children (i.e. life or death) after they are born - because they are still just as utterly dependent as they were before birth.
Children, being especially vulnerable, need more protection from society, not less.

18 February 2010 at 12:35  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mature Cheese @ 10:38

He won't.

18 February 2010 at 12:35  
Blogger D. Singh said...

"The mother is the one carrying the child in her womb... Therefore she should be the ultimate moral authority in regards to what she is carrying inside her."

The owner is the one carrying the slave on the estate… Therefore the owner should be the ultimate moral authority in regards to what he is sustaining on the estate.

18 February 2010 at 12:40  
Blogger PaulineG said...

Maturecheese said:

"The biggest threat to mankind is Mankind ie population."

Is it?

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBS6f-JVvTY

In fact it is the very real and pervasive mindset which discourages women from having more than two children that is the real problem.

18 February 2010 at 13:08  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Since when have Labour been responsible for abortion?? The "logic" employed here sometimes defies belief.

18 February 2010 at 13:13  
Blogger greenalien said...

'No "therefore" about it. You might as well say (but perhaps you do say?) the mother has the ultimate moral authority over her children (i.e. life or death) after they are born - because they are still just as utterly dependent as they were before birth.
Children, being especially vulnerable, need more protection from society, not less.'

Well, who gave life to the fetus, and who is going to birth it when the time comes? The state? Cranmer? Or is it going to be the woman?

And further questions arise after the birth, is it morally right to nurture the fetus until it becomes a self-conscious child, which will then be born without parents or as an unwanted child?

I won't even try to respond to Singh, he's not operating in realm of reason, but of catch phrases.

18 February 2010 at 13:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Well, who gave life to the fetus...'

Err a woman and a man?

18 February 2010 at 13:30  
Blogger srizals said...

Greenalien - who gave life...

Well, it would be God of course, who has blessed you with the gift of life which you are strongly trying to take away of others.

18 February 2010 at 13:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Since when have Labour been responsible for abortion??"

labour and the left legalised abortion. But they didn't stop at pragmatic legislation. They turned this into a battle about women's lib and equality. And they have changed the time limit for abortions. Shame on this national socialist government!

18 February 2010 at 13:37  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

@greenalien
And further questions arise after the birth, is it morally right to nurture the fetus until it becomes a self-conscious child, which will then be born without parents or as an unwanted child?

What utter nonsense,who among us can see into the future and predict wether the child will be wanted or not,or what the child will become it their adulthood..

By your ridiculous argument the unpredictable nature of a humans future means that they should be exterminated in the womb..you are a dangerous,socialist,murderous fool!

18 February 2010 at 13:39  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

18 February 2010 at 13:39  
Blogger srizals said...

Free to court, free to kill, please the lot, plundering spree, my, my, how civilised are thee.

18 February 2010 at 13:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Why don't we repeal the 1967 Abortion Act?

It would be far better for women.

18 February 2010 at 13:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did the Tories outlaw abortion? In 18 years of government? No. This is an issue that cuts across party lines. To portray it as something that Labour has legalised and the Tories would abolish is childish nonsense. Shameful stuff.

18 February 2010 at 13:58  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

@D.Singh-Why don't we repeal the 1967 Abortion Act?

It would be far better for women.


And for the un-born...

18 February 2010 at 13:59  
Blogger srizals said...

Could it be the Anti-Christ is already here Mr. D. Singh? Babies are cute and cuddly. They were not design to be disposed off after devilish lust was fulfilled.

18 February 2010 at 14:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Sinful Soul

Thank you. I was hoping the abortionists would reply that, if that were to happen women would simply go to the back-street abortionist.

18 February 2010 at 14:03  
Blogger srizals said...

Or should I say heavenly lust?

18 February 2010 at 14:13  
Blogger greenalien said...

'Well, it would be God of course, who has blessed you with the gift of life which you are strongly trying to take away of others.'

Well I'm not saying abortion is right. It's always a sordid affair. I'm not saying everyone go get an abortion. I'm saying it's not my place to judge what decisions women make regarding their pregnancies, and it shouldn't be the state's either.

Even /if/ God gave life, he also gave us free will. I haven't seen him around lately enforcing his policies, but I don't think the state should be the one doing that in issues as morally disputable as this one. Especially not, if it will just prop up growth of illegal abortion clinics, which will then claim lives of mothers.


'What utter nonsense,who among us can see into the future and predict wether the child will be wanted or not,or what the child will become it their adulthood.'

Well if someone is going to get an abortion, obviously whatever was going to be born is unwanted, and the child which will grow up will be either an unwanted child, or put up for adoption and becomes an orphan.

18 February 2010 at 14:15  
Blogger srizals said...

Sad but true. What a sad posting tonight is. And we all are so afraid of dying. I have to leave and seek some hapiness before I sleep.

18 February 2010 at 14:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Greenalien states: ‘I'm saying it's not my place to judge what decisions women make regarding their pregnancies, and it shouldn't be the state's either.’

If he was the father, then it certainly would be his responsibility. It is also his responsibility as a citizen to raise the alarm when one of our fellow citizens (the baby) is going to be killed. And he also questions the State’s first duty to protect its citizens (in this case the baby).

What does he think a citizen’s and the State’s duties are?

18 February 2010 at 14:30  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

@Greenalien-Well if someone is going to get an abortion, obviously whatever was going to be born is unwanted, and the child which will grow up will be either an unwanted child, or put up for adoption and becomes an orphan.

The response of twisted apologist`s for child murder,born unwanted yes but who can say that the child will not be loved and adopted by someone there by not being an orphan...by your logic,not having the perfect start in life means extermination.

Mr Singh-abortionists and their clients should be arrested for murder and imprisoned.

18 February 2010 at 14:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

There is a further analysis to be made of Greenalien's position. He states:

'Well if someone is going to get an abortion, obviously whatever was going to be born is unwanted, and the child which will grow up will be either an unwanted child, or put up for adoption and becomes an orphan.'

What he is doing is trumping the Sanctity of Life ethic with the Quality of Life ethic on the basis of the unknown (the future).

18 February 2010 at 14:43  
Blogger greenalien said...

I am getting tired of being called apologist for murder. If I'm apologist for murder, then you're apologist for an unhappy start into life of poverty or domestic abuse, deaths of mothers in shady illegal abortion clinics, and state control of women's wombs.

But neither you nor me are that.

The state's duties are obviously to protect the rights of citizens and their property. Fetus is not a citizen, however. It probably doesn't even realize it's alive, at least not until some time into the pregnancy. Question the consequences of an unwanted birth.

I realize that there's going to be disagreement on this. "Fetus is a living thing! It's a child! Murderer!" Well obviously if there's disagreement I'd rather have the woman consider the issue herself, and decide on the basis of her conscience, rather than on the basis of state guidelines for pregnancy.

Who are you, me, or the state, to decide this most intimate and complicated issue for the woman carrying the fetus? Do you feel you have better knowledge of situation of millions of pregnant women than them?

If a mother is deciding whether or not to have an abortion, it's on her conscience, let her decide.

I believe I've said all that I've wanted to say, and so this shall be my last post on this issue.

18 February 2010 at 14:50  
Anonymous Tony B said...

It's funny you know - in the case of Mr Gosling, we hear the argument that, irrespective of the complexities of the issue, the man should be arrested for murder, as that is what the law dictates. In the case of abortionists, and those that do not support the criminalisation of abortion, they should be arrested for murder, despite what the law dictates. Good job the law can be be used or set aside as you chaps see fit, isn't it?

18 February 2010 at 15:12  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

To all those who think that I'm wrong about population, let me ask this. At what point will your quality of life be affected. 70million 100 million 150 million. Mine is being adversely affected already, mainly due to the hundreds of extra houses that have been built in my village. Of course, next you are going to bleat on about the poor people who haven't got a home, but that is always going to be the excuse for yet more expansion and growth. Living in a box surrounded by masses of humanity is not my idea of quality of life. Neither is the steady overwhelming of the public services in my area. Where the hell does it end?

Your Grace, I am sorry that I am waffling off topic but its an issue I feel strongly about.

18 February 2010 at 15:42  
Anonymous Tony B said...

maturecheese - were you born in your village?

18 February 2010 at 15:57  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Maturecheese

There are five reasons why immigration into this country has continued to breaking-point:

1. The liberal-Left constructed a moral narrative on the issue which persuaded people;
2. We on the Right failed to construct a moral narrative for limiting (that is why we lost);
3. It is now clear that New Labour set about changing the face of this country through unlimited immigration;
4. Under federal law Britain’s borders stretch from Dublin in the West, to Bucharest in the East, from Helsinki in the North, to Athens in the South.
5. An asylum seeker or refugee now only needs to go to Bucharest, buy an EU passport, turn up at Dover and state to immigration officials: ‘I am in priority need. Out of my way.’

Do you want to fight on this issue (like me)?

1. You got £2.50? Then go to the CIVITAS site and buy a copy of Roger Scruton’s essay ‘England - and the Need for Nations’.
2. Fight the EU. Your fight will be legitimate as the EU is anti-democratic - that means it’s a tyranny.

18 February 2010 at 16:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Lord Lavendon, Gnostic and Anabaptist: are you out there?

What has happened to His Grace?

18 February 2010 at 16:08  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Tony B. I can see where you are coming from but it doesn't wash with me. No I wasn't, but my wife was. I was born in this nation and so were my ancestors for at least 400 years. Control of the borders has a local impact all over the UK.

18 February 2010 at 16:08  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

D Singh. I have joined a party that wants to do something about it and no it's not 'that one'. I will check out your advice though.

18 February 2010 at 16:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Maturecheese

Unless you master Scruton's arguments - you are not going to be able to persuade.

18 February 2010 at 16:13  
Anonymous Tony B said...

maturecheese - no, you can't see where I am coming from. But if your wife was born in your village, fair enough.

18 February 2010 at 16:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

If you enjoy this blog: please donate £5 - to keep it going.

18 February 2010 at 16:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Tony B

What if one was born in one's county?

18 February 2010 at 16:52  
Anonymous Jim Bucker said...

Tony B, you point is?

18 February 2010 at 16:55  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

As this is now becoming on open thread, what do people think about the growing crisis in the South Atlantic? Should we give the Falklands back to the Argies or defend our native soil? Even this socialist government has announced it will defend the Falklands. But can we trust Brown?

18 February 2010 at 17:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not really ours, we should give the Falklands back to its rightful owners.

18 February 2010 at 17:07  
Anonymous Paul B said...

Don`t like it. Its not just Labour that supports abortions. Its moral blackmail of the most obscene. It has no humour, its a headbutt to the face of the most vicious and cruel nature.

18 February 2010 at 17:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Lord Lavendon

It is a matter of principle - before other nations - that we defend our territorial jurisdiction.

That is one of the fundamental facets of what it means to be a people.

18 February 2010 at 17:08  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Yes, LL, I'm still here. But I've said what I want to say on this thread.

In the matter of the Falklands, it is extremely unlikely that we could muster sufficient force to defend them. It was touch and go when Mrs T was PM, and we weren't then involved in other foreign wars. Also, I'm not sure the Americans would now give us the sort of support that they gave us back then. To send a task force there would almost certainly end in failure and further loss of life.

Incidentally, did anybody hear Martha Kearney's outburst on Radio 4 (World at One), talking to a representative of Israel? She was incandescant, demanding to know what possible justification there could be for Israel to take out a Hamas representative on foreign soil. She pooh-poohed the Israeli defence, that they may have been trying to preempt terrorist violence and thus save many lives.

Obviously she failed to notice that that is precisely the argument used by the government to support the Afghan invasion. Ah, but that wasn't carried out by the evil Israelis, was it?

By the way, LL, according to his Tweet (squeak?) Cranny's got a dose of the noro virus.

18 February 2010 at 17:30  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Sorry, I should have addressed my previous first and last sentences to Mr D [period] Singh. I'm too inattentive.

18 February 2010 at 17:32  
Anonymous Tony B said...

My point is this: because there's virtually no council housing or social housing in villages, they are becoming exclusive. People on the lower end of the income scale can't live in them; for many of these, their families may have lived in the village for generations. The people coming into villages aren't there for 5 minutes before they become nimbys, and campaign against more housing in the village, further excluding people on the lower end of the scale who may want to live in the village, and who may have a long association with it. Meanwhile the nimbys leave the village every morning for London, or wherever, come back at night, and play almost no role in village life at all - unless of course it's joining the parish council so they can try to make sure no affordable housing gets built.

It seems to me the upshot of such nimbyism will be the slow death of village life. Church congregations will die out, village schools will close. Already much of what goes on in a village is organised by people who may have a long association with a village but can't afford to live there.

This of course is the sort of quiet social problem that conservatives won't scream about because they are causing it.

Perhaps Mr maturecheese will think about that when he's nimbyising about how no villages should have new houses built in them, especially his.

18 February 2010 at 18:29  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

@ll-Should we give the Falklands back to the Argies or defend our native soil? Even this socialist government has announced it will defend the Falklands. But can we trust Brown?

I dont know if we should or should not,but I think we will,there is oil out there,and an election coming up,Maggie did well as far as her popularity went the last time it kicked off!..its a win win situation for Brown..of course he is more than capable of leading us to defeat..wich would obviously be devastating for our country...

18 February 2010 at 18:50  
Anonymous len said...

It is a testimony of the heart of a Nation as to how it treats its weak and vulnerable.
What could be more weak, defenseless and vulnerable than a CHILD in the womb?The womb should be the safest place in the world , a place to be nurtured and loved. To kill that 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, that we kill life that God creates. We have usurped the sovereign throne and we are now God, and we will decide who lives and who dies..

18 February 2010 at 19:08  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Ien - abortion has always gone on. It's not a modern phenomenon.

18 February 2010 at 19:25  
Blogger English Viking said...

Tony B,

Not on an industrial scale, literally hundreds of thousands, every year, in this country alone.

Even if it had gone on on this scale previously, should we do nothing? You know those Germans must have thought that things had always been like this after a few years of turning a blind eye.

18 February 2010 at 19:56  
Anonymous Tony B said...

I'm not saying it's right. And it's not usual for someone to make the Nazi comparison that quickly, we've hardly been introduced.

18 February 2010 at 20:27  
Anonymous philip walling said...

The arguments for abortion are based on it being expedient for the mother to kill her baby if she doesn't want to keep it.
There is no moral content to it at all - no objective right or wrong - simply the mother's feeling about it being elevated into an unassailable right.
But the truth of her situation is that a pregnant woman has been chosen by whatever force you recognise as creating life (it's God to me but that doesn't matter for this argument) to carry into this world another human life. She is trusted with responsibility for the life of another which is of necessity weak, vulnerable and dependent.
The choice has already been made by forces outside the woman's control. You can test that proposition by pointing to the thousands of women who do want a baby being unable to conceive, no matter how hard they try. The choice is not theirs to make otherwise they would get pregnant when they wanted to.

So the truth is that the woman can choose to put herself into a situation where she might get pregnant, but that's the only choice she has in the matter. Once she is pregnant whether she likes it or not, she has two lives to consider, neither of which she willed into existence.

If she aborts her child she chooses her life over the life of her child because she perceives there to be some conflict between the two lives. That is the same reason why people commit other kinds of murder.

I also think that many women would be unable to go through with abortion if they were told the truth about it in moral terms - which in many cases only becomes apparent after they've done it when the guilt sets in. Women are also put under great pressure to abort rather than have an 'unwanted' child. Unwanted by whom? It's not the woman's right to want or unwant because she didn't create the child in the first place and it certainly isn't her property after it's born - the custodianship continues - and she can't lawfully kill it after birth. Although if she can do it in utero, I can see no moral objection to her killing it ex utero - certainly before it can object - which seems to be the justification for abortion up to 24 weeks.

Sorry for the incoherence of the above - I hope you get my drift, Your Grace.

Finally isn't there something sickeningly hypocritical about G Brown emoting on telly about his dead daughter (who died naturally) and his support for murdering 200,000 babies a year who would otherwise live naturally.

18 February 2010 at 21:31  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Simple answer, the moment the fetus can survive without it's mother then fine it can function as a separate entity and it should not be aborted (in most circumstances but I still don't think it is quite that black and white).

If the fetus can not survive without it's mother then the choice lies with the women that holds it in her womb, along with (I would hope) input and discussion from the father.

18 February 2010 at 22:01  
Blogger Tarquin said...

This is a rather sensationalised article

firstly - it's a non-party issue as MPs always get a free vote on this, so it's nothing to do with Tory or Labour, secondly the people have shown their view to be very much in favour of abortion, and parliament has a high representation of pro-life groups already with so many catholics in it (so much so that the Tory and LD votes were required last time, so this is partisan nonsense), and thirdly...how many women get to five months pregnant and simply decide to have one? - it's virtually always a medical reason

Very low form of debate

19 February 2010 at 00:38  
Anonymous len said...

'it's virtually always a medical reason' 6.7 million abortions since the 1967 Abortion Act.1
0.4% because of risk to the mother’s life.
1.3% performed on the grounds of foetal
handicap.2
In 2006, 98% of abortions were for ‘social reasons’.3
About 1 in 5 British pregnancies now ends in
abortion

The 'low level of debate' come from not getting your facts right!

19 February 2010 at 07:44  
Anonymous Tarquin said...

len - people in glass houses... read the comment properly

at 24 weeks (which this whole article is about) almost all are for medical purposes - as I said, few women go over five months and get a 'social' abortion

19 February 2010 at 08:53  
Blogger English Viking said...

Tony B

I was not calling you a Nazi, I was comparing the two factory style systems of extermination and the willingness with which people accept the status quo, even when millions are dying.

19 February 2010 at 11:46  
Anonymous t said...

English Viking - I know, it was meant to be a joke :o)

19 February 2010 at 12:37  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

19 February 2010 at 17:34  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Glad to see that fetus is spelled correctly by a number of communicants.

19 February 2010 at 23:32  
Anonymous len said...

Two stories about late termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality have recently hit the headlines. In the first, a Cambridge student made an allegation of unlawful killing after discovering, in the official national statistics, a case of abortion after 24 weeks for cleft lip and palate. The police will have to trace the identity of the mother and doctor in order to pursue the complaint. The second incident, at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle, involved a 19 year old woman in her 35th week of pregnancy carrying twins, one of which was diagnosed with a serious heart defect. A fetal cardiologist had recommended selective termination, by intra-cardiac potassium chloride infusion. However, other specialists were opposed to the procedure since the heart defect was operable, with an 85% chance of survival and normal development. The mother decided against the termination when she saw a second cardiologist who gave more accurate information about prognosis. '


With over 180,000 abortions a year in England and Wales, it is not surprising that many see abortion as a woman's right and a doctor's duty. But there is something about late termination for treatable abnormality that disturbs even hardened 'prochoice' activists. The RCOG guidelines imply that late termination should not be carried out for treatable abnormalities, or in circumstances where a baby, if born, would be given treatment. However, the RCOG does not appear to feel bound by its recommendations. In a medical climate that increasingly aims at consistency across treatment services, it seems unlikely that such decisions can be left solely to the practitioner's discretion for much longer. The meanings of 'substantial risk' and 'serious handicap' have not yet been tested in court, but it may not be long before they are.

20 February 2010 at 00:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older